[HN Gopher] Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT... ___________________________________________________________________ Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi scheme Author : davidgerard Score : 158 points Date : 2021-03-14 09:51 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (amycastor.com) (TXT) w3m dump (amycastor.com) | cammikebrown wrote: | I'm surprised nobody has brought up the absurd energy | requirements of NFT. Yeah, it's been beaten to death here, but a | single transaction can be equivalent to one person's household | energy consumption for several months. And yes, I'm aware | Ethereum is working away from that, but it's taking a long time | and it's not there yet. In the meantime, I find it highly | immoral. | | Just mind-boggling wastefulness. It doesn't make me feel hopeful | about the future of the planet. | ur-whale wrote: | Yeah, NFTs are utter BS, but not much more than people who | collect actual original art pieces when you could simply hang a | replica of the original for a millionth of the price. | | People are weird is all. | exdsq wrote: | Having spent around 18 months of my life working on a top 5 | blockchain, it's pretty disheartening to see so many comments on | HN suggesting I'm some sort of MLM Ponzi Scammer when I'm | actually just a guy who's interested in various CS subjects and | few industries involve them all the same way blockchains do... | wmf wrote: | The world's trying to tell you that being an honest person in a | dishonest field isn't a good idea. I hope you're at least | getting rich. | ashkankiani wrote: | What was some of the interesting technical CS challenges you | had to face in doing so? | | I have no interest in blockchain or adjacent tech because I | don't see any technical challenges worth solving, so I'd be | interested in learning if I was mistaken to come to that | conclusion. | str33t_punk wrote: | Game theory? Distributed systems? Cryptography? | | The technical challenges in crypto are much more interesting | than that of a FANG company's (i.e enterprise software and | widgets) | vmception wrote: | MetaKovan/Sundaresan I think transfers of the B20 token should | somehow also result in royalties to all the artists in the B20 | porfolio. | | Without some form of transfer tax, this breaks the royalties | advantage of NFTs because the NFTs aren't being transferred yet. | | I think you will accrue a lot of value and attractiveness if | artists and token holders are aiming to be appealing to you and | the other competing funds that pop up, if you had a way to make | the residual go to the assets in your fund. | | You can easily add a transfer tax to the transfer() and | transferFrom() methods of the erc20 token, which gets pooled and | distributed prorata to all the NFT's royalty addresses. You can | even keep that as an array in the erc20 token. | | Email me | kotaKat wrote: | Change my view, NFTs should require full AML KYC for the artists | and buyers/bidders. | sp332 wrote: | That's not really possible to enforce. The smart contract is | loaded into the Ethereum network. Anyone on the network (who is | rich enough in network terms) can place a bid, and the winning | bid will be automatically selected by the contract code. | wallacoloo wrote: | Seems like a great way to start a flame war. | | Anyway: If you've worked with the crypto space much, you know | there's a strong undercurrent of some libertarian-esq thinking. | Crypto currencies represent decentralized trust, of some kind. | I mean, Bitcoin was created in large part _because_ Satoshi | didn't trust the central authorities in charge of the money | supply. In some areas you'll hear the phrase "governance | without government" (I.e. fiat). What gives this place any | spirit is the drive to overcome problems of distributed trust. | Take that away by forcing KYC and now you've lost any | ideological motivation to push the space forward. It just | becomes a digitization of existing societal structures. Let it | grow naturally and yeah, you'll see plenty of scams, but you | leave the door open for real innovations (like zero knowledge | proofs) that could be worth massively more than any mistakes | along the way. | wmf wrote: | Sure, if you do the same for real art. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | For HN there sure are a lot of people completely ignorant of the | technical details commenting below. | echelon wrote: | I can't believe people are getting excited over collectable | barcodes. | | Of course this is a scam. | | I can create NFTs for Beeple's art too. | | I can create NFTs for Jack Dorsey's first tweet. I'll sell you a | hundred of them if you want. | | This is exactly like buying a spot on million dollar homepage, | except anyone can make a million dollar homepage and nobody will | honor your purchase because they don't have incentive to care. | rblatz wrote: | It's like those star registries, but with less of a story less | polish and 100% more scam. | kgwgk wrote: | It's amazing that the million dollar webpage is still up. | Unlike most of the links there, I guess. | paulpauper wrote: | Alex is a man of his word | dcl wrote: | I really don't understand this. What mechanism is there to | ensure an NFT was created by the 'right person/people'? | (whatever this means). | | I could make an NFT for Mickey Mouse, and it _should_ be | worthless, but if Disney created one then maybe it could be | worth something? | Kiro wrote: | Nothing. It's a social contract. | powerapple wrote: | I guess an NFT will be signed with owner's digital signature, | it can be verified with owner's public key. It is the same | way as people can verify an encrypted email is from you with | your public key. | | It feels strange reading all these on the news now. Either | future is coming fast at us, or people are crazy. I wish I | had bought bitcoin though | PretzelPirate wrote: | Imagine some game company creates an online basketball game | and owning a LeBron NFT grants you the right to play with a | unique LeBron skin. If you aren't using the official NFT, the | game won't recognize your skin and no one will see you | playing as that version of LeBron. | | That same token might grant you access to use that skin as a | statue in Decentraland and everyone will be able to see who | issued it (based on digital signature). Other people can make | their own LeBron statues, but just like having a knock off of | a statue in real life, having the real thing is more | impressive. | | These NFTs can also encode more information such as how many | of this same item exist, which other items are in the set, | etc... and these virtual worlds can understand that info and | you can prove that you own the entire LeBron set and only 10 | sets exist. | | With NFTs being so new, people haven't seen the eventual way | they're supposed to be used across ecosystems and their only | experience with them so far is that they are useless. | iamben wrote: | Genuine question - why do you need an NFT/the blockchain | for the "in game" stuff? Why not just manage that "in | game"? | | And then I guess - outside of "in game" what incentive | would companies ever have to work with/create compatibility | with any NFT stuff as opposed to just creating something | similar themselves and owning it whole? Like if I was | Apple, would I make it compatible with Facebook and Google, | or just wall in another marketplace? | tantalor wrote: | Blockchain provides a mechanism to trade the token in a | standardized way with existing marketplace tools, and | without central authority/consent. | iamben wrote: | Right, but as a game manufacturer, wouldn't I _want_ to | be a central authority? | iamwil wrote: | Yes, but only if I think I can capture most of the | market. You see this behavior with Apple App store and | Facebooks Quest store. Because they own the hardware, | they have substantial power to be the central authority | and extract the 30% rent. | | But for smaller game studios, you may not be able to do | it, due to lack of resources, or lack of a moat, or | you're not #1 in the space. Then you'd rather go into a | collective marketplace. NFTs allow you to have | marketplaces with items that are usable in any game that | recognizes it. | | This has already happened once. For example, in Gods | Unchained (a CCG), you can import a Cryptokitty that you | own, to decorate your playing board. | | https://www.cryptokitties.co/gods-unchained | https://blog.godsunchained.com/2019/02/11/cryptokitties- | x-go... | | It's kinda like cross promotion between games, in the | same way mobile games did cross-promotional ads. | | You also see this kind of behavior with