248ff

Direct rewards for anonymous data. I can see a problem with fake data spam.

One way to solve that problem is to not reward users for their data.

That system is basically a donation dressed up as a "stock".

The TLDR from that article: "The Packers bylaws and NFL rules severely restrict transfers of Packers stock... And: No one may buy more than 200 shares... And: The offering will initially be limited to persons in the United States, as well as Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands"

This could not have been achieved with an NFT, since NFT's can't censor pre-sale nor post-sale trading.

"buying and selling products that could never be sold before"

Damn, guess i own a time machine. I am fairly certain i have both bought and sold digital assets like years ago.

NFT's would seem very, very interesting, except one little detail...

Their current core utility is url-forwarding. So, i have to pay to see the desination url/data ? No ?

In the real world artists voluntary pay a fee to online-marketplaces/auctions/record-labels which in turn provide them with (in order of preference)

a) a secure marketplace (one that only delivers the goods AFTER payment has been processed, not before)

b) an anti-piracy service.

c) marketing/exposure

With NFT not only doesn't 'a' nor 'b' exist, they're of net-negative value, in turn they seem to have an infinite amount of c.

Thus, for an artist the only likely positive outcome with NFT's is exposure/marketing.

I left one charm out. Royalties. You can't collect royalties when the asset is essentially freely distributed.

It's good to see livestock and chemical use mentioned. But what about the other cow in the agricultural room ?

Reckless farming practice/expansions in developing countries, such as:

1. In south-east asia insane amounts of farmland is burned seasonally (to prepare for the next seasonal crop).

2. Burning of forests/jungle in order to extract some exotic mushrooms.

3. Burning jungle in order to make space for palm-oil farms.

> At its very best, it was a coarse indication that neither suggested nor invited further clarity.

The same could be said about Likes, viewcount and comments.

IMO user-based metrics are a good thing (even if they can be gamed), the more the better.

> This is what ultimately killed Second Life. In the early days it was being used by businesses, for meetings etc. Then all the people with kinks moved in and now no one takes it seriously.

You got your order of events reversed.

In the early days of SL (2003-2007) it was mostly chaos: kinky content, ponzi-schemes, gambling and scams.

It is in this chaos that SL boomed, but sometime close to its peak (2006-2007) the management realized this isn't sustainable (for both legal and business reasons). So, they started to moderate user-content in order to make it more attractive to mainstream-consumers as well as businesses.

And we've seen how that went. Very few are interested.

"The High Court in this case has decided that if you are the host of a Facebook page, you are going to be treated as publisher, even though the comments are put there by a third party."

^^ That's just insane.

Norway.

No, they'll just continue to tax and (increasingly) regulate the exchange of crypto-currencies.

> The only thing I mind are the people pretending a real problem has been solved with NFTs.

It's not a pretend problem at all.

The author could have used any existing auction platform too sell the rights to that video without involving NFT or crypto-currency. But they would never have gotten that much money for it. NFT solves that.

NFT is to auctions what adding "Blockchain" to your publicly-listed company-name was a few years ago, it increases valuation to ridiculous levels. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-27/what-s-in...

It's stupid, but it works.

"you may not continue using the CHIA mark in your domain name"

That's a good way to cancel adoption before it even starts.

It sure is politicized from all possible sides. But we should be open to investigating the cause, so that we can create policies that can prevent future disasters.

You cannot withdraw crypto from Robinhood.

https://robinhood.com/us/en/support/articles/cryptocurrency-...

The same way you spot them in tech-stocks. When projects that don't deserve attention/funding receive a lot of attention/funding then you are in a bubble. A good recent example of that is the doge & NFT hype.

As much as i hate the speculative bubbles, the high electrical usage, difficulty of obtaining and using it, the disturbing services that are traded on the dark-net, crypto-currency is the only way to transfer money electronically today.

All non-crypto-currency based methods require permissions, and are politically gated.

Thus despite the negatives, i think crypto-currency can help connect the world.

Please Dog, just one more bubble.

Crypto's value is based on hypothetical future adoption. Since people believe Musk is a great influencer of future-adoption, his tweets make the market.

I've been looking into what problems NFT's are trying to solve, and i can't figure it out.

If they printed more Tether than there is demand for tether wouldn't the price for Tether-to-USD tank ?

"Shift the power from individuals..."

I believe they missed the core reason for crypto-currency initial traction.

After the 2008 govt-bank bailout orgy, people lost trust in both banks and governments.

There are other reasons too, sanctions that restrict individuals from doing business with people in other countries.