Jack Dorsey is attempting to sell his first tweet as an NFT(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Jack Dorsey is attempting to sell his first tweet as an NFT
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/5/22316320/jack-dorsey-original-tweet-nft-cent-valuables
162 comments
What happens if the autograph owner emails the hash to their friends? What does “own” mean here? They can all print it and frame it on the wall. Meanwhile Twitter’s data systems go down and the tweet disappears, no one “has” the actual tweet.
I wouldn’t mind having $2M I didn’t need to bid on this level of abstraction.
I wouldn’t mind having $2M I didn’t need to bid on this level of abstraction.
I guess you could print out the hash & get Dorsey to sign it by hand as well. That should be part of the deal. That way you know it's the one.
Also, in the highly unlikely event of a hash collision, the Dorsey hash wins and the other hash has to go back to to /dev/null, metaphorical head held down in shame.
Also, in the highly unlikely event of a hash collision, the Dorsey hash wins and the other hash has to go back to to /dev/null, metaphorical head held down in shame.
Doesn't that completely defeat the point of the NFT if the thing you really need to prove ownership is a signed autograph from the author? We've valued signed autographed copies of original works highly for a very long time without NFTs.
It would if it worked that way, but it doesn't: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372052
I think that was the point (in other words, yes).
What's unique here isn't just a plain hash but the tuple (ethereum contact id, nft token id, address public key) on the blockchain. Having the tuple is worthless becuase ownership is having the associated private key.
Ownership in this case is a NFT (EIP-721, a smart contact standard for non fungible (unique and single ownership) tokens) on the L2 Matic sidechain for Ethereum return the public key to your public-private keypair.
Duplicating the token means creating an exact bitwise duplicate of the NFT on the Matic sidechain, which the Ethereum Virtual Machine will not allow. There is no hash to send to someone else and unless there is an exploit in the EVM the NFT can only be owned by one person.
To be clear these NFTs only has the meaning of "signed tweet" because people decide it does. If you copied their smart contact and launched your own exact replica Jack could verify on your platform and a new and different NFT would be minted with the same "accepted representation".
Duplicating the token means creating an exact bitwise duplicate of the NFT on the Matic sidechain, which the Ethereum Virtual Machine will not allow. There is no hash to send to someone else and unless there is an exploit in the EVM the NFT can only be owned by one person.
To be clear these NFTs only has the meaning of "signed tweet" because people decide it does. If you copied their smart contact and launched your own exact replica Jack could verify on your platform and a new and different NFT would be minted with the same "accepted representation".
I’ve been a cryptocurrency user and fan since early days, but I just never understood the purpose of NFTs. I couldn’t get my head around Rare Pepes or Cryptokitties, but after seeing your comment, I can finally cement why I was sceptical all along - an autograph is a good analogy!
I was of the same mindset before I heard of the opinion by crypto savy artists. As an example just listen to the enthusiasm and points from Rhett / Mankind (https://myoutu.be/DYyW_tTPAhU).
Seems more of a sales receipt. For any physical good like a pair of shoes, you can have the receipt but I snagged the shoes from your locker and I’m the one wearing them at the club.
I suppose the digital analogy would be for me to break into your stash and copy the files for the art or whatever and enjoy them on my own. Easier than learning how to forge a Rembrandt.
I suppose the digital analogy would be for me to break into your stash and copy the files for the art or whatever and enjoy them on my own. Easier than learning how to forge a Rembrandt.
> the owner presumably agrees not to autograph again and sell to other people.
Just like the existing art world, except now you have more ways to prove provenance, and originality. the prior timestamp and your ownership and the price history being onchain.
Just like the existing art world, except now you have more ways to prove provenance, and originality. the prior timestamp and your ownership and the price history being onchain.
What are the consequences for Jack Dorsey if he does sell it again?
At least an artist copying their own painting has to produce a new object.
At least an artist copying their own painting has to produce a new object.
He'd have to sell the same tweet on another platform who has an NFT that people interpret as representing tweets.
The direct consequences for Jack are none, just as if a company that produced a limited edition stamped #001 of a product decided to manufacture and sell the same product with #001.
By using this platform he's indirectly given them his blessing and like the company example even though it would be physically difficult I doubt he'd do.
The direct consequences for Jack are none, just as if a company that produced a limited edition stamped #001 of a product decided to manufacture and sell the same product with #001.
By using this platform he's indirectly given them his blessing and like the company example even though it would be physically difficult I doubt he'd do.
Its up to the market to discern the difference, which it is pretty good at, but you are relying on them or yourself for sounding the alarm and making a big stink about it
The beauty of NFTs is that the owner cannot "autograph [it] again and we'll to other people", or at least can't on this platform.
The tuple (contact id, token id, owner public key) will remain unique on the blockchain as enforced by the EVM.
The tuple (contact id, token id, owner public key) will remain unique on the blockchain as enforced by the EVM.
Society deems that an original work of art by, say, Pablo Picasso is more valuable than an indistinguishable copy by an unknown or lesser known artist.
Making a good copy of a Picasso is not that difficult. Go to any decent art school, and you will find artists who can competently forge a Picasso.
Many owners of Picasso artwork in fact display forgeries, which they call "replicas" in polite company, and keep the original works in secure storage, safe from any possible damage. Most people cannot distinguish between an original work and its forgery anyway.
In fact, even expert collectors are routinely fooled by forgeries![a] The authenticity of many works of art can be ascertained only by looking at provenance, documentary evidence, and historical context -- an imprecise process riddled with human bias and error.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are like authentic works of art, except that their authenticity, contents, ownership, and provenance (including date of origin) are protected by strong cryptography, making forgeries impossible for all practical purposes.
And society deems that an NFT representing the authentic first tweet by Jack Dorsey -- with its contents, ownership, and provenance protected by cryptography -- is more valuable than an indistinguishable copy of the tweet made by an unknown or lesser known person.
--
[a] For example, see https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fake%20picasso and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_forgery
Making a good copy of a Picasso is not that difficult. Go to any decent art school, and you will find artists who can competently forge a Picasso.
Many owners of Picasso artwork in fact display forgeries, which they call "replicas" in polite company, and keep the original works in secure storage, safe from any possible damage. Most people cannot distinguish between an original work and its forgery anyway.
In fact, even expert collectors are routinely fooled by forgeries![a] The authenticity of many works of art can be ascertained only by looking at provenance, documentary evidence, and historical context -- an imprecise process riddled with human bias and error.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are like authentic works of art, except that their authenticity, contents, ownership, and provenance (including date of origin) are protected by strong cryptography, making forgeries impossible for all practical purposes.