Openstreetmaps. | Google is #1, so they don't care. All the #2 and #3 | players are working together on openstreetmaps to collect | their market power to beat #1. | | What lots of people on HN don't see is that NFTs are | public interfaces for interchangable immutable items with | a history that any application can choose to honor for | interoperabililty. I think you can use it for more than | just art. | candybar wrote: | Gods Unchanied and CryptoKitties decided to mutually | acknowledge each other's NFTs so that they can each sell | more NFTs, since they are both NFT sellers first and game | developers second. There's no incentives for any game | publisher to unilaterally accept NFTs created by other | game publishers. And this collaboration only works on a | 1:1 basis - there's no good way to generically support | all NFTs that come from a collective marketplace in a | useful way and no incentives to do so without having your | own NFTs acknowledged by others. | tantalor wrote: | Yeah. But this way you don't need to build/operate the | marketplace. | deckard1 wrote: | Operating the marketplace _is the point_. | rblatz wrote: | Sounds like a great way to do all the work and let other | people get rich off of it. | iamben wrote: | But surely you'd still need to build something to work | _with_ the NFT marketplace(s)? At which point, why not | just own the whole thing? | iamacyborg wrote: | > Other people can make their own LeBron statues, but just | like having a knock off of a statue in real life, having | the real thing is more impressive. | | This is the thing though. How do you authenticate the | creator of the NFT to ensure that the "legit" token is | actually legit. | | To give you a concrete example, right now an organisation | calling themselves "GlobalArtMuseum" is selling NFT's of | artworks held in museums. This is not being done in | collaboration with any museum, the artwork is counterfeit. | | How do you set the "authentic" NFT in the first place | without rigorous compliance controls? | ahepp wrote: | So there's a central registry somewhere that validates | "this is lebron's real nft"? | candybar wrote: | Who makes money from the original NFT? Why would the game | company not want to capture the revenue with their own | NFTs? And why would Decentraland then honor the NFT some | other game company issued, instead of issuing their own? | Any entity who's providing utility associated with the NFT | is going to want to sell their own NFTs - why would they do | all the work only to have some third party capture the | value? | detaro wrote: | The mechanism that the "right people" communicate which | minting wallets are the "legit" ones. I.e. even in the less- | crazy levels (i.e. not thousands of dollars), you'll see | artists announce their wallet key on Twitter/Instagram/their | website, and it's on the buyer to check that what they buy | has the right source. (If people think that your bootleg | mickey mouse NFT has value and pay for it, well that's their | decision, they just might not find anyone who agrees later) | capableweb wrote: | Seems you answered your own question. Yeah, anyone can create | Mickey Mouse NFT but unless Disney officially releases it | themselves, people will not be (as) interested in buying. | tantalor wrote: | How do you suggest verifying the token is "official"? Call | up Disney? | capableweb wrote: | Takes like 5 seconds to check Disneys Twitter feed or | blog. If they haven't said anything, they haven't | released anything. | | How do you verify that Apple has released a new phone? | You don't, you hear from Apple that they released a new | phone. Why would it be different with NFTs? | hanniabu wrote: | It's coming from an address that Disney owns. | tantalor wrote: | Same question for that address | superbaconman wrote: | Address is linked to a wallet. Wallets can sign messages | to prove ownership of addresses. | tantalor wrote: | Same question for that wallet | hanniabu wrote: | I'm pretty sure someone like Disney will have their | wallet public on their website. They'd also likely own an | ENS domain and sit all their addresses behind that, for | example waltdisneyco.eth or something along those lines. | lm28469 wrote: | People don't buy the art, they buy the story that comes with | it. Take two chairs, one was used by Abraham Lincoln, the other | is an exact copy down to the atom, the first one would sell for | hundreds of million, the second wouldn't sell at all | brazzy wrote: | Reality check: _two_ chairs used by Abraham Lincoln sold in | 2014 for a mere $26,121. | | Source: https://www.antiquetrader.com/collectibles/lincolns- | rocking-... | [deleted] | ericlewis wrote: | Incorrect. I buy art, the story is nice - but I mostly just | like the way something looks & the fact it was handmade by | someone with a deep level of care. I'm not sure I'd call | appreciating craftsmanship a "story". | christiansakai wrote: | You guys are thinking too hard. | | It is a scam. | epinephrinios wrote: | This is how Ethereum is competing with Bitcoins in terms of | "store of value". | drcode wrote: | One of the many ways | iamacyborg wrote: | Nothing to see here | | > What's interesting is that Beeple, the creator of the artwork, | is actually a business partner of MetaKovan's. He owns 2% of all | the B20 tokens. I'm sure there is no conflict of interest here | newsclues wrote: | Art + money laundering + crypto = nft | habitue wrote: | Art + money laundering = regular fine art world[1] | | So really this is just adding crypto to the mix, because | "everything's a little bit better when you sprinkle crypto on | it" | | [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/29/business/art-money- | laundering... | rmrfrmrf wrote: | So it's "everything's better with bacon" for the 2020s? | Gross! | iamacyborg wrote: | Hopefully no one comes out with nft lube... | vmception wrote: | Sounds more art guild-like than impropriety. | | But of course, without any governance or rights. | | B20 tokens launched on January 23rd. Beeple has been on | Clubhouse and other NFT spaces for months. It is common in the | crypto space (and everywhere) to give an influencer an | "advisor" share of the project. | | Their pie-chart says 11% of the tokens are to collaborators. So | really its 13% but Beeple is the influencer that is worth | having his own separate piece of the pie, for advertising. | | "You know its legit because Beeple is involved", and its | working because now I know to bet on winners! | | This token is up 2,000% in a month and a half, and I didn't | know about it before and have been searching for the right way | to get exposure to the NFT space, and these are the winners! | They got Christie's involved and the whole world! | | I'm absolutely going to try to partner with them as I have more | clout in the crypto space. | | The real discussion is on whether there could be a more | community oriented token distribution schedule, or a similar | project without the massive team/advisor share. So there is a | market to compete in this regard. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | It's a bit much to say someone who owns some B20 tokens is a | "business partner" of MetaKovan's. Are all the token holders | "business partners"? Obviously not. | | It's enough to point out that MetaKovan has a financial | interest in increasing the value of Beeple's art. That alone | lessens the impact of this auction, and I'm a NFT booster. | | Using auctions to increase the value of your holdings is one of | the questionable things that happen in the high end art world. | Check out the Mugrabi family Warhol collection sometime. | tlb wrote: | Every art buyer has a financial interest in increasing the | value of the art they've bought. | | One reason that Christies can charge substantial fees is that | it serves as a guarantee that the transaction is somewhat | real. If an artwork changed hands privately between friends | for $1M, there'd be no reason to believe that price. But when | they're paying a 15%+ fee to an auction house, there must be | something valuable. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | Private sales affect market values all the time. | Grustaf wrote: | Of all the hilariously stupid things coming out of the scammy | world of crypto, NFTs take the biscuit. I've been hearing A16Z | and other VC podcast breathlessly talk about the brave new world | they enable. Now you can have digital assets in games, people can | buy them with real money! Finally, because that's of course not | possible without The Blockchain (tm). | | And people can use them to prove ownership of physical things, | TRUSTLESSLY. Because it's so much safer to have decentralised | system of digital bearer shares, than a central registry run by | the government or a bank, right? | | Oh but it's for third world countries where the state is not to | be trusted. Of course that also means you can't trust them to | enforce your digital bearer shares either, but that shouldn't be | a big problem. We'll just get all the farmers and villagers to | agree on using one particular blockchain bases system to keep | track of who owns what land. What could be simpler. | | And if you thought that was stupid, enter NFTs for digital art. | Yes let's use advanced technology to create digital tokens that | can't be copied, and use them to track the ownership of digital | art that can be copied indefinitely. Brilliant. | dcl wrote: | I've got some dumb questions about this whole NFT thing... | | Is the artwork actually stored in the token or does it contain a | URL that isn't guaranteed to always exist? I'm guessing there is | no mechanism to change the link if the host should go down or | stop hosting the content. | | Are NFT's used to recognise a transfer of ownership of the | intelectual property? | Kiro wrote: | It's one URL in the token pointing to a JSON file with the | metadata. In the JSON file there's another URL to the image | itself. So you need to go through two different centralized | servers to access the image. The only permanent thing is the | first URL to the JSON file but nothing prevents the hosts from | changing the content. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Last I checked it's typically hosted on ipfs | Kiro wrote: | Hm, I had a look at the 5000 days token and it's indeed an | IPFS URI: | ipfs://ipfs/QmPAg1mjxcEQPPtqsLoEcauVedaeMH81WXDPvPx3VC5zUz | | (enter 40913 at https://etherscan.io/token/0x2a46f2ffd99e19 | a89476e2f62270e0a... in tokenURI) | | With that said, I went through some random NFTs the other | day and I saw a lot of tokenURIs pointing to a plain | metadata.json on a regular server that I could access in my | browser. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | IP is generally not transferred with an NFT. There's some NFT | markets that offer that as an option, but I'm not sure how it | would hold up legally. It should be noted that IP is not | generally transferred with any physical art purchase. | | Very few current NFTs exist on-chain. A handful do, and there's | the interesting case of generative art where the code that | makes the art lives on-chain. | | There's a push to get things on Arweave, a solution that | purports to be a perpetual storage solution. In the long run, I | think all art NFTs will have to go in that direction to remain | credible. | ahepp wrote: | >Very few current NFTs exist on-chain. | | Are you saying the underlying asset isn't stored in the | blockchain? Or that the "title" isn't stored in the | blockchain? | | How is the title associated with the asset? Presumably the | title is something like a sha256 hash associated with a | wallet. How do you know that hash means "beeple artwork"? | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | As far as I can tell, most of the NFTs that have broken | into popular consciousness are entirely non-public and | nobody can verify or inspect them at all. I spent like an | hour yesterday trying to figure out which blockchain, | specifically, the $69M Beeple NFT is on; nobody seems to | know, and nobody really seems to be asking. | vmception wrote: | It is currently safe to assume Ethereum with the file | stored on IPFS. | | Christie's interface didn't just lead with the | transaction hashes, but your conclusion is pretty far | off, for now. | | Try emailing them next time. | | I'm understanding of the frustration, it took me a year | of asking similar questions about Venezuala's Petro coin, | which was even subject to pre-emptive US sanctions, | before it became official that the Petro didn't exist and | was never issued. Nobody could tell me the contract | address and people acted like I grew two-heads for even | asking, when it should have taken two seconds. | | The technology allows for really basic things to be | transparent, and when you don't lead with that stuff and | nobody asks about that stuff, it does become pretty | obvious that they aren't even using the technology. | tim333 wrote: | The Petro coin was a weird one though much about | Venezuela's economy is weird these days. | Kiro wrote: | On https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple- | first-5000-days/be... you will see the token ID (40913) | and the smart contract | (0x2a46f2ffd99e19a89476e2f62270e0a35bbf0756). | | Enter 40913 in tokenURI at https://etherscan.io/token/0x2 | a46f2ffd99e19a89476e2f62270e0a... | | You will see an IPFS URI which contains the | metafile.json: https://cloudflare- | ipfs.com/ipfs/QmPAg1mjxcEQPPtqsLoEcauVeda... | | This in turn contains a URL to the image: https://ipfsgat | eway.makersplace.com/ipfs/QmZ15eQX8FPjfrtdX3Q... | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | Thanks. That does seem to be it. | EMM_386 wrote: | > Are you saying the underlying asset isn't stored in the | blockchain? Or that the "title" isn't stored in the | blockchain? | | What even is the "asset" in a lot of cases? | | People are buying Tweets, which are generated in real time | by querying a database and generating some HTML and CSS. Or | some UI code on native platforms. Or some JSON via an API. | What is the asset? The Twitter code that generates the | Tweet? A JPEG of the Tweet itself? The text of the Tweet? | | If it's an image of the Tweet, does take into account | whether or not my user agent is in light or dark mode? | | The rabbit hole is never-ending with such questions. | thebean11 wrote: | I think a hash of the file itself is stored on chain. So | you could prove that your title matches the "artwork", but | still need to store the artwork yourself or rely on the | seller/platform to keep hosting it | machawinka wrote: | It is bullshit all the way down to such details. | dgellow wrote: | In general you serve the actual assets via IPFS or hyper, or | another immutable, decentralized network, and reference its | address. | captn3m0 wrote: | Almost always a URL. | dcl wrote: | I see. So what would you even really own once that URL goes | down. | | The whole thing relies on a weird level of trust and belief | in what other people believe to be valuable. | smitty1e wrote: | My limited understanding is the blockchain data are | distributed enough to get past the "that URL" issue. You'd | need to destroy "that unknown collection of URLs" to | eradicate the NFT. | | The problem as I see it is that NFTs lack any potential | energy. Their value is purely kinetic, and expressed in the | transaction. If no one wants my NFT, it's so much binary | noise. | Applejinx wrote: | In this way it's like the stock market to the Nth power. | | As money accumulates in larger and larger sums, and is | abstracted farther and farther from tangible real-world | power and resources, you get this. Things get increasingly | weird. | | There's got to be some kind of equilibrium point between | this stuff, and your basic anti-fiat-currency gold bug, but | I'm not sure what it is, particularly since modern | macroeconomics acknowledges the capacity to just print | money and make it up pretty quickly in the increased | economic activity that makes possible: austerity isn't | really a functional solution. This crypto stuff really | works by the same principle: if you get enough people into | it, they CAN'T crash because the important people are too | deeply enmeshed in the system and will cheat to any degree | to preserve the value of their properties. | | I think it depends what is done with it. With | macroeconomics, you can have entire countries spurred to | activity and producing goods and services because they can | transact with resources. With this crypto stuff, I very | much wonder if it ends up being a small number of very | privileged people demanding rights to increasingly silly | abstractions that are said to be the value of entire | cities, or countries. | | I'm not sure that's sustainable, politically. I'd ask, how | convenient is it for the first crypto trillionaires to buy | real-world mercenaries? Things could get very dark, albeit | in a peculiarly cyberpunk sort of way that might appeal to | some. | lottin wrote: | It's not at all like the stock market. Shareholders are | own the underlying business. NFT holders don't own the | underlying piece of art. They only own the NFT. It's like | buying a "share" that is just a blank piece of paper, and | paying millions for it! | isoskeles wrote: | I interpreted the comment to mean something more like