Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I made $50K in three days with NFTs

paulstamatiou.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#81

Post by John_Luck »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #26

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite literally have an exact and indistinguishable copy of the work. It honestly feels like insanity to me. Like, I can right now go set my avatar to the exact same Ape picture Curry purchased. It’s not even a replica, or recreation, it is literally the same exact image…

You can print an image of Peppa Pig on your own shirt for free but that doesn’t mean the rights holder wont make an obscene amount of money this year anyway. But, is there an NFT bubble? Dear god, YES!

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#82

Post by soco »

midasuni wrote: post #37
rubyn00bie wrote: post #26

I just think it’s a way for people to show off their wealth. An NFT is pretty much a joke, “here’s the original” doesn’t really mean shit when I can quite literally have an exact and indistinguishable copy of the work. It honestly feels like insanity to me. Like, I can right now go set my avatar to the exact same Ape picture Curry purchased. It’s not even a replica, or recreation, it is literally the same exact image…

If you need multiple art experts to decide which of two painting is real and which is the forgery, is there really a difference in the value other than the bragging rights of owning the original?

I think that's the entire point of NFTs: bragging rights. That and money laundering but the latter is not for everyone.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#83

Post by MereInterest »

Dwolb wrote: post #35
MereInterest wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> upon NFT resale, a percent of the proceeds gets remitted back to the project creators I'd rather have more ways to restore the First Sale Doctrine for digital goods, rather than debasing it further.

I don’t disagree and there’s two things I find interesting: 1) Remittance is easily implemented in a smart contract. 2) This aligns long term interests between the project creator and the NFT holder (and one can imagine different incentive structures can be implemented for different projects).

I'd agree that it is "interesting", but as additional reasons to be opposed to cryptocurrencies.

1) Remittances for resale imply that ownership was not fully transferred. The item isn't mine, but is some weird mix of being mine, but still having some link back to the person who made it. This is already a problem with digital goods, where I cannot lend an ebook to a friend in the same way that I would lend a physical book.

2) The long-term interests are already aligned due to the existence of a second-hand market, and do not need additional technological protections. Somebody who buys cars new and sells them after 5 years still cares about the maintenance costs of a 15-year-old car, because those impact the sale price at 5 years.

2a) The siphoning of money from a re-sale discourages a second-hand market. If the original maker of an object absconds with 20% of the re-sale price, that gives me less of an incentive to sell it, rather than just throwing it away. This is both from an economic standpoint, because there's a decreased profit motive, and from an emotional standpoint, because somebody is laying claim to my efforts in securing a resale without having a valid reason to do so.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#84

Post by Dwolb »

MereInterest wrote: post #83
Dwolb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree and there’s two things I find interesting: 1) Remittance is easily implemented in a smart contract. 2) This aligns long term interests between the project creator and the NFT holder (and one can imagine different incentive structures can be implemented for different projects).

I'd agree that it is "interesting", but as additional reasons to be opposed to cryptocurrencies. 1) Remittances for resale imply that ownership was not fully transferred. The item isn't mine, but is some weird mix of being mine, but still having some link back to the person who made it. This is already a problem with digital goods, where I cannot lend an ebook to a friend in the same way that I would lend a physical…

That’s a negative sum view of the situation (if the creator takes more, the buyer takes less).

Consider the positive sum view: the creator is encouraged to do activities (marketing? Community management?) to drive the price of the sold items higher and resold more frequently.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#85

Post by MereInterest »

Dwolb wrote: post #84
MereInterest wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd agree that it is "interesting", but as additional reasons to be opposed to cryptocurrencies. 1) Remittances for resale imply that ownership was not fully transferred. The item isn't mine, but is some weird mix of being mine, but still having some link back to the person who made it. This is already a problem with digital goods, where I cannot lend an ebook to a friend in the same way that I would lend a physical…

That’s a negative sum view of the situation (if the creator takes more, the buyer takes less). Consider the positive sum view: the creator is encouraged to do activities (marketing? Community management?) to drive the price of the sold items higher and resold more frequently.

True, both outcomes are possible, but I think the negative sum outcome is more likely. We've already manufacturers reach for more and more control with ebooks (can't lend like a physical book), heavy machinery (John Deere won't let you repair your tractor), cell phones (need to "jailbreak" in order to install your own software), cars (Tesla revoking a software feature after deciding that it was only enabled by mistake), and we've seen attempts to do so with computers (Clipper chip, DRM in general).

Manufacturers are not to be trusted with a tool that can assert ownership over something that they have previously sold.

Re: I made $50K in three days with NFTs

#86

Post by Dwolb »

MereInterest wrote: post #85
Dwolb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a negative sum view of the situation (if the creator takes more, the buyer takes less). Consider the positive sum view: the creator is encouraged to do activities (marketing? Community management?) to drive the price of the sold items higher and resold more frequently.

True, both outcomes are possible, but I think the negative sum outcome is more likely. We've already manufacturers reach for more and more control with ebooks (can't lend like a physical book), heavy machinery (John Deere won't let you repair your tractor), cell phones (need to "jailbreak" in order to install your own software), cars (Tesla revoking a software feature after deciding that it was only enabled by mistak…

Hey sorry for the delay but wanted to say I appreciate your viewpoint and logical debate.
Post reply on HN