And society deems that an NFT representing the authentic first tweet by Jack Dorsey -- with its contents, ownership, and provenance protected by cryptography -- is more valuable than an indistinguishable copy of the tweet made by an unknown or lesser known person.
--
[a] For example, see https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fake%20picasso and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_forgery
The analogy breaks down at a copied painting being hard to distinguish but a copied piece of digital art is literally impossible to distinguish, right down to its hash.
People who collect Picasso’s want the piece the artists hands truly created, that’s why copies hold no real value. By copying digital art you _are_ getting the work the artists hands created, the identical hash can prove it.
People who collect Picasso’s want the piece the artists hands truly created, that’s why copies hold no real value. By copying digital art you _are_ getting the work the artists hands created, the identical hash can prove it.
NFT art pieces have an associated file that can be copied but the (nft token, public key) pair on the blockchain is unique, where the NFT token is created with a public key associated with the artist.
Your copy of the associated file is just a copy of the file. You cannot associate another public key with the nft token.
As far as we know this is the only reasonable and foolproof way to define digital ownership, digitally.
Your copy of the associated file is just a copy of the file. You cannot associate another public key with the nft token.
As far as we know this is the only reasonable and foolproof way to define digital ownership, digitally.
Most of them want it for investment purposes + to be able to impress their peers/strangers. This might provide that same utility.
It’s not really ownership though is it. The tweet is Jack’s, he can delete it if he wishes. It’s more like buying a slip of paper that says you own this particular Picasso, but the person you brought it from still has full control of it and the only thing you can do is look at it through glass like any other visitor regardless of your slip of paper.
And the whole fake/original breaks down in the physical world. How do you tie it to the physical goods in a way that can’t be fraudulent?
And the whole fake/original breaks down in the physical world. How do you tie it to the physical goods in a way that can’t be fraudulent?
> he can delete it if he wishes
or by Twitter itself if Jack is at some point deemed problematic enough by modern puritans.
or by Twitter itself if Jack is at some point deemed problematic enough by modern puritans.
If he turns out to be a Nazi, sure. Probably for the best.
Whether it's for the best seems irrelevant, the point is that it is a possibility.
> It’s not really ownership though is it. The tweet is Jack’s, he can delete it if he wishes.
Would there not be some liability in doing so? Legally the buyer does own it (it seems) and Jack simply has control over it.
Would there not be some liability in doing so? Legally the buyer does own it (it seems) and Jack simply has control over it.
First, is a tweet even a thing you can own, legally? You can own the copyright and you can enter into a contract where you promise not to delete it, but a tweet is ultimately something that is displayed and processed by, and exists at the pleasure of Twitter; they're not a party to your NFT shenanigans and therefore not bound to any of it.
As for the hypothetical contract not to delete it yourself, you'd probably have a good argument that there was no clear meeting of the minds - without an explicit description of what the author intended to be bound to by selling a NFT you'll have a hard time getting the courts to enforce anything about it.
As for the hypothetical contract not to delete it yourself, you'd probably have a good argument that there was no clear meeting of the minds - without an explicit description of what the author intended to be bound to by selling a NFT you'll have a hard time getting the courts to enforce anything about it.
What if I sell an NFT of one of my tweets that is subsequently taken down for violating Twitters terms? Am I liable? This whole concept IMO is absurd.
There's nuance to what it mean to "sell one of your tweets". What does it mean to own a tweet? What rights are you selling?
Ignoring NFTs you could define selling your tweet as:
* Selling the copyright to your tweet
* Selling the right to delete your tweet
Digital ownership is a new and nuanced concept that doesn't have good analogues. Ownership through public/private keys has no analogue and also feel absurd in any analogy using safes and keys.
Ignoring NFTs you could define selling your tweet as:
* Selling the copyright to your tweet
* Selling the right to delete your tweet
Digital ownership is a new and nuanced concept that doesn't have good analogues. Ownership through public/private keys has no analogue and also feel absurd in any analogy using safes and keys.
This is really the problem, digital ownership outside of asymmetric cryptography is not well defined in law.
Digitally, it is perfectly clear:
You own the NFT. Through what is written on a tweet and a website it can be interpreted as the representation of Jack's tweet. You don't have any further owenship or rights.
Digitally, it is perfectly clear:
You own the NFT. Through what is written on a tweet and a website it can be interpreted as the representation of Jack's tweet. You don't have any further owenship or rights.
I doubt it but we're also in uncharted waters. There are no technical definitions to own off chain items or legal rulings about what ownership of an NFT means for the off chain item.
As I explain in this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130) there's a nuance between owning the NFT representation of the tweet and owning the ability to delete the tweet.
As I explain in this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26372130) there's a nuance between owning the NFT representation of the tweet and owning the ability to delete the tweet.
I think it depends, strictly ownership means owning the NFT token. By itself a token is just data.
Taking a step back the value of the token comes from Jack using the platform to mint it (which is purely off chain and you have to trust the platform verifies against the twitter apis correctly) and tweeting about it (again, off chain and you have to assume his twitter wasn't hacked).
Jack can delete his tweet but he can't delete a token that represents the tweet he sold. I can appreciate if you don't think this nuance matters but obviously there are some who think it does.
The same applies to physical goods. There's nothing stopping the original from being destroyed, your item being a near exact replica but if the interpretation that ownership of NFT is psysical ownership is accepted then you can't steal it and claim you are the owner without my private key.
Taking a step back the value of the token comes from Jack using the platform to mint it (which is purely off chain and you have to trust the platform verifies against the twitter apis correctly) and tweeting about it (again, off chain and you have to assume his twitter wasn't hacked).
Jack can delete his tweet but he can't delete a token that represents the tweet he sold. I can appreciate if you don't think this nuance matters but obviously there are some who think it does.
The same applies to physical goods. There's nothing stopping the original from being destroyed, your item being a near exact replica but if the interpretation that ownership of NFT is psysical ownership is accepted then you can't steal it and claim you are the owner without my private key.
There's a famous story about Picasso.
People would often approach him asking him to authenticate their artworks. One day this happened while an art dealer friend was present. "Fake!", says Picasso.
The art dealer was skeptical, so he gave one of his own Picassos to a third party and asked him to check.
"Fake!", says Picasso.
"But Pablo, I saw you draw that. You gave it to me with your own hands!"
"Bah. Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I often do them myself."
People would often approach him asking him to authenticate their artworks. One day this happened while an art dealer friend was present. "Fake!", says Picasso.
The art dealer was skeptical, so he gave one of his own Picassos to a third party and asked him to check.
"Fake!", says Picasso.
"But Pablo, I saw you draw that. You gave it to me with your own hands!"
"Bah. Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I often do them myself."
art fakes are also a tax dodge. must have the piece in a museum share for a set % of time, in a freeport, etc.