the | derivatives market. In the derivatives market, you start | getting "weird" stuff like futures contracts, | collateralized debt obligations, or credit default swaps. | Last two examples are, admittedly, a biased reference to | 2008 since those are sort of the poster-boys of that | market crash. Futures contracts aren't really that weird, | but certainly more weird than just owning stock in a | company. | | So people might be trading (as in 2008) to "own" some | N-th power representation of private debt that ends up | going to zero because the underlying private debt itself | was not sustainable. It's different from NFT, but for | each degree of distance the financial instrument moves | away from the real world, it looks increasingly weird, | e.g. _I own a share of insurance on a fraction of a | bucket of debt people took out to buy their homes_. (And | I still think this is better than NFT unless the NFT has | some underlying real-world thing tied to it.) | Anon1096 wrote: | Derivatives markets always have some claim to an | underlying financial good. If you buy futures, you can | redeem it later for the good the futures guarantees. NFTs | have zero relation to the underlying asset they are being | connected to. All you're buying is a pointer to a piece | of art. | davidgerard wrote: | The same thing you "owned" before: the token. | | An NFT is just a pointer. Unless you have a contract | specifically transferring additional rights, you literally | just bought the pointer. | capableweb wrote: | Wrong. Most NFTs contain a content-address (hash) that is | pointing to data on IPFS. The buyer can pin and make sure the | data stays alive for everyone. Kind of like torrents but for | web. | [deleted] | zepto wrote: | > _Most_ NFTs contain a content-address (hash) that is | pointing to data on IPFS. | | Is there a stat somewhere showing that IPFS is the most | common kind of URL in NFTs? | spurdoman77 wrote: | Though, there isnt guarantee that someone will keep hosting | these? Similarly as with torrents the seeders might go | away. | | Maybe marginally better than URL but not very much IMO. | nerdponx wrote: | If the buyer takes down their pin, and nobody else has it | pinned, then that's their prerogative. The NFT is still | there on the ledger, unless the whole blockchain goes | down too. | capableweb wrote: | > Maybe marginally better than URL but not very much IMO. | | Vastly better than a URL. Content-addresses points to | content that can be served from anywhere. URLs point to | actual locations. Anyone can seed the content behind the | IPFS hash, including the owner of the NFT. | | While with a URL, you cannot change it. If the owner | wants to make it work after it disappeared, they would | have to buy the domain name, make the hosting work again | and then setup a server there, add the file so it can be | served. | | While with a IPFS hash, the owner could just turn on | their IPFS node and everything works as before. | | Big difference. | nerdponx wrote: | Can't it be a URL with an IPFS address in it? Or should | it be s/URL/URI? Does it matter? | lottin wrote: | But this has nothing to do with the NFT. | capableweb wrote: | But it does matter and has to do with the NFT. If you put | a URL, whose content can change over time, the NFT that | effectively be changed. At least what it's pointing to. | | If you're using a content-address hash, you can be sure | that you can always get back the same result from that | hash as when you got the NFT N years ago. | lottin wrote: | Yes, I can see that, but seems completely unrelated to | the NFT. The NFT and the content it points to are | independent from one another. | ectopod wrote: | A URL has another huge disadvantage: a URL is the address | of a thing, not the thing it is pointing to in itself. | The thing it is pointing to can change. If you paid $70 | million for a URL pointing to a Beeple artwork, you might | be upset if the owner of the URL changed the content to a | Rick Astley video. | davidgerard wrote: | * An NFT is just a pointer - could contain a URL, or just a | number used by its smart contract. | | * The artwork is just pointed to, it's not on the blockchain. | | * The URL may or may not exist for any given length of time | either. (Even some NFTs that tried to point to IPFS, actually | pointed to an IPFS redirector.) | | * No other rights - copyright, moral rights, reuse rights, etc | - are conveyed without an explicit contractual transfer. Even | the Christie's deal says, once you dig through the 33-page | sales agreement, that you are just buying the token itself, and | not the image pointed to. | | Also, you have zero guarantee that the artist had anything to | do with that particular NFT - and there's a _lot_ of NFT | grifters "minting" other people's art. | qixxiq wrote: | A minor clarification about IPFS here: | | The metadata in the NFT can (and in my opinion _should_) | point to an ipfs:// style URL. The websites displaying the | NFT would have to use some redirector, _but_ the actual token | would have a URL that anyone could host (known as "pinning") | on the IPFS network. | gigatexal wrote: | I find it hard to believe that all this hype and these huge | dollar figures of these NFTs and art being at the center that | none of this is being fueled my money laundering. Jack's first | tweet? What value is there in that? The Beeple "art", same | question. All of this seems like a scam. | ceejayoz wrote: | It's pretty baffling. You don't even _own_ Jack 's first tweet. | You can't delete it or control it in any fashion. You have no | IP rights to it. You own a unique link to it... it's like | paying for a bit.ly link. | skyzadev wrote: | NFTs are HIGHLY inflated right now - paying $2mil for a tweet | is NOT real demand. It's marketing by people with a stake in | the industry. Justin Sun who bid $2mil for Jack Dorsey's tweet | runs a blockchain network called Tron. I think NFTs will | stabilize at some point but it isn't going to go away that's | for sure. | rblatz wrote: | So from the outside looking in this looks very silly, not | highly inflated. In fact on the surface it looks clearly like | a scam with a lot of hand waving and philosophical nonsense | tacked on to confuse people. | | Anyone can mint an NFT that points to whatever, and the | benefits you get are purely imaginary or at best speculative | that a greater fool may exist and buy it from you for a | higher price. | | The art world while also somewhat suspect at least has | physical possession/ownership. | la_fayette wrote: | It boils down to the same question why somebody would pay | millions for a picture with a couple of squares on it (see e.g. | piet mondrian)? I guess one aspect is, that rich people can | show off for their rich friends what shit they can afford... | ceejayoz wrote: | You don't _own_ the artwork, though. | | You own the equivalent of a museum's _accession number_. | jonas21 wrote: | For me, the weirdest part is that you apparently place a | $70,000,000 bid at Christie's the same way you'd place a $70 bid | for a used phone on eBay. | | https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1370227566125096961 | ALittleLight wrote: | Also weird that at around 1:55 in this video the user seems to | be trying to place a bid for 70 million and can't for some | reason. Is this a bug in their auction UI costing someone 10 | million dollars? | | https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1370227566125096961 | Grustaf wrote: | Was he using RobinHood? | trhway wrote: | For people placing $70M bids those money are probably less | important than $70 for somebody who buys a used phone. | | Wrt. the people trying to question what value NFT has - well | what value a piece of a paper with a black square has? I'd | guess close to $0 or less - a ruined piece of paper. Until of | course it is said to be done by Kandinsky. The value of the | most of the art is in that information, not in the material | artifact. NFT is just a distillation of that idea. | | Reminds a recent Russian meme - a photo of Kandinsky with a | bubble "Everybody can paint the same. Not everybody can sell | the same way." | gomoon wrote: | great article! | amycastor wrote: | Thank you! | stevesimmons wrote: | So the actual cost net of related party transactions was not $60m | + $9m auction fees, but just the $9m in fees. | | And who knows whether Christie's keeps all that, or part/most | finds it way back to Beeple/MetaKovan/Sundaresan in other ways. | stevesimmons wrote: | Oh, at least good to read that MetaKovan/Sundaresan is a YC | alumni... | vmception wrote: | MetaKovan/Sundaresan email me, my email is listed in my | profile, I have other NFT