Overly Attached Girlfriend NFT Sells for $411,000
decrypt.co
decrypt.co
Good for her though!
I still don’t get it.
I said this here about bitcoin years ago, and was completely wrong though. So many nights thinking about putting together a rig, but laziness, or doubt, prevented me from mining.
Btw, I'm not a bitcoin booster. I think the technology is interesting. Economically, I'm not too sure. Non-productive deflationary assets seem bad. I think it may be some sort of monetary tragedy of the commons. But there are some natural limitations that may prevent from spiraling too far out of control.
The original artwork is an assemblage of atoms touched by the original creator, just as these NFTs are an assemblage of math touched by the original creator. The main distinction in my mind is that an NFT is not intrinsic to the original work. It wasn't created as a consequence of making the original.
We could create intrinsic NFTs if we wanted to. Something like a digital photo digitally signed by the author, with the outer 1% of the pixels cropped off and added to the NFT block, just as the back and unseen edges of paintings are used to prove provenance.
It’s wonderful press for NFTs, but was it organic?
I’m only half joking.
I wonder which one would win in terms of reach between this meme and the Mona Lisa?
Because that would make it different than regular NFT.
he Collector’s limited license to display the Digital Artwork, includes, but is not limited to, the right to display the Digital Artwork privately or publicly: (i) for the purpose of promoting or sharing the Collector’s purchase, ownership, or interest, (ii) for the purpose of sharing, promoting, discussing, or commenting on the Digital Artwork; (iii) on third party marketplaces, exchanges, platforms, or applications in association with an offer to sell, or trade, the Digital Artwork; and (iv) within decentralized virtual environments, virtual worlds, virtual galleries, virtual museums, or other navigable and perceivable virtual environments.
Collectors have the right to sell, trade, transfer, or use their Digital Artwork, but Collectors may not make “commercial use” of the Digital Artwork.
My database would be a text file that anyone could download and verify.
Edit: I mean plain UUIDs, so you could create billions with the same carbon used to create a NFT, and the signed text file counts as distributed because anyone can have a copy, I couldn't tamper with it and not be caught.
But you'd expose yourself to a lawsuit because you don't own the copyright to the original picture, and if you sell for a high enough price, it might actually be worth the bother to the copyright holder.
Edit: this case might have been covered by a separate contract, but it's still not part of the NFT transaction. https://foundation.app/terms
These are not the same things, and it is (to my understanding) actually very difficult to convert large volumes of ETH into actual money.
One bunch of crypto coins was swapped for another, that’s all.
Edit: Sorry commenter below, I edited my comment without reading the responses, and now your looks redundant, but you were first.
OK that's facile. NFTs are a thing. They are legitimised by a blockchain, which is quite a statement in itself (my words)!
NFTs are a thing that is messing with everyone's concept of normal, from young to old. This is not just the cool kids doing stuff - "Groove it dadyo" and all that bollocks. It is quite a neat way of using a blockchain to do something slightly more useful than the usual gambling. It's still gambling though.
The really rubbish bit is still Proof of Work vs Proof of Steak (mmmm steak) sorry Stake. How many unicorns were burned to prove that n owns a particular NFT? If n had instead paid cash they might have felled a couple of small trees but not an entire forest but then they would not be in possession of a NFT. They would still have the forest ...
This is nonsense. It's just another form of hysterical speculation.
The key to speculation is, if you know you're doing it, more power to you. But there are a lot of marks that think they're actually participating in something "legitimate".
This applies to more than just NFTs of course. One of the funnier things I stumbled across recently is "hoge" coin, which is a crypto "currency" that disincentivizes actually transacting in it, because every time you move money around you have to permanently burn off some of that money. See https://hoge.finance/. It reminds me of China's stock market where you can buy as much as you want, you just better not short sell and tank the price :)