Was a great storyline on this in the recent half season of Billions!
The billionaire keeps the real ones at his house & the fakes in a freeport (probably happens in real life a lot of Billions story lines are based in real world gossip - e.g. BDSM Schneiderman)
In a funny scene prosecutor Chuck finds out and 'spills' wine on the real Van Gough and Bobby the billionaire has a epic grimace
the end solution was the billionaire brought in the works by stealth helicopter at night then opened a new non-profit museum for fake art in his apartment to get the tax deduction. totally unreasonable and pointless but an entertaining show.
Was a great storyline on this in the recent half season of Billions!
The billionaire keeps the real ones at his house & the fakes in a freeport (probably happens in real life a lot of Billions story lines are based in real world gossip - e.g. BDSM Schneiderman)
In a funny scene prosecutor Chuck finds out and 'spills' wine on the real Van Gough and Bobby the billionaire has a epic grimace
the end solution was the billionaire brought in the works by stealth helicopter at night then opened a new non-profit museum for fake art in his apartment to get the tax deduction. totally unreasonable and pointless but an entertaining show.
It seems it's not that hard to create fakes that even experts cannot distinguish. See "Made You Look" documentary on Netflix.
An authentic painting is one the painter touched. An NFT? He never touched it. I just don't see the attraction.
An authentic painting is one the painter touched. An NFT? He never touched it. I just don't see the attraction.
Some counterpoints: Paintings largely done by assistants are nothing new. Bronze statues are cast by foundries, not the artist themselves. And the artwork connected to an NFT can very well be as directly created by the artist as a digital "object" can be. (obviously with selling NFTs for tweets there isn't exactly a quality artwork attached...)
It also doesn't really appeal to me personally, but I can see how the logic works.
It also doesn't really appeal to me personally, but I can see how the logic works.
This is incorrect because it conflates non-fungibility with uniqueness. That is to say, if Jack Dorsey wanted to, he could simply mint /another/ NFT of his first tweet. Now, whether he does this or not is sorta up to him, but it's possible. As other folks have said, it's similar to an autograph or limited edition trading card rather than a one-of-a-kind.
[deleted]
I know I will get a lot of negative points for this one, call me old or whatever, I do not get it. Seriously I have not heard anything stupid as this... while other starving billionaires acting out, historically is this equal as time when Marie-Antoinette said “Let them eat cake”?
Sorry, I just do not get it $2.5 million for someone else Tweet that will stay his. Seriously, WTF is wrong with this world!?
Sorry, I just do not get it $2.5 million for someone else Tweet that will stay his. Seriously, WTF is wrong with this world!?
I am more into crypto than most and I do not get NFT collectibles...at least pet rocks you could hold lol
Sticking specifically to art, NFTs solve a problem with digital art (non fungiblility) and some platforms provide artists with new benifits (tracking ownership, price and commission on sales, etc).
I think it's an especially crypto centric mindset to not see their value but if we take crypto aside do you appreciate works of art, collectable cards or limited edition runs as having value above their fungible copies (copy of art, copy of card, same product but regular edition)?
I think it's an especially crypto centric mindset to not see their value but if we take crypto aside do you appreciate works of art, collectable cards or limited edition runs as having value above their fungible copies (copy of art, copy of card, same product but regular edition)?
[deleted]
you are completely right and im the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Ive collected all kinds of things throughout my life that many would deem stupid/garbage. To each, their own.
I love blockchain for transparency/authenticity aspects. I just struggle with the collector side of it not being physical things for me to hold. It just doesn't feel real to me in the digital world.
I love blockchain for transparency/authenticity aspects. I just struggle with the collector side of it not being physical things for me to hold. It just doesn't feel real to me in the digital world.
That's fair. I also struggle to understand why people buy cosmetic upgrades in games.
Genuine question, do you understand the value buying a price of certified art and registering it as yours?
To oversimplify, an NFT shares the following properties to art:
* creator fame
* non-fungible (my copy of your Mona Lisa isn't a Mona Lisa)
You can argue about people doing better things with their time and money and I'd probably agree but I can see the value in owning a piece of history.
To oversimplify, an NFT shares the following properties to art:
* creator fame
* non-fungible (my copy of your Mona Lisa isn't a Mona Lisa)
You can argue about people doing better things with their time and money and I'd probably agree but I can see the value in owning a piece of history.
You are trying to rationalize a sadistically lavish display of spending money for something that honestly insults ordinary people intelligence. NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money.
Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Jack's net worth according to google is 12.6 billion USD. (12600 million USD) so on top of that you say hey let me get even more ... in way that can be characterized as most idiotic thing I can imagine, why? because, you know we can.
All this in time of pandemic when millions lost job.
This is exactly type of thing why Nick Hanauer said "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats".
Owning history? Seriously? In a 1000 years no one will care about Jack, Bill or Elon or about any other "look how rich and smart I am". What after 10000 years... or 100,000 years? For the universe that period is just a blink of an eye.
So, no mate, you do not own anything in this world, you are just here for a moment of time and then you die.
Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Jack's net worth according to google is 12.6 billion USD. (12600 million USD) so on top of that you say hey let me get even more ... in way that can be characterized as most idiotic thing I can imagine, why? because, you know we can.
All this in time of pandemic when millions lost job.
This is exactly type of thing why Nick Hanauer said "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats".
Owning history? Seriously? In a 1000 years no one will care about Jack, Bill or Elon or about any other "look how rich and smart I am". What after 10000 years... or 100,000 years? For the universe that period is just a blink of an eye.
So, no mate, you do not own anything in this world, you are just here for a moment of time and then you die.
You're making quite a few points, some I agree with and some I don't.
> NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money.
> Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those.
Like art this is really up to interpretation. As I mentioned in the previous comment NFTs have unique properties and as a result some intrinsic value. I'm not to argue the specific price of this tweet but that it shouldn't be dismissed outright.
For me an NFT of Jack's tweet embodies the time and effort spent building twitter the platform. Whether or nor Jack needs money is irrelevant in the same way that an artist's net worth isn't relevant to the value of their art, as is the time period their art was created.
Of course compared to the span of the universe ownership is meaningless, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. Twitter, like ethereum will likely remain in ~100 years, and if it doesn't exist be part of history books in ~1000.
This is also a unique property of NFTs, as ownership is via asymmetric cryptography until prime factorisation is broken or the blockchain is dead, ownership remains.
Once again, I'm not saying that this tweet is worth 2000 Eth, or that he should be selling it. All I'm trying to say is that NFTs have unique properties that don't exist in the digital world and shouldn't be entirely discounted because a millionaire is exchanging money with a billionaire.
> NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money.
> Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those.
Like art this is really up to interpretation. As I mentioned in the previous comment NFTs have unique properties and as a result some intrinsic value. I'm not to argue the specific price of this tweet but that it shouldn't be dismissed outright.
For me an NFT of Jack's tweet embodies the time and effort spent building twitter the platform. Whether or nor Jack needs money is irrelevant in the same way that an artist's net worth isn't relevant to the value of their art, as is the time period their art was created.
Of course compared to the span of the universe ownership is meaningless, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. Twitter, like ethereum will likely remain in ~100 years, and if it doesn't exist be part of history books in ~1000.
This is also a unique property of NFTs, as ownership is via asymmetric cryptography until prime factorisation is broken or the blockchain is dead, ownership remains.
Once again, I'm not saying that this tweet is worth 2000 Eth, or that he should be selling it. All I'm trying to say is that NFTs have unique properties that don't exist in the digital world and shouldn't be entirely discounted because a millionaire is exchanging money with a billionaire.
In an earlier thread about this event [1] a common conclusion was that the only thing NFTs were good for was money laundering.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579
NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they (most) are art - it's easy to launder money when the value of something can't be concretely measured.
As an example if there was a limited run NFT that could be traded for 1 month of runescape membership ($10.99), it wouldn't be very easy to use it to launder money as you couldn't easily write off as an unrelated party purchasing it for $1099.
As an example if there was a limited run NFT that could be traded for 1 month of runescape membership ($10.99), it wouldn't be very easy to use it to launder money as you couldn't easily write off as an unrelated party purchasing it for $1099.
Ok but what the fork is Jack Dorsey laundering, he does not have enough money already?!
Can you use someone else property and put it for a bid as NFT for that same purpose?
Jack Dorsey is likely not using this to launder money. If Jack Dorsey were to sell a signed piece of his own painting I doubt you'd be thinking the same thing.
NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they are ART, their cost intangible and non physical.
NFTs are good at laundering money not becuase they are NFTs but because they are ART, their cost intangible and non physical.
I find the idea of NFT interesting. Right now, the way it operates it feels like a giant MLM scam ( and in a sense, that is exactly what it is ). Still, I can see potential future if it is accepted as a way to keep track of 'digital collectables'.
what is a digital collectible? what is the value of a collectible?
i can’t put my finger on it
but feels like a strong bout of collective insanity
high on ideas
abusing language and metaphor and analogy to the point we no longer understand what is real and unreal
i can’t put my finger on it
but feels like a strong bout of collective insanity
high on ideas
abusing language and metaphor and analogy to the point we no longer understand what is real and unreal
I understand your question, but at the end of the day, what is value? Why is a one can of soup more collectible than another physically identical can of soup beyond 'intangible' knowledge of it having been owned by a historical figure? In practical sense, things are worth only as much as someone is willing to pay, and someone is willing to pay 2.5m.
[deleted]
Sure, it's all on a sliding scale, but I think GP's point is the lines are blurring into insanity. At least a can of soup is a tangible object and is more "realizable" to our beings than some information stored on a database in some FAANG datacenter. Depending on your perspective it's all ridiculous or all rational, but at least the can of soup can be interacted with "natively" by our bodies without needing a trillion dollar technology stack to even sense in the first place.
"FAANG datacenter" really highlights the absurdity of including Netflix in the acronym - they have no data centers of their own, as they're built entirely on the AWS stack.
One share of GOOG stock is equally intangible.
It may give you some theoretical infinitesimal ownership of the company.
But since Alphabet doesn't pay dividends, there is zero cash flow.
And it doesn't even give you the right to vote.
There's no scenario where you can convert your share into physical assets of the company, or claim any portion of the future cash flows of the company.
And unlike NFTs, a share of GOOG isn't even rare. There are 330 million others identical to yours.
A share of GOOG is just an entry in an electronic ledger, and literally the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else.
And yet people happily pay $2,100 for one, with no other objective than to resell it to someone else for more.
It may give you some theoretical infinitesimal ownership of the company.
But since Alphabet doesn't pay dividends, there is zero cash flow.
And it doesn't even give you the right to vote.
There's no scenario where you can convert your share into physical assets of the company, or claim any portion of the future cash flows of the company.
And unlike NFTs, a share of GOOG isn't even rare. There are 330 million others identical to yours.
A share of GOOG is just an entry in an electronic ledger, and literally the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else.
And yet people happily pay $2,100 for one, with no other objective than to resell it to someone else for more.
is value ultimately monetary? is money ultimately of value?
Based on my reading of the "12 million dollars stuffed shark"¹, this has the same mechanics as the market of a piece of contemporary art (I'd go as far as considering that this is, essentially, an art piece).
In such markets, pieces are status, which has nothing really to do with matter (in a physical sense). Specifically:
- status is sold; Jack Dorsey is famous, and his first tweet is strongly symbolic;
- status is acquired/purchased; the buyer has the money for the purchase, and he'll fits the item likely in a sort of private collection.
The status interpretation can make more intuitive the nature of the transaction/item, dispelling the insanity interpretation.
It needs to be considered also that this can be very conventional speculation; in this sense, it would appear intuitively "not insane", like financial instruments (of course, in another sense, they are fundamentally insane :)).
¹=https://www.amazon.com/Million-Stuffed-Shark-Economics-Conte...
In such markets, pieces are status, which has nothing really to do with matter (in a physical sense). Specifically:
- status is sold; Jack Dorsey is famous, and his first tweet is strongly symbolic;
- status is acquired/purchased; the buyer has the money for the purchase, and he'll fits the item likely in a sort of private collection.
The status interpretation can make more intuitive the nature of the transaction/item, dispelling the insanity interpretation.
It needs to be considered also that this can be very conventional speculation; in this sense, it would appear intuitively "not insane", like financial instruments (of course, in another sense, they are fundamentally insane :)).
¹=https://www.amazon.com/Million-Stuffed-Shark-Economics-Conte...
I highly doubt Jack is doing this, but it seems like another good vehicle for money laundering. Here's an essentially worthless tweet I set at an unreasonable value as an NFT or whatever.
Maybe he's doing a proof-of-concept for something else Twitter is developing (almost infinitely more likely than Jack doing money laundering), but this stuff just seems weird for rich tech people to do. This is like certificates of authenticity for random infomercial products, just on the blockchain.
Maybe he's doing a proof-of-concept for something else Twitter is developing (almost infinitely more likely than Jack doing money laundering), but this stuff just seems weird for rich tech people to do. This is like certificates of authenticity for random infomercial products, just on the blockchain.
This is the evergreen discussion about the valuation of art, and it doesn't stop art from being highly valued.