projects for you and your fund, and | also some recommendations for the B20 token. | patentatt wrote: | > What's interesting is that Beeple, the creator of the artwork, | is actually a business partner of MetaKovan's. He owns 2% of all | the B20 tokens. I'm sure there is no conflict of interest here. | | And they're basically selling it off to 'investors.' So it was | really just an elaborate marketing ploy for some shady crypto | currency? I'm surprised an institution like Christie's was | willing to lend their reputation to such an endeavor. Or were | they conned too? Or did they actually net that $9m 'fee' which is | enough to buy Christie's reputation? | vmception wrote: | Private equity funds participate in art auctions all the time, | crypto in this case just makes it easier to make something | analogous to an ETF. | ed25519FUUU wrote: | To get an idea of what's selling for $70 million, take a look | at: | | > | _https://mobile.twitter.com/beeple/status/1347406074685566977_ | | There's too much money being pumped. Crypto is a symptom not a | solution. | paulpauper wrote: | This sounds like a great way to facilitate money laundering . I | put up a smileyface NFT for $10 million and then someone, that | person being myself, 'buys' it for $10 millions, funds change | wallets, with receipt of payment on blockchain. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | That sounds like a good way to layer, but that in and of itself | doesn't launder the money | daenz wrote: | I feel like I'm saying "the emperor has no clothes", but doesn't | anyone else think this NFT art thing is bullshit? Everything | about it screams "scam": they're asking you to spend your real, | hard-earned money on some digital "asset", pumped by celebrity | influencers and hype entrepreneurs. Everyone is drawn to the big | multi-million dollar figures of these high profile artists, | figures that you will never see for your "assets", and do nothing | but serve as a siren's call to everyone around. These high | profile sales are marketing, nothing more. They are serving their | purpose to kick start the mainstream adoption of this scam, | because everyone thinks they can make a quick buck buying some | digital signature. | | What's more is the pseudo-intellectual justifications for it all. | As soon as you bring up value, proponents put on their philosophy | hat and ponder "what is value? money is just paper, maaaaan, we | just believe it has value." Or we hear that owning a digital | "asset" is actually the same thing as a physical "asset" because | they're both unique things that can't be copied. It's all smoke | and mirrors, and you know that when you have to hide behind vague | philosophical assertions about "well nothing _really_ has any | value ", then you have no actual argument supporting the value of | the thing you're defending. It's a new illusion, pumped by hype, | and they're trying to justify its existence by pointing to other | illusions. | | Thanks but count me out. | bouncycastle wrote: | Not everyone. | | Personally I'm buying only stuff that resonates with me. I do | not plan to flip it for a quick profit. In fact, my.taste is | sometimes so eccentric that I doubt anyone else will want to | buy them from me. However, I must say that owning a NFT to an | artwork, gives you a stronger connection to it, even if it is | digital. The artist also appreciate that you support their | work. | | That's the way you should go about this too. If you see | anything promoted by celebrities, run, run away. Also avoid | corporations caching in on it like the NBA. Only buy from | Artists directly, and if you must, then trade only peer-to- | peer. | sneak wrote: | Buying an NFT from anyone other than the original artist does | not support the artist in any way. | nerdponx wrote: | Huh? | | Buying art with an NFT is just a way to give artists and/or art | auctioneers money for their art. That's it. | | Oh and it can be used for other things like event ticketing, | software license keys, etc. | | An NFT is just a way to record (in an immutable distributed | ledger) that a specific, uniquely-identifiable token was | transferred from A to B. | | People have always paid stupid amounts of money for art, and in | the last 100 years increasingly art that doesn't require years | of training/practice and advanced craftsmanship. Why is this | any different? | | It sounds like you just don't want to be involved in the art | market, which nobody in their right mind wants to be involved | in anyway. | | Complaining about NFTs is like complaining about "blockchain" | or "the internet" or whatever. | stickfigure wrote: | > Why is this any different? | | Because if you buy a painting, you can hang it on your wall. | djitz wrote: | Buy an NFT and make it your desktop and mobile backgrounds. | You're welcome. | andreilys wrote: | You don't need to buy an NFT to make it your desktop or | mobile background. | everly wrote: | Right and you can also buy a cheap print of an expensive, | famous piece and hang it on your wall. In fact, people do | it all the time! Doesn't diminish the value of the | original. | finexplained wrote: | Except that in this case the bits are literally | identical. | jackvezkovic wrote: | So, if we in the future are able to clone a Mona Lisa | perfectly, will it be as worth as the original? Does it | decrease the value of the original? | Grustaf wrote: | Even if that were possible, it wouldn't BE the original. | Digital bits, unlike physical matter, has no identity, so | the concept of "original" makes no sense. | iamacyborg wrote: | No, because the original was made hundreds of years ago | by a now globally recognised artist. A jpg is just a jpg. | mint2 wrote: | Perfectly as in the exact paint compounds, the effect of | that order of brush strokes and timing, and then aging. | Such that no art expert or chemical/forensic analysis can | tell them apart other than the label saying which is | which? | | That doesn't not sound at all feasible. But if it were, | then sure the prices would have to be close for the | original and new one. It sounds impossible to do, and | extremely easy expensive to make a copy like that of a | real painting. It's stupidly easy and simple to do with a | digital work. | miracle2k wrote: | Any number of artworks are being sold which allow for | reproducibility, say photographs. Expensive limited | edition prints are a thing. In most of those cases the | particular physical manifestation you acquire is entirely | a construct. Even for an original painting, the fact that | you desire that particular manifestation (over say an | improved one which the original artist may now be able to | do) is a construct. If a painting needs restoration, you | may find that some elements are no longer original; this | will not diminish its value. If over the years we replace | all the parts of the Mona Lisa, it will still be the Mona | Lisa (see also: the Ship of Theseus). | tantalor wrote: | It diminishes you, it's tacky. | rodonn wrote: | You can do this without buying the NFT also. | palebluedot wrote: | Here is one thing I have a hard time wrapping my head around, | and how I think it is fundamentally different from something | like a painting: | | The thing that is "non-fungible" is the token, not the actual | art. The underlying digital asset is actually fungible with | copies of it. With a painting, there are prints and | reproductions of the Mona Lisa, but they are all | fundamentally different in some way - the exact brush stroke | texture, etc. | | NFTs have this feeling of valuing the receipt, not the art. | As if I walked into a gift shop at The Louvre and bought a | Mona Lisa slick poster print, but then valued the gift store | receipt more than the more-or-less completely replaceable | poster. | nerdponx wrote: | It's like buying a piece of land. You don't physically take | the land home, you just acquire new and specific rights | depending on your legal jurisdiction. Are you buying the | property, or just the deed to the property? | pitaj wrote: | Land can't be copied. Land is rivalrous. Digital art is | not, in any meaningful way. | programmarchy wrote: | Try telling that to the MPAA. | Grustaf wrote: | No it's more like the opposite of buying land. Land is | non-fungible, "digital art" is exceedingly fungible. A | land deed is perhaps not fungible, but it is | reproducible, unlike an NFT. | | I heard the bozos on the A16Z podcast (I think it was) | compare NFTs to land deeds, but they very seldom know | what they're talking about. | mejutoco wrote: | Acquiring the land makes you the legal owner of it, | backed by the law of the country and its military. Owning | the nft