A contract that showed I am the adoptee of Harry the gorilla, and provides a regular income for the charity. If I can’t keep up the payment I sell the token.
Fail to pay or sell the token and it reverts to the charity issuer.
The problem of course is the word crypto doesn’t appear in any of the traditional platforms, so no hype/demand exists for your tweets there. Those users have also over time not only been trained to recognize scams, but are provided with a little bit of buyer protection if they end up buying something you couldn’t really sell them in the first place.
[0]: https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-is-selling...
If Jack Dorsey sold the "rights" to the first ever tweet, I'm confident someone would pay at least $1 million for it, even without an NFT involved.
The fact that there's an NFT involved makes it more valuable, because now the buyer can show off in more ways than one. But that's it.
There have always been, and always will be, rich people with more money than sense, who want to demonstrate their great wealth and worldliness by buying silly stuff to show off with.
You don't need email either, just write a letter or send a fax.
The point is that here is a piece of new technology that's part of a new vision for the future. Maybe you think it's an unrealistic vision, but that's no reason to sneer at people who disagree with you.
Unless the vision provides benefits we did not have before I will continue to sneer at "the same thing but on blockchain" ideas.
There's so much knee-jerk opposition to "blockchain" stuff just because some nerds get too excited about it (and some people are trying to get rich off it). It makes no sense to me.
Ok, still - what's the benefit of that in the discussed context (donations to an organisation preserving wildlife) which they can't easily provide with existing programs?
(Accepting the payment is slightly unrelated - if they want donations via cryptocoins, there's a bunch of payment gateways they can enable today)