Neither does Sina Estavi.
Would you pay $750k for this punk? (NFT Art)
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Neither does Sina Estavi.
Buying an NFT means you buy a slot on a database. People think they own the image in that slot, but unless specifically written in a contract, that's not the case, the image is still owned by the creator and can be commercialised by the owner any way they want.
The person who bought Jack's tweet doesn't own it... the layout, code etc isn't his, he can't alter anything because he doesn't own it, he just has a slot on a database linked to that tweet.
And if you're reading this and thinking this is incredibly dumb, why would people buy NFTs? Congratulations, you now understand NFTs.
Last edited:
Not sure if anyone saw this news recently :-
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/04/01/metaverse-riot-nft-cyberglue/
Not surprised that NFTs like the one @Surveyor mentioned are struggling to sell
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/04/01/metaverse-riot-nft-cyberglue/
Not surprised that NFTs like the one @Surveyor mentioned are struggling to sell
NFT is me drawing a picture of an item and selling it you for mega bucks, then drawing another almost exactly the same and selling it to someone else
Maybe I draw you an Apple then sell it you for thousands of dollars, nevermind you could go buy a real one for like 50p
the purchases are mainly money laundering the same as in the art world
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,008
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Too many corrupt influencers out there willing to sell their name and soul for a quick buck to allow NFT and scam crypto coins to die out. Even if NFT fades away there will be something else to take it's place.
For all bent influencers there are seemingly millions of gullible fools who will willingly hand money over to people they have never met before or done any sort of background check.
Things of no value that can't be perfectly duplicated. Well, the thing itself can be but the authentication that comes with it can't be.
Potentially very useful for money laundering and tax evasion, but "art" already serves those purposes better because it provides an already established cover story.
give a man a fish and he can eat for a day...give him a plane...
Agreed, add in that a ton of people don’t realise that these things have no value and the express purpose is a pump and dump scam or money laundering, and you have a whole bunch of idiots taking the cover story literally and not realising they are playing a fake game.
They're doing far less damage to the world than crypto.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,828
There will always be a place for ludicrous get rich quick schemes.
.
NFT's are proof some folks have more money than sense.
The two biggest problems I see with NFT's is;
1. No security. There is nothing to stop someone copy/pasting the NFT you bought. Because you don't own the image so you've no copyright enforcement.
2. A lack of scarcity. Most of these NFT's are single images that aren't part of a collection. So there is no value to other people to buy it from you.
The closest thing I've seen to NFT's was back in the day, when we was still on pigeon internet speed i.e. so slow that video downloads would take all day, pictures used to be a big thing. There were collections of pictures, sets, that were released. I think it was a bit like a modern day stamp collection. People would trade each other pictures so they had complete collections. I'm not sure if money changed hands or it was just for the love of trading.
The two biggest problems I see with NFT's is;
1. No security. There is nothing to stop someone copy/pasting the NFT you bought. Because you don't own the image so you've no copyright enforcement.
2. A lack of scarcity. Most of these NFT's are single images that aren't part of a collection. So there is no value to other people to buy it from you.
The closest thing I've seen to NFT's was back in the day, when we was still on pigeon internet speed i.e. so slow that video downloads would take all day, pictures used to be a big thing. There were collections of pictures, sets, that were released. I think it was a bit like a modern day stamp collection. People would trade each other pictures so they had complete collections. I'm not sure if money changed hands or it was just for the love of trading.
A Twitch streamer XQC who averages something like 70k-110k+ viewers had an offer of 1.2mil$ for an NFT deal.
they wanted a shout out, visit for 5minutes and 3 tweets
he earns around 4-5mil a year anyway so it can't have been that hard to turn it down
As long as people need to launder money, stuff like this will exist unfortunately. I can't think of a better way to launder £1m+, it's literally one single transaction for something that has zero intrinsic value. Money launderer's dream.