has no legal consequence at the moment. Who will | enforce any right on your behalf? | miracle2k wrote: | Which rights? Legal rights that the artist wants to sell | alongside the token can be legally enforced. Beyond that, | the ownership of the token is enforced by the blockchain, | and that ownership token _is the thing people value_. | lottin wrote: | From what I gather a blockchain doesn't enforce anything. | It simply states who owns what. Anybody can create a | blockchain and own the world's entire supply of gold | according to that blockchain. But can they enforce that | ownership? No, they can't. | joosters wrote: | It doesn't even do that. You can easily have one unique | NFT claiming it represents ownership of the Mona Lisa, | and another, unique and distinct NFT, also claiming | ownership of the Mona Lisa. Besides ownership being | unenforced, uniqueness is also unenforced. | sneak wrote: | > _Legal rights that the artist wants to sell alongside | the token can be legally enforced._ | | For the first sale. I'm not sure current contract law | permits any legal rights to follow the token in | subsequent sales. | benreesman wrote: | If you have the deed to a piece of land that's (usually, | in stable-ish jurisdictions) backed by the police and | ultimately, military, of the government. You can stand on | it, build on it, possible mine it, and the cops will stop | anyone from interfering. | weare138 wrote: | > _Buying art with an NFT is just a way to give artists and | /or art auctioneers money for their art. That's it._ | | But we could already do that. It's a solution to a problem no | one had. A NFT would only be useful for proving ownership if | it will hold up in court, which I doubt it would without | accompanying proof of purchase. | maxerickson wrote: | Does most of the money actually go to artists? | TigeriusKirk wrote: | From the original sale almost all of it goes to the person | who minted it, minus a small fee (around 5%) for the | platform. That _should_ be the artist, but of course there | are people minting art that isn 't theirs. There's efforts | to catch and remove that, but a lot slips through. | | From secondary market sales, the artist can get a royalty | if they choose and the secondary transaction is on the same | platform. Typically around 10%. The same platform | requirement is an issue and hopefully a future NFT standard | smart contract will build in a royalty option/. | ALittleLight wrote: | How do you remove tokens minted by people other than the | artist? Who removes it, and what stops that person or | those people from removing legitimate tokens? | cmrdsprklpny wrote: | If the artist is themself selling the art as an NFT, I | believe so. | rodonn wrote: | Yes, but there is a big problem of people other than the | artist creating NFTs for other peoples art. There is | nothing in the NFT process that guarantees the money is | going to the "right" person. | Grustaf wrote: | Because without NFTs there would be no way to give money to | the original artist, right. | ahepp wrote: | How is the token associated with the work? | Kiro wrote: | The token (according to the ERC-721 standard) contains a | URL to a hosted JSON which contains a URL to the hosted | image. So to access the actual image you need to go through | two different servers. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Serious question: What happens in 20 years if the domain | registration for that URL is not renewed, or the website | hosting that JSON is gone? | parhamn wrote: | I don't part take. But I think you're a bit too quick to | dismiss the "social" part of economics, remember it's a social | science after all. Once you include that, your rational | valuation frameworks start to erode as it becomes subjective | (even worse, collectively subjective). Then the rest of the | conversation is shouting over each other. Both sides are right, | it is insane, but it's insane because it wants to be insane. | History will look at it positively if it crosses some | threshold/tipping point of social acceptance. And negatively if | it doesn't. That's all there is to it really. | | The lines between economies and schemes are blurry and hero's | and villains are only declared once the dust settles. We're not | there yet. | chedine wrote: | Well said, this is exactly what it is | egypturnash wrote: | IMHO, it's just the same game as with the gallery art scheme, | except on top of cryptocurrencies. | | As a broke artist, if I can get some rich assholes to start | convincing each other that my art has ludicrous amounts of | money, then I will happily let them pay me for it, and let the | gallery owner who was instrumental in convincing them of this | value have a healthy cut. If the gallery owner wants to arrange | a money-laundering kickback to the rich assholes that's their | own business, personally I feel like I'd rather avoid it but | who knows how I'll feel when I'm being offered a price with | enough zeros at the end of its number? | numbsafari wrote: | Cheesy police procedural plot line... | | Create a bunch of art, put the ownership into a decentralized | autonomous organization with 51% held by the artist and the | other 49% held by a bunch of random, anonymous "owners". | | Start the hype train with a loud, crazy scandal that results | in the "death" of the artist. | | The artist's estate leaves their stake to the gallery owner | who starts to sell off the stake at stupid prices following | the death of the artist. | | Secretly, you've faked your death and also were in control of | the "anonymous" ownership stake. You can launder the | increased value of that part of the stake and recombine it | through a bunch of shells and mixers. | | Who knows, maybe this was "Satoshi"'s plan all along. That | "unclaimed" stake was just there to increase the mystery and | the hype, meanwhile "he" actually had control of a bunch of | other coin that "he" was able to launder at a later date. | tim333 wrote: | I imagine Satoshi, if not dumb, which I doubt he was, had | other bitcoins apart from the publicly held ones. | vmception wrote: | Funny, but the actual plot of this timeline is to support | living artists, and we've collectively leveraged that | sentiment to create entirely new infrastructure to support | that. This is the beginning of it. | egypturnash wrote: | Honestly I think Patreon does just as well to support | living artists, without all the bullshit that comes from | the "convince some absurdly rich asshole that your worth | is worth absurd amounts of money" game, and also without | the extra layers of bullshit that comes from involving | cryptocurrency in it. I'd rather convince a few hundred | people that my stuff's worth a buck or three per month. | Feels a lot more sustainable, and less likely to end up | with someone deciding to kill you to bump up the value of | their investment in your originals. | | I mean if you've got a bunch of money burning a hole in | your pocket, I'll gladly take it off your hands. My | Patreon's over at https://www.patreon.com/egypturnash. | vmception wrote: | It's the same game and sentiment, and there are plenty of | people that don't like the trend of patreon, onlyfans, | github sponors to make a buck. | | The NFT space is building in royalties via transfer | taxes. Which means you the artist would earn a lot more | from volume than from the initial sale, and this is | potentially even better than the subscription SaaS model, | and for people that want to support you they may be even | incentivized to keep you alive to make sure the royalty | goes to you instead of possibly burned. | | I don't really see using stablecoins such as USDC or DAI | as "extra layers of bullshit that comes from involving | cryptocurrency". In the US with the latest OCC | regulations, these are the same as using settlement | networks like FedWire or SWIFT. Your self-limiting | philosophy requires conflating all aspects of | cryptocurrency as the same, and the good news is that you | will find a lot of camaraderie in doing that, for now. | UncleMeat wrote: | I think there are few things. | | 1. There are some people who struck it megarich with crypto and | now have so much "f-u money" that they are willing to spend it | on conspicuous consumption. It is the same sort of thing that | comes from "look at how much money I lit on fire" posts being | given social credit in places like WSB. | | 2. There are other people who already had a gazillion dollars | and are also interested in conspicuous consumption. | | 3. NFTs are trendy and trends in the crypto space attract | people seeking to make money on a trend. A bunch of people are | surely buying these things hoping