Digital collectible? Like my FLAC collection, no blockchain involved, that I can happily share with friends?
NFTs are the new shitcoins, without even a pretense of being generally useful. Digital Beanie Babies will surely be worth something long term, but nowhere near the bubble we're about to see.
Then again, Bitcoin itself is the original non-fungible token, lacking the critical ecash proprietary of untraceability. So what do I know.
NFTs are the new shitcoins, without even a pretense of being generally useful. Digital Beanie Babies will surely be worth something long term, but nowhere near the bubble we're about to see.
Then again, Bitcoin itself is the original non-fungible token, lacking the critical ecash proprietary of untraceability. So what do I know.
My working assumption is that these digital tokens sell for so much because they are great for estate/inheritance tax evasion. With these digital tokens, you have something that's very liquid, immensely portable, unseizable, and doesn't depreciate like normal cash that you can hand down to your kids.
https://newrepublic.com/article/147192/modern-art-serves-ric...
https://newrepublic.com/article/147192/modern-art-serves-ric...
Art collecting has been a way to bypass taxes and launder money. I read an article where it was used for bribes. A person buys an art piece for 1000 bux and then sells it for 2000. Once the transaction is done no one outside the transaction knows it's a bribe. NFTs will make the process easier.
I expect if Elizabeth Warren gets her way in crushing people who have a lot of wealth in stocks, they'll shift their money to collectibles. I.e. instead of investing in productive things like industry, they'll invest in useless things like art objects.
Your definition of "useless" is different from mine.
What's more useless:
a) $2.5m sitting in a bank account, vulnerable to taxation, confiscation, legal judgment, gradual inflation, rapid devaluation and bank insolvency, unlikely to increase much in value, where the only thing you can do with it is trade it for something useful.
b) $2.5m invested in something rare, that could increase in value, where you can both trade it for something else you want, or appreciate the object itself and enjoy owning it.
What's more useless:
a) $2.5m sitting in a bank account, vulnerable to taxation, confiscation, legal judgment, gradual inflation, rapid devaluation and bank insolvency, unlikely to increase much in value, where the only thing you can do with it is trade it for something useful.
b) $2.5m invested in something rare, that could increase in value, where you can both trade it for something else you want, or appreciate the object itself and enjoy owning it.
Money in a bank account gets loaned out to others who use it productively.
Something rare is just that, something rare. It produces nothing.
Something rare is just that, something rare. It produces nothing.
Production is not the source of all value.
And neither is fractional reserve banking.
And neither is fractional reserve banking.
> Production is not the source of all value
Yeah, it is.
Yeah, it is.
> Your definition of "useless" is different from mine.
> What's more useless:
> a) $2.5m sitting in a bank account, vulnerable to taxation, confiscation, legal judgment, gradual inflation, rapid devaluation and bank insolvency, unlikely to increase much in value, where the only thing you can do with it is trade it for something useful.
> b) $2.5m invested in something rare, that could increase in value, where you can both trade it for something else you want, or appreciate the object itself and enjoy owning it.
Holding an NFT should be benchmarked against holding BTC. The way you've presented it — as being either USD or NFT — is clearly a false dichotomy.
> What's more useless:
> a) $2.5m sitting in a bank account, vulnerable to taxation, confiscation, legal judgment, gradual inflation, rapid devaluation and bank insolvency, unlikely to increase much in value, where the only thing you can do with it is trade it for something useful.
> b) $2.5m invested in something rare, that could increase in value, where you can both trade it for something else you want, or appreciate the object itself and enjoy owning it.
Holding an NFT should be benchmarked against holding BTC. The way you've presented it — as being either USD or NFT — is clearly a false dichotomy.
[deleted]
I think with this it is good idea to look into other "collectible" markets. Many of them have massively increasing valuations. So this is just people trying to get early on some new market...
Still, at least with physical things, we know there is limited quantity of quality. Same can't be said about digital products...
Still, at least with physical things, we know there is limited quantity of quality. Same can't be said about digital products...
The value of collectibles is a supply and demand issue. A piccaso has the extra ordinary value (price) because at least 1 person is willing to pay for it not because picasso was such a great artist. Digital is the same except that you can make millions of exact copies. The token gives it scarcity and by extension value.
If it impresses people + you can resell it for more than you paid for initially then it's worth buying.
Thing is, "value is in the eye of the beholder". It might be material in a strictly biological setting, or idealistic (subjective) in a post-scarcity environment. We're somewhere in-between with the digital world, the value of the superfluous (e.g. collectibles) is able to rise as material needs are more easily covered (using an ever-smaller fraction of resources).
To put it simply to the point of absurdity, if we were a "magical" (in Arthur C. Clarke's word) civilization without any outstanding needs, we could still play some for-profit economic game and spend quadrillions buying autographs, because it wouldn't lessen anything of importance. Conversely, if you're barely eating enough, you won't spend resources on anything else than getting more food, because that would lessen your chances of survival.
The degree of perceived insanity, I think, thus entirely depends on who you are as a beholder of value, where you fit in the material ⇾ idealistic spectrum. Pretty sure Africans with $1/day feel this is perfectly stupid, but your average billionaire might find it a funny hobby, like collecting some cards of the digital era. There will be a market for that, I think crypto-manias proved as much.
It's all relative to an observer, IMHO.
To put it simply to the point of absurdity, if we were a "magical" (in Arthur C. Clarke's word) civilization without any outstanding needs, we could still play some for-profit economic game and spend quadrillions buying autographs, because it wouldn't lessen anything of importance. Conversely, if you're barely eating enough, you won't spend resources on anything else than getting more food, because that would lessen your chances of survival.
The degree of perceived insanity, I think, thus entirely depends on who you are as a beholder of value, where you fit in the material ⇾ idealistic spectrum. Pretty sure Africans with $1/day feel this is perfectly stupid, but your average billionaire might find it a funny hobby, like collecting some cards of the digital era. There will be a market for that, I think crypto-manias proved as much.
It's all relative to an observer, IMHO.
> it feels like a giant MLM scam
Yeah tell that to the cypher-punks who have been preaching 'speak math to power' for eternity. This is just crypto-porn evangelized by OG users of Twitter like @jack, nothing more.
Yeah tell that to the cypher-punks who have been preaching 'speak math to power' for eternity. This is just crypto-porn evangelized by OG users of Twitter like @jack, nothing more.
[deleted]
>>I can see potential future if it is accepted as a way to keep track of 'digital collectables'.
I can see a situation where every real life high-end product has an ID associated with it too. Leading to less fraud. There's also a definite future in first sales and all the following resales as a way to preserve value for collectibles.
