hahaha.
Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
91–100 of 262 posts
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#92The conceptions of what happened is so completely removed from reality and it's disheartening to see commenters blinded by the hate for crypto stuff to the extent that they don't even bother to concern the details
Let's look at some facts.
The _first_ *Offer* made on this NFT was $280
The current top bid for this $29,000
It is not sold, so to say that its value has actually dropped is just silly.
If you imagine this in the context of a bid/offer market, this is like when market opens and a price hasn't been established because there wasn't a taker yet.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#93NFTs have made a little more sense to me since reading a comment on here or reddit effectively claiming that crypto is easy to get into, but hard to get your money out of. Especially depending on your age or where you live. As a result there's a lot of money floating around the space that people can't effectively extract, so instead they just speculate wildly on whatever they think will increase their virtual hoard.…
NFTs of jpegs are scams. NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust, yes — unlike everybody else on the blockchain) like stock, real estate or anything else are not.
> NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust, yes — unlike everybody else on the blockchain) like stock, real estate or anything else are not.
Do those actually exist, or are they just a fairy tale to hype NFTs?
Also, even if they do exist, they probably demonstrate a particular kind of confusion that's often used to hype cryptocurrency-type things: there may be a link to the crypto-space, but it's entirely superfluous and all the real work is being done by a traditional non-crypto mechanisms.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment could be talking about all art.
I will make a bold prediction and say we won't find out all art is money laundering and wash sales soon.
“All art” is obviously a hyperbole, but my impression is that it is widely known that high-end art auctions are used for money laundering. There are plenty of news articles about various governments making big busts and attempting cracking down on this.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#95What's the story here? This is normal market dynamics for collectibles where people paying what they perceive the value to be. I'm sure there are plenty of Beanie Babies (and other Collectibles) that are nearly worthless compared to what someone payed for them previously. Note: I'm not for or against NFTs. I'm just trying to point out the dynamics of the Collectibles market.
> Beanie Babies
At least you physically own and display them. NFTs usually don't even represent ownership of what they're attached to. People are trading baseball cars as though they're actually the player.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But bundle them into CDOs, give them the AAA rating, start selling options on them and suddenly that's a legit business. NFTs are missing this thick layer of complexity that obfuscates the nature of the core financial "product".
CDOs are groups of bonds. Bonds are debts, so they produce real value in the form of interest. If the debtors stop paying, the CDO can recover value in bankruptcy court. CDOs may misrepresent the risk of the underlying assets, but those assets are still there. An NFT is more akin to a baseball card - it’s value might go up, but that would just be because someone wants to buy it. It’s not producing any income on its o…
Then sell payment plans for NFTs, so every NFT would have a debt associated with it, and a payer. There is a risk the payer will default, but all debts have this risk. Now that we have these NFT bonds, we can bundle them into CDOs...
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#97So was it a NFT pointing to a hosted image, or a URL to the actual tweet permalink? The latter being marginally less ephemeral than the former. But neither would encompass any kind of "ownership".
it points to the tweet url
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#98Wile E. Coyote could relate: \\ __(o) ___ / /\/ ___ /\ `/_/\__, ___ \_/ \ | / ____________ \ ____/ _/ ___/ /
Wow, amazing ASCII art! Are you selling an NFT of it?
Here is the link and its sha256 checksum: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31072303 b7595f7540b06686a8c810ca2bfbbb967bb355929e2ddeb2aa5e2d062f2a07ba
You can say it’s yours if you upvote one random blog post from Paul Graham.
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#99I genuinely don't know since most of my knowledge of NFT stuff comes from people commenting it vs. primary sources, but are there very active markets for NFTs in general beyond initial offerings? Like is there an active, healthy and functioning market for BAYC, or was it more about an initial rush and now a bunch of people have tokens that have value on paper but no market to realistically sell them?
You can see trading volume on OpenSea (one of the larger NFT marketplaces): https://opensea.io/collection/boredapeyachtclub?tab=activity How legitimate that trading is is not possible to know (e.g. people trading stuff back and forth to make it look like there is activity).
a lot of activity is between different levels of the ponzi scheme too.
Person A gets NFT for 1 ETH. They sell it to person B for 1.2 ETH
Person B is able to spend 1.2 ETH because they traded 2 ETH worth of NFT to Persons C, D, E for 3.2 ETH total
Persons C, D, E are yesterdays Person A
etc.
People are "trading up" but only because the total number of trades are increasing. Some people are probably successful in hopping into this wave, converting a profit, and hopping out.. but they are only able to do that because the majority of activity is still running the engine. Eventually the engine will run out of fuel and a lot of people will be stuck with net negative accounts
I'm also 90% sure that most of the bigger players in the space are aware of this and are effectively competing to see who's left holding the bag
Re: Jack Dorsey’s $2.9M NFT dropped 99% in value
#100I have the feeling saying an NFT can be worth 2.9 million dollars is misleading, since it doesn't really apply to article's audience. An NFT has only ever, and maybe will only ever, be worth that much to at most two people: The person who paid 2.9 million dollars for this specific NFT, and the person who sold it for 2.9 million dollars. And I'm only really sure about the second one.
Most NFT transactions are wash trades - so often they are one and the same [=
https://cointelegraph.com/news/chainalysis-report-finds-most...