Once Worth $2.9M, NFT of First Ever Tweet Is Now $132 | Hacker News Reader

Once Worth $2.9M, NFT of First Ever Tweet Is Now $132

entrepreneur.com

Tell me again why NFTs are such a good investment. I'll wait.

The only people I knew were crypto bros just to flaunt their crypto holdings.

In other words ... it was never "worth" $2.9M

It was when someone first purchased it for $2.9M

To the contrary, this proves just because some idiot is willing to pay millions for something doesn't make it worth what they paid.

Whatever, someone made $2.9m on this thing.

So did Bernie Madoff. Scams are no less scams just because someone got rich.

I don't think the owner accepted the bid. It would be news if they did.

It's not about someone offering the bid of $132, it's about whether or not if that bid was accepted. Right now, it isn't.

He didn’t accepted but the price is going down, on April people offered $280, now $132…

> Estavi is still the NFT owner, and it is unclear if he has any interest in selling right now. He did not respond to a request for comment via Twitter DM.

This is somewhat reductive though, I despise NFTs though would surely pay $132 for the novelty of owning a peice of their downfall, the price floor is surely much higher

If I owned an NFT, how could I encourage higher bids? Tell everyone that I want to sell it? What if I needed to sell it now? In the unlikely event that I needed to sell my house today (like right now), I'm confident that I could get way more than 0.00005% ($132 / $2,900,000) of its purchase price out of it.

You could put it up for a timed auction on OpenSea, that announces to others that you're looking to sell.

Also if the ownership of your house was determined via an NFT (in 5-10 years that might not be that uncommon), I'm sure you'd get a much higher bid for it on something like OpenSea also (assuming it was part of a collection that people knew to look for, at least. If you just mint the NFT yourself people might not discover it). If it were legit and NFTs were more mainstream you'd probably get bids close to, or possibly more than) what it's worth.

The $2.9 million for the tweet was just a stupid purchase to begin with by someone with more money than sense, like someone paying $1.5 million for a sealed copy of Super Mario 64 back in July 2021[1].

[1] https://kotaku.com/a-sealed-copy-of-super-mario-64-just-sold...

EDIT: For those who doubt the housing claim, I just happened to have a twitter post shared with me just now that someone sold an NFT that grants ownership of their house in South Carolina for $175k over the past weekend[2]. So NFTs are still selling for good prices if there's something of proven worth behind it, like real estate.

[2]: https://twitter.com/rusty_bill/status/1582098885933027328?s=...

That's pretty interesting on the NFT-backed-by-real-estate bit

I RT'd with the following comment: "I don't know how "awesome" this is ... but keeping real estate records on #blockchain is close to the only sane use of the technology"

That was the original use case for NFTs (replacing paperwork as a record of ownership of something tangible), and what I remember people saying they could be used for when it was still just a concept yet to be implemented, way back when they were just called 'colored coins' and not NFTs.

It's still the most reasonable thing to me, or maybe signifying ownership of digital content (for a reasonable price), like owning a digital weapon in Warcraft you could sell to someone else via an NFT marketplace.

People just found some easy money with the PFP (profile pic) NFTs, started treating them like Pokemon cards, and prices got insane and stupid for a while.

Hopefully that more or less goes away and things will be sold for prices similar to what it should really be worth again (I don't mind paying $5-10 to say I 'own' a cool profile pic, for example, but $250k+ is insane).

>I don't mind paying $5-10 to say I 'own' a cool profile pic, for example

I'm with you on this - I don't mind spending a "little" to say I "own" some digital asset

I've bought services on Fiverr and the like wherein I not only get the output of the purchase, but rights to using the output in derivative forms

Likewise, I've paid the extra couple bucks to get the copyright release when purchasing photo shoots of my family

But with the background of DMCA, etc...I'm not even sure it makes [economic] sense to say you "own" some relatively-cheap NFT-based digital "asset"

Yeah, people put in stupid low bids on OpenSea all the time with the hopes that someone will just accept it. It doesn't cost anything (outside of the gas to wrap the ETH or whatever) for them to place the bid, they just have to have it available. They can even use the same money to place bids on a bunch of NFTs, and only pay for the first one that accepts.

One way people try to scam bids on OpenSea is they make a bit that seems super high if it was in the default currency, but use a different currency, and the currency symbol is a tiny icon, so they hope people will accept it without thinking about it and they get it for a deal. I know several people that thought they were selling their NFT for like 20 Eth (or $26,000 USD at today's prices, even higher back then), and really the bid was for 20 USD coin, or $20.

So some rando placing a bid on OpenSea doesn't mean much. I'm sure there are people who would pay more than that for this NFT, but aren't bothering to take the time to place a serious bid. Not $2.9 million though, and definitely not $48 million.

If the owner arranged to have this sold through Sotheby's or something, he could potentially get $100,000+ (I'm guessing, I have no idea, just judging by their other auctions). Just a random bid on OpenSea though, $1000 is probably the best they're likely going to see for it, especially in the midst of the NFT (possibly now permanent) bear market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com