I can see a situation where every real life high-end product has an ID associated with it too. Leading to less fraud. There's also a definite future in first sales and all the following resales as a way to preserve value for collectibles.
It's important to note that digital collectables (https://www.nbatopshot.com/) and in game items (https://axieinfinity.com/aave) are NFTs are already quite common.
They don't dominate the news cycle becuase famous people aren't cashing in to produce digital art for essentially free money.
They don't dominate the news cycle becuase famous people aren't cashing in to produce digital art for essentially free money.
NFTs are the cryptocurrency equivalent of those companies that will sell you a star. Sure... there is something written down somewhere that you "own" something. In any practical sense, it's completely meaningless.
That's definitely true for some of them. Genies [1] being one. See their "you own nothing" terms of service. Same for Yellowheart.[2] Both reserve the rights to take your "ownership" away at will.
This is seen by some as a way to put some teeth into the "licensed merchandise" business. Mark Cuban, who owns some sports team, is into that.
Non-fungible tokens are not regulated investments. Fungible tokens are either a security or a commodity, and the SEC and the CFTC don't like pump and dump promotions of them. But you can pump and dump Beanie Babies or sneakers or Authorized NBA Merchandise all you want, constrained only by weak false advertising laws.
The first NFT crash has already happened.[3] Enthusiasts are now talking about "taking advantage of the volatility of the market".
Unlike fungible items, there won't be one price and a liquid market. Reselling will look more like early eBay, with people trying to unload their "antiques". You can still trade Beanie Babies on eBay.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Animats&next=2628880...
[2] https://www.yellowheart.io/kol/terms_and_conditions.pdf
[3] https://youtu.be/thWPoiQGsow
This is seen by some as a way to put some teeth into the "licensed merchandise" business. Mark Cuban, who owns some sports team, is into that.
Non-fungible tokens are not regulated investments. Fungible tokens are either a security or a commodity, and the SEC and the CFTC don't like pump and dump promotions of them. But you can pump and dump Beanie Babies or sneakers or Authorized NBA Merchandise all you want, constrained only by weak false advertising laws.
The first NFT crash has already happened.[3] Enthusiasts are now talking about "taking advantage of the volatility of the market".
Unlike fungible items, there won't be one price and a liquid market. Reselling will look more like early eBay, with people trying to unload their "antiques". You can still trade Beanie Babies on eBay.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Animats&next=2628880...
[2] https://www.yellowheart.io/kol/terms_and_conditions.pdf
[3] https://youtu.be/thWPoiQGsow
I agree, but a historical post in the past is somewhat unlike a piece of art media like a bitmap or animation. Consider the Herbert quote...
"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."
If Dorsey agrees that the "owner" has the prereogative to destroy (delete) it, they plausibly "own" it insofar as they control its existance.
"The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."
If Dorsey agrees that the "owner" has the prereogative to destroy (delete) it, they plausibly "own" it insofar as they control its existance.
Much of cryptocurrency is better understood as nouveau billionaire “artwork” than meaningful technology.
This isn't a fair comparison and there will be plenty of use-cases that go beyond tweets and art.
For example, the Dallas Mavericks are exploring issuing their season tickets as NFTs and charging a fee everytime a ticket is resold to disincentivize scalpers.
For example, the Dallas Mavericks are exploring issuing their season tickets as NFTs and charging a fee everytime a ticket is resold to disincentivize scalpers.
Is it just me or recently in last year or so I am noticing more and more of ... I don't know what to call these:
- Baseball/pokemon card auctions
- Bitcoin and crypto in general
- Meme stocks
- and now this NFT stuff
It is all exploding. Usually, this was limited to much smaller stage and scale, besides may be the art world. Ofcourse auctions are older than the dust, I am just noticing increasing pyramid-schemes/tokens/scarcity-driven-value-stores and personalities such as deepfuckingvalue/elon/chamath/etc.
Is there an underlying pattern here?
- Baseball/pokemon card auctions
- Bitcoin and crypto in general
- Meme stocks
- and now this NFT stuff
It is all exploding. Usually, this was limited to much smaller stage and scale, besides may be the art world. Ofcourse auctions are older than the dust, I am just noticing increasing pyramid-schemes/tokens/scarcity-driven-value-stores and personalities such as deepfuckingvalue/elon/chamath/etc.
Is there an underlying pattern here?
It's basically MLM's but instead of tupperware they're peddling FOMO.
Growing distrust of institutions. General increase in postmodern philosophy, deconstructing concepts of inherent value. Stock market valuations increasingly decoupling from underlying business to the point that everyone realized we were just betting on abstract entities. Large portion of the population not earning enough for traditional investment vehicles to net returns that would meaningfully impact their lives, so instead going for YOLO meme investments for a marginally slim chance at completely changing their lives. I'm sure there're more reasons.
[deleted]
I'm starting to believe that both or even all sides are in the game now. Rich have more money than places to put it. People distrusting markets look at this thing and feel FOMO. And then you have some average guys with extra money and time to look at things they are nostalgic about.
Uneducated guess: Quantitative easing of the US dollar has led to some people to accumulate an outsized proportion of the money and are now seeking higher/easier returns where they can. In my mind, recklessly.
Everytime i read "quantitative easing" I chuckle, because this thing is stuck in my head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k
Maybe all those old baseball cards I have will finally be worth something...maybe...
There is probably some value in those. Large part of market is nostalgia. I would personally now sell any of them that have risen substantially. They might go up more, but eventually they go down when the generation who have nostalgia is gone... It's common pattern that can be seen with things like cars, outside the very special ones.
There's definitely evidence of huge pools of liquid capital and probably an expression of bad economic policy i.e. QE vs. minimum wage.
I suggest there's a time for both, but the time as long since passed for a minimum wage hike or other, better demand-side initiatives instead of the supply side economics that have dominated for the last 40 years.
I'm note speaking politically or ideologically, just pragmatically.
That we have people holding 3 jobs with no healthcare in an economy where people are paying $500 for shoes and 'digital art' and other speculative things is just not healthy.
I suggest there's a time for both, but the time as long since passed for a minimum wage hike or other, better demand-side initiatives instead of the supply side economics that have dominated for the last 40 years.
I'm note speaking politically or ideologically, just pragmatically.
That we have people holding 3 jobs with no healthcare in an economy where people are paying $500 for shoes and 'digital art' and other speculative things is just not healthy.
> 3 jobs with no healthcare in an economy
> $500 for shoes
Why are they mutually exclusive? Should people give up luxuries?
> $500 for shoes
Why are they mutually exclusive? Should people give up luxuries?
? Yes. Paying $500 for shoes you won't wear is less important than food, or making sure that your kid is supported and shows up to class so that we don't have to blame it on the schools.