to leave somebody else | holding the bag. | | 4. It is crypto, so some degree of fraud and crime is involved. | spinny wrote: | > 4. It is crypto, so some degree of fraud and crime is | involved. | | some degree of fraud and crime exists in regards to anything | of value. Money laundering existed before cryptos. Most banks | caught laundering money, did it at a massive scale in | comparison to the value of the Bitcoin network. Fraud and | crime are directly connected with value | UncleMeat wrote: | Sure. Fraud and crime have been part of art sales for | centuries. I'm not saying that crypto is unique here. Only | that it is a force that cannot be discounted when analyzing | an ecosystem. | ahepp wrote: | If my bank has insider fraud, I usually don't lose my | deposits | ric2b wrote: | But sometimes you do. See: Cyprus in 2008 | ahepp wrote: | Yeah, in shady tax haven jurisdictions. It's the wild | west factor. | fakename11 wrote: | Exactly, also there was this bank that went bankrupt in | the 1800s and everyone lost their money too!!!!! You | can't trust the system! | ptero wrote: | That is, sadly, not how it works in many countries -- if | the money is gone, it's gone. | dgellow wrote: | It's bullshit (in the sense "absurd and meaningless") but I | wouldn't call it a scam. | | Something I wrote yesterday[0] that I think is relevant here: | | > I'm not sure I understand the hate for NFTs. Don't get me | wrong, the concept of NFT as currently used is completely | absurd and definitely overhyped. But what is bad about it? | People who spend their money on NFTs mostly do it because they | got rich in the past few years gambling on BTC or ETH, and now | use that money to basically tip the artists they like. Or they | plan to resell the token at some point, which is pure | speculation, but nobody other than themselves risk to get burn. | Minting and selling NFTs is almost zero work and effort for | artists, all the risks are on the buyers side, and only if they | buy them as speculative assets. | | > It still make no sense to me, but if rich people want to | gamble their money and by doing so support some artists, that | doesn't sound too bad IMHO. | | > I would be more cautious if retail investors would start to | gamble in this market, but that's not what I've seen so far. | | [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26448481 | 542458 wrote: | Anecdotally, I've seen a large number of retail-ish early | adopters jumping into NFTs on Twitter. | | And I can't help but wonder if it is a true scam - you could | do some massive early transactions to pump of perceived | values and create get-rich-quick hype (optimally, these | should mostly be left-hand-to-right-hand transactions), then | go ahead and make money as an NFT marketplace. Or by selling | other works from the artists that you just pumped to the moon | (which you had purchased before the pump operation). | egfx wrote: | What are some examples of nft early adopters on Twitter? As | far as accounts and specific tweets. | Grustaf wrote: | That's exactly how the traditional art world works, so why | not... NTFs just makes it more efficient! | ericlewis wrote: | The fact it's been in the news way more on top of the Bitcoin | stuff has had the retail investors around me ask a lot about | these NFTs and Bitcoin and if they should sink thousands of | dollars into them. | | This stuff is in the news to sell the crap to the people who | don't really know what they are doing. | dgellow wrote: | Yeah, that sounds horrible. Thanks for sharing, I wasn't | aware of this | mdoms wrote: | Did you read the article? It's plainly a scam. There's no | sensible way to look at this without concluding "scam". | dorkwood wrote: | If someone truly understands that the money is coming from | crypto speculators, and that the way to make money is to | essentially become an NFT influencer, then it's hard to fault | them for extracting money from millionaires. But most artists | in the space are convinced that the money is coming from | real-life art collectors. I've seen multiple people quit | their jobs to sell NFTs full-time. They say this is the | future of making money as an artist -- that the true value of | their art is finally being appreciated. It's hard not to | dislike such a misinformation campaign. | lottin wrote: | Unbelievable! How can people be so gullible? | Hoasi wrote: | > this is the future of making money as an artist | | The artists who create the future cannot short-sell | themselves, can they? | lupire wrote: | Not just quitting jobs, but the artists are paying huge | fees the marketplaces and getting nothing for it. | bodhi_mind wrote: | Minting and selling can actually cost the price of a meal at | a restaurant depending on ethereum fuel prices. The nft | marketplaces are making a killing even if your art doesn't | sell. In that sense, there is potential harm to artists who | get caught up in this. | DennisP wrote: | That will change as NFT marketplaces migrate to rollups. | dgellow wrote: | That's right, though that's quite limited. And you can use | other blockchains than Ethereum, Tezos (a proof of stake | blockchain with smart contracts) has NFTs platforms too and | doesn't have the high gas fee issue. | timnetworks wrote: | Imagine if instead of a piece of art, it were your orange juice | pint that came with a token. You could check it to see where | that batch of oranges came from, if there are any FDA recalls | on it, or whether your religious certification was reversed due | to a hilarious but tragic cheese danish accident. | | Other people can also see this information, but it isn't as | useful to them. | atleta wrote: | I talked to a guy a few weeks ago. He needed help with his art | related NFT project. Basically he was looking for a CTO because | he had no idea whether his developers were doing a good job | (and, I'd also add, what he built wasn't necessarily what he | needed to build). | | I have a pretty good understanding of block chain technologies | but didn't hear about NFTs before, so like you, I started to | challenge his ideas. Partly to understand what he was building. | Because at first I tried to find real and practical | applications for the platform that somehow connect to physical | things, works of art. | | But what he said was pretty interesting. The guy had a | background in art management and, I think, trade. He said that | art collection has always been about being able to say that you | have _the original_ piece. And that it 's not rational anyway, | not even for physical works of art, like paintings. It's not | that you like the actual picture on the actual canvas so much | that you want to buy it for say $1M and if you just had a copy | you'd notice the difference and that wouldn't give you as much | pleasure. It's simply about having _the original_. And also | _collecting_ related _originals_. | | Now it's easy to trace it back to real, actual scarcity, where | indeed there weren't many e.g. paintings (or books, etc.) and | there was a big difference between the paintings of different | artists (both in style and quality) and you had no way of | looking at these other than having the originals probably. | | I guess the big question here is whether this phenomenon is | strong enough on its own to transfer to purely digital assets | or whether this is really rooted and tied to that original | scarcity that we kept changing the story around. (I.e. while | it's not about being able to enjoy and look at the piece | anymore, now it's tied to the knowledge that that specific | piece of canvas was painted on by that specific very talented | guy X hundred years ago, and he was standing in front, etc.) | | One hint might be those 'limited edition' sport cards that some | people seem to collect, as well as 'limited edition' e.g. CD or | vinyl albums from the past millenium. (I never understood | those, but I had a friend who did get a very obvious joy out of | being able to buy those. For me, these were always just | delivery mediums and I only cared about the music.) | | Honestly, I have no idea, but that call was definitely | interesting. | miracle2k wrote: | Bravo. Also consider for example Sol LeWitts Wall Drawings, | which can be sold as a set of drawing instructions, and need | not exist in physical form: | | https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/lewitt-wall- | drawing-113... | | In that sense, this is ownership over something intangible | very much like NFTs. | clairity wrote: | it's the same kind of financial intermediation to extract | wealth without providing value that underlies ponzi schemes and | the derivatives that got us the 2008 crisis. it's a lot of | wealth accumulation for its own sake detached from its real | basis as a claim on (someone else's) productivity. | | in short, it's bullshit, but for the tech crowd rather than | wall streeters. | bradleyjg wrote: | A few fairly disconnected thoughts: | | 1) It could be a scam of sorts, but one that the parties are in | on. For example tax fraud or an attempt evade capital controls. | | 2) Leave aside digital anything, art has gotten really weird | lately. The self destructing Banksy thing, the banana duct tape | thing---I could see being knowingly, publicly scammed as some | kind of bizarre performance art. I guess the super rich are | really bored. | | 3) The most reasonable spin on it I could think of is what if | there was a limited edition print where the print itself wasn't | limited edition. There were as many prints as anyone wanted to | buy for the cost of production, but the artist sold a small | number of certificates of authenticity. It still seems kind of | pointless and scammy to me but it's at least closer to | understandable. | formerly_proven wrote: | Crypto IFF: It's a scam unless there's compelling evidence to | the contrary. | Angostura wrote: | I think of them like paying for a signed, numbered print. On | that left it seems reasonable. The prices, seem less | reasonable. | NelsonMinar wrote: | Only you set a whole forest on fire every time you buy a | print. | kevinwang wrote: | Source? | Hjfrf wrote: | Forest is a clear exagerration, but this article goes | over numbers. | | A few weeks of ordinary household energy usage per NFT is | realistic. | | https://www.loop-news.com/p/the-big-problem-with-nfts- | energy | grey-area wrote: | And you don't actually get the print, you get a number. | | People are buying a number here which has no relation for | he actual artwork. You own nothing but the number. | SwimSwimHungry wrote: | We truly are in the era of more money than sense. I get | that people want put their money into something other | than virtually-worthless low-interest savings accounts, | but where will we all be once the musical chairs stops? | benreesman wrote: | I don't think anyone knows, but it's starting to look | like we might find out soon: | | https://g.co/kgs/C5ZSHk | carver wrote: | Yeah, digital-only NFTs will likely be a fad. I'll be | interested again when the trend moves toward deeds. A title for | a physical work could have staying power. Even potentially an | iou from an artist for a one of a kind (physical) piece. | stelonix wrote: | It's pretty obvious any why I look at it. The resemblances with | MLM are staggering and the late-stage capitalism arguments for | NFTs are baffling. It makes me see bitcoins and other | cryptocurrencies as not so fun anymore and just a big | capitalist scam. | [deleted] | Moodles wrote: | I'm surprised blockchains are _still_ being hyped even though | they have practically no useful applications for business. Of | all buzzwords, blockchain must surely have the worst hype-to- | usefulness ratio of all-time. Having said that, even though | paying for a digital signature on a blockchain is absolutely | ridiculous in my opinion, if people know what they 're buying | then I don't really care what they choose to waste their money | on. | dqpb wrote: | Most people on HN are (rightly so) calling bullshit on the | technology. I think it's worth noting though that there does | seem to be a legit market for it, so it's probably worth | considering what it would take to make the technology not | bullshit. | iamacyborg wrote: | I guess the challenge is separating the bullshit from the | technology. Right now they're joined at the hip. | NoOneNew wrote: | I'm going to disagree with you. Pseudo-intellectual gives the | "justifications" far too much credit. | | What I also find hilarious, folks who love this NFT "can't be | copied" are great are the same people who hate DRM. While I'm | not a fan of intrusive DRM, I'm going to side with paying what | folks deserve for putting time into coding/art/planning for a | game/movie/whatever. I get something from their effort, they | deserve something in return. | | That and I'd rather buy a $20 poster of art from my real life | wall than over glorified digital wallpaper. | Animats wrote: | Henry Ford got this. He was once pitched by some art dealers, | who gave him a big book of prints of artworks they had for | sale. He then asked, now that I have this book, why would I | want the original? | vmception wrote: | Not quite. | | People are using NFTs as stores of value. Despite spending, the | owners are not illiquid and are much more liquid than fine art | collectors, as borrowing at decently high Loan to Value ratios | against the NFT can happen in the subsequent block. | | Given your existing predilection, knowing that probably also | just moves the goal post for why you think there is something | wrong with it "omg, now there's _leverage_!? ". But its just an | efficiency on the existing art world which has all the same | stuff just much slower due to poor data and information, and | nothing to do with the pseudo-intellection abstraction of | value. | | In a single protocol (standardized class with a set of | standardized functions), art provenance has been disrupted, art | appraisal has been disrupted, art insurance has been disrupted, | art lending has been disrupted, and art royalties have been | disrupted. | | You will just be seeing more participants in the collectors | market because of it, and a market that moves faster and can | attract more capital globally, instantly, during a period of | massive currency creation. | | Its not anybody's problem that new galleries/marketplaces have | fees for the artists. Its not anybody's problem that there will | still be a ton of starving artists that will never get bids on | these platforms. Its not anybody's problem that a buyer ends up | with an asset that might not be valued the same or higher or | ever get a bid again. Its not anybody's problem that a lender | winds up with an illiquid asset. Buy art you like and from | creators you like to support, maybe some times you won't get | outbid. | swayvil wrote: | I think that you underestimate the power of bullshit. | | We can create reality out of nothing but talk now. If enough | people assert a story as real then it is indeed real. Social | media is wonderful for this. | | Yes, it's basically 1984 with some extra steps. | hshshs2 wrote: | so it's just like most other art then | Traster wrote: | So NFTs are valuable because they're unique- but this guy has | created a fractional ownership screen so an unlimited number of | people can own 1 NFT. Oh and he's lying about his identity and | business relationships. | dgellow wrote: | > So NFTs are valuable because they're unique- | | Just a small correction: they are "valuable" because they are | unique AND because people want them. Otherwise they have no | value. Scarcity in itself isn't enough to have value, you still | have to create hype around the token somehow. | | ("valuable" in quotes, because it's really not that clear there | is any actual value in an NFT that isn't legally binding...) | ahepp wrote: | Not clear that it's scarce either, since the guy owns 59% of | them. Seems like a classic trick to jack up the "market cap" | ketamine__ wrote: | This is an industry where a startup launches and a few days | later has a $400 million market cap. | achimlittlepage wrote: | NFTs is the unwritten chapter of Infinite Jest that eventually | led to DFW committing suicide. Start with something | decentralized, layer a bunch of centralized entities on top of it | and, Voila, you have, you have no idea what you have. | throwaway4good wrote: | I just love to see art being pushed forward. | | We had Duchamp with his pissoir in 1920. I remember someone | exhibiting a goldfish in a blender. And now this ... | | They would say that art is what happens between the artwork and | the observer. But of course it is much broader than that. There | is also the artist, the story, the room, the broader society and | ... the market. | UncleMeat wrote: | But notice how virtually zero of this discussion is about the | content of the work. Just its sale mechanism. Even the banana | on the wall had people discussing its nature as art. | vmception wrote: | For me that piece is hard to see. | | There have been discussions about it and its value, here on | HN. Mostly people that were mad that they exchanging a fixed | amount of time in a small range of price per hour for money | instead of creating an unlimited number of assets and | exchanging them at an unlimited range of prices. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-14 23:00 UTC)