Isn’t that individual responsibility? How can you even stop someone from spending on whatever they want?
We cant. But we can try to make sure that surpluses are spread rationally, at least to the extent non-market interventions are concerned i.e. supply-side (QE) vs. demand-side fiscal/monetary policy and governance.
That there are huge markets for useless things at the same time people are struggling without healthcare is not a positive sign.
That there are huge markets for useless things at the same time people are struggling without healthcare is not a positive sign.
It looks like the idea of money got completely detached from a useful value. Probably due to the world scale corruption. This is not going to end well.
While collectibles are superior to fiat currencies as a store of value ($2T was just printed from nothing without any limit to do it in the future), Bitcoin is divisible, which gives it a great liquidity advantage. I expect most collectibles to decrease in value compared to BTC in the long term.
Currency was never meant to be a value store, ever. The US gold backing was a silly thing to start with. A currency's function is to be a glue, a common denominator.
,,Currency was never meant to be a value store, ever. ''
It's not that simple. If people wouldn't use it for store of value, seignorage wouldn't be so profitable for banks.
Gold backing was also very profitable for banks, as they could sell the gold and lie to people about the gold still existing. It wasn't like people wanted it: gold was taken away by force and by shaming people who hoarded it.
It's not that simple. If people wouldn't use it for store of value, seignorage wouldn't be so profitable for banks.
Gold backing was also very profitable for banks, as they could sell the gold and lie to people about the gold still existing. It wasn't like people wanted it: gold was taken away by force and by shaming people who hoarded it.
I really lean towards the view that it's just because people are stuck inside. I'll be a lot more concerned about the trend if it persists into 2022.
> Is there an underlying pattern here?
Fiat money printing.
It causes speculative bubbles.
Fiat money printing.
It causes speculative bubbles.
Inflation. People have too much money, and nothing to invest into.
To me the absolute insanity of a unique digital thing in 2021 is that digital storage mediums are utterly, insanely fragile, even compared to paper, let alone a laser engraved corrosion resistant metal sheet.
I understand unique value in a Black Lotus Magic the Gathering card, which will easily outlast any digital storage media you can buy today.
Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves by unique digital things when there isn't even a way to store it without a global network, slurping silly amounts of energy, and of what's hardware requirements is crippling the semiconductor availability?
I understand unique value in a Black Lotus Magic the Gathering card, which will easily outlast any digital storage media you can buy today.
Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves by unique digital things when there isn't even a way to store it without a global network, slurping silly amounts of energy, and of what's hardware requirements is crippling the semiconductor availability?
Digital redundancy requires replication, which means a global network. Redundancy isn't enough as it also requires consensus and security. Sprinkle some ownership via asymmetric cryptography and oh look, we've described destributed ledger technology.
Most Art NFTs that enter the news cycle runs on ethereum. Ethereum not only processes NFTs but a multitude of other transactions for other projects and is a order of magnitude more energy efficient and already moving to become more energy efficient. This specific platform in on the Matic L2 sidechain which is again an order more efficient. There's even a specific blockchain called Flow by the creator of the first NFTs that are designed for NFTs.
Most Art NFTs that enter the news cycle runs on ethereum. Ethereum not only processes NFTs but a multitude of other transactions for other projects and is a order of magnitude more energy efficient and already moving to become more energy efficient. This specific platform in on the Matic L2 sidechain which is again an order more efficient. There's even a specific blockchain called Flow by the creator of the first NFTs that are designed for NFTs.
Why would anyone want a digital autograph?
It is not like you can frame this in your living room - what is the appeal?
It is not like you can frame this in your living room - what is the appeal?
Well, if you own the rights to something, you can control the commercial use of it (assuming non-commercial use is not worth the effort to restrict). I leave the commercial utility of Jack's first tweet as an exercise for others (because I have no clue).
Sure, but that's a legal right that lives in law, not on the blockchain.
And I'd be shocked if this NFT actually included that sort of ownership as part of the deal.
And I'd be shocked if this NFT actually included that sort of ownership as part of the deal.
I don't think NFTs almost ever attach any intellectual property or copyright ownership to possession of the NFT.
It's more like a collectors card of some thing. Purely abstract.
It's more like a collectors card of some thing. Purely abstract.
It's exclusivity. This is just creating something exclusive purely to be exclusive.
Each and every output of `uuidgen` is exclusive...
Yes but these are hard to forge. This is like a PGP-signed UUID in a bittorrent.
Just because something can't be or hard to forge it doesn't mean there's any value to it.
That's the madness behind the current trends: I genuinely fail to see value. Unique is not a guarantee for valuable.
That's the madness behind the current trends: I genuinely fail to see value. Unique is not a guarantee for valuable.
Yup, and it would waste a lot less electricity too.
It's not just a current trend.
> Unique is not a guarantee for valuable...That's the madness behind the current trends...
Not sufficient, but maybe necessary, as the mathematicians would put it.
Why would anyone pay nearly $9.5 million for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana_1c_magenta
It's certainly not great artwork (it's a crude hack job cranked out by a local printer when the shipment of real stamps didn't arrive on time). It's never been owned by anyone particularly famous (edit: well, the DuPont guy is somewhat (in)famous, but the stamp was extremely valuable even before he owned it). None of the people associated with its production are particularly famous. It doesn't play any kind of pivotal role in world history, or even the history of the former British Guiana.
The only reason it's worth $9.48 million is that there is only one of them.
> Unique is not a guarantee for valuable...That's the madness behind the current trends...
Not sufficient, but maybe necessary, as the mathematicians would put it.
Why would anyone pay nearly $9.5 million for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana_1c_magenta
It's certainly not great artwork (it's a crude hack job cranked out by a local printer when the shipment of real stamps didn't arrive on time). It's never been owned by anyone particularly famous (edit: well, the DuPont guy is somewhat (in)famous, but the stamp was extremely valuable even before he owned it). None of the people associated with its production are particularly famous. It doesn't play any kind of pivotal role in world history, or even the history of the former British Guiana.
The only reason it's worth $9.48 million is that there is only one of them.
Each and every output of `uuidgen` doesn't have meaning.
"Value" is a human construct that requires interpretation of information to form a narrative and meaning.
In contrast vanity tor addresses are valuable.
"Value" is a human construct that requires interpretation of information to form a narrative and meaning.
In contrast vanity tor addresses are valuable.
At The International 2013 (a DotA tournament), in person viewers received "autographs" of the players that could attached to items in game. I told them on the Steam market place for almost $1,000.
In that case there was scarcity in the game. A limited number of people could display these on their profiles/ complete a collection. Compared to a Tweet that anyone can view and that the buyer has no control over it doesn’t seem to be quite the same thing. A Tweet equivalent might be if the purchased Tweet was now only viewable on the buyers timeline.
What a sham. People are so desperate to turn the unlimited, powerful realm of computing into such a limited, restricted, constrained, zero-sum system.
I'm already exhausted by NFT. There's going to be decades & decades of people insisting this petty silly act is meaningful, has value. They'll be right, but only because they recruit others to their small world thinking, to their narrowed horizons, focused on property & proprietary. Decades of endlessly hearing excitement about capturing the great & vast digital, about using society to make real, enforce their fabricated & fictitious sense of scarcity & limits & constraints.
Decades & decades of listening to zero-sum mentality, watching just enough people get roped in, suckered into this concocted belief system. These jokers are going to make L. Ron Hubbard look both moral & amateur. This new religion gives me the creeps, this anti-use of freedom. This is such the opposite of hope, & capability, & democratic power that the internet represented, a closing of access, a system of restricting, not the opening of frontiers, the ever-expanding availability that shaped all my decades under Moore's law. This saga is such a sad one. And it's only just beginning, opening salvos like this: telling us that only the wealthy will own the digital.
I'm already exhausted by NFT. There's going to be decades & decades of people insisting this petty silly act is meaningful, has value. They'll be right, but only because they recruit others to their small world thinking, to their narrowed horizons, focused on property & proprietary. Decades of endlessly hearing excitement about capturing the great & vast digital, about using society to make real, enforce their fabricated & fictitious sense of scarcity & limits & constraints.
Decades & decades of listening to zero-sum mentality, watching just enough people get roped in, suckered into this concocted belief system. These jokers are going to make L. Ron Hubbard look both moral & amateur. This new religion gives me the creeps, this anti-use of freedom. This is such the opposite of hope, & capability, & democratic power that the internet represented, a closing of access, a system of restricting, not the opening of frontiers, the ever-expanding availability that shaped all my decades under Moore's law. This saga is such a sad one. And it's only just beginning, opening salvos like this: telling us that only the wealthy will own the digital.
Selling his digital autograph, not the tweet. Selling the tweet would imply passing full control over the original.
This was discussed earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579
Here is the documentation on ERC-721 (NFTs): https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc...
Here is the documentation on ERC-721 (NFTs): https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc...
2.5 million leading bid right now.
https://v.cent.co/tweet/20?s=u_o
https://v.cent.co/tweet/20?s=u_o
The highest bidder claims he is willing to go up as high as 10 million.
That doesn't make absolutely any sense. What can he possibly hope to achieve by sharing this information?
Dissuade other people from bidding?
Does that person even have that amount of money? From looking at his timeline it seems unlikely.
The offer is done through a smart contact and cannot be placed if you don't have the money.
1630 Ethereum isn't that unlikely, Ethereum was worth ~$120 last March so that's only ~$200k. That's probably nothing for the CEO of a cryptocurrency company (https://nitter.dark.fail/sinaEstavi)
1630 Ethereum isn't that unlikely, Ethereum was worth ~$120 last March so that's only ~$200k. That's probably nothing for the CEO of a cryptocurrency company (https://nitter.dark.fail/sinaEstavi)
Seems like that's an ideal problem to solve using a blockchain/smart contracts (a distributed auction). If they can't verify these bids are real & will be paid out that seems like a complete failure of the technology.
Edit: their website doesn't go into detail much at all, so I don't have high hopes for this
Edit: their website doesn't go into detail much at all, so I don't have high hopes for this
You're required to link your Web3 wallet to use it. I've not inspected their smart contact but it's probably safe to say these bets are real.
Since Ethereum's price is a moving target that's 1630 Eth.
Makes me think of Civilization, the game, somehow (which I used to spend far too much time playing and now have officially Given Up). You start money constrained, but by the endgame there's typically so much cash floating around that it ceases to have the same meaning. So what is the person buying here? An anecdote; except that the better the anecdote comes across the more that it's an investment too. Seems like madness to me, but then I am very much not at the silly money stage. Money still means shelter, rather than a way to keep score.
So does it mean Twitter will also respect ownership based on whats on blockchain / contract?
That would open up so many interesting avenues - new owner could delete, modify, hide it?
That would open up so many interesting avenues - new owner could delete, modify, hide it?
Nope, it's completely meaningless outside of the blockchain, and people who agree to comply with ownership recorded there.
Since one of the people who's implicitly agreeing is the owner of the tweet and CEO of the platform, I find that gives it a decent amount of credence.
Sure but it doesn't automatically change who has control over the tweet, or make this tweet behave any differently from others on the platform.
It doesn't, but that also not what's valuable here.
Take the recent grumpy cat NFT as an example, what's being sold is just an the original grumpy cat image except the NFT creator is verified to be the cat's owner.
It doesn't give the purchaser any rights but it still sold for a decent amount. What's valuable is that it was created by the owner, not any rights or control.
Take the recent grumpy cat NFT as an example, what's being sold is just an the original grumpy cat image except the NFT creator is verified to be the cat's owner.
It doesn't give the purchaser any rights but it still sold for a decent amount. What's valuable is that it was created by the owner, not any rights or control.
He's just selling something that amounts to an exclusive autographed copy as far as I can tell.
That's not what I get from the last sentence of the article. Apparently you just gain the exclusivity of the right to claim that you own the tweet. But @jack can delete the tweet and Twitter can shut down at any time and that doesn't grant the buyer a refund.
This kind of thing turns up in post-scarcity sci-fi works. Are we really post-scarcity, yet? All of us on this planet?
Rich white man sells something worth absolutely nothing and having no value for millions; is hero. Film at 11.
[dupe] further discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26365579
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
The article is misrepresenting the situation.
Jack Dorsey isn't attempting to sell anything here. The site allows anybody to make an offer, unsolicited, on a tweet of their choosing. Jack can choose to accept the offer if he wishes, but he's not the one who initiated this.
It's all in their FAQ.
Jack Dorsey isn't attempting to sell anything here. The site allows anybody to make an offer, unsolicited, on a tweet of their choosing. Jack can choose to accept the offer if he wishes, but he's not the one who initiated this.
It's all in their FAQ.
Jack tweeted a link to the page where you can buy the NFT, so I think it's accurate to say he's selling it:
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1367990471759306752
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1367990471759306752
You're right, I stand corrected
Mods: Dorsey is mentioned twice in title.
This is silly.
Can I sell the NFT of my retweet?
Westerners are crazy
This is like some of those pre-mined crypto coins
always suspected he was a wrong'un.
So basically it's an odd form of a digital autograph associated with this tweet, that the owner presumably agrees not to autograph again and sell to other people.