NFTs- legitimate or a scam?

[-Astoria-]

This image was slated to be sold for (almost) a third of a million dollars, but ended up going for $3k to a random bot.

I still don't understand the point of the obscene prices for something that's just for a proof of ownership of <thing>.

[-Astoria-]

I'm excited to see the day when they start selling "original screenshots" of NFTs as new NFTs and people actually pay money for them

Do NOT give anyone any ideas!

Mind you, I'm certain that's probably already a thing by now...

[Cannot think of a name]

Like, what does it really mean to 'own' nan cat? That was one of the first big NFT stories, but people being able to use Nan Cat hasn't changed, just now somewhere someone with money to burn can go, "I 'own' that."

The "proof of ownership" is supposedly tied to a specific given cryptocurrency's blockchain. People who didn't buy an NFT won't be listed in the history on a blockchain ledger. When an NFT is minted, there is supposed to be a fixed supply so that it retains some value via scarcity if it happens to be in demand. Problem is, its fully possible for people to create an NFT of something and sell it to other people, even if they have no actual copyright rights/authority to be doing that if its not their own original work/project.

If the cryptocurrency it is tied to loses all value, that is perhaps also a problem NFTs can run into. BitCoin is valuable because it was the first, but only so many other "coins" in the genre are considered valuable enough to be considered a big deal. There is also Ethereum and Solana. Not too sure about Ripple. Most of the other crypto-coins people don't seem to currently care about asides from Shiba Inu having growth potential.

Still waiting for my Tulip Bulb to make a comeback...

Anyway, I'm from gold country, we grow up knowing that when people jump up and down shouting "GOLD GOLD GOLD" the gold is gone and the only money to be made is in selling shovels.

Most underrated statement in this entire thread.

It's a lesson that really sticks when the city you grew up near still has the literal building they sold the shovels as a historic landmark and the guys who sold the shovel's names on a bunch of shit.

[The Blaatschapen]

Would you spend $100,000,000 on a picture of a monkey
or live your life normal and keep the money?

If I had $100 million I wouldn't be living my life in a normal way

[Cannot think of a name]

Would you spend $100,000,000 on a picture of a monkey
or live your life normal and keep the money?

If I had $100 million I wouldn't be living my life in a normal way

I mean, if I could use it to find a way to bilk rich people out of money that I could then use to make the lives of poor people better, that'd be awesome. But I can't bilk them out of enough money to make my life easier, so...

[Juristonia]

Absolute scam.

Would you spend $100,000,000 on a picture of a monkey
or live your life normal and keep the money?

If I had $100,000,000 and an interest in NFTs, I probably made that $100,000,000 by selling NFTs to gullible idiots.

Anyway, I'm from gold country, we grow up knowing that when people jump up and down shouting "GOLD GOLD GOLD" the gold is gone and the only money to be made is in selling shovels.

And it seems to me that cryptocurrency and NFTs and such suddenly have a whooooole lot of shovel salespeople.

I'm just quoting this cause it's the most quote-worthy thing I've read on here in a while.

[Ethel mermania]

Would you spend $100,000,000 on a picture of a monkey
or live your life normal and keep the money?

If I had $100 million I wouldn't be living my life in a normal way

Gold plated Porcelain feed bowls.

[Port Caverton]

The verified Stan Lee account on Twitter just posted an NFT...

[Juristonia]

The verified Stan Lee account on Twitter just posted an NFT...

(Image)

Not surprising. They were leaching off the guy before he died. Why stop now.

[The Blaatschapen]

If I had $100 million I wouldn't be living my life in a normal way

Gold plated Porcelain feed bowls.

Exactly. Grass fed with volcano soil.

[Saiwania]

If I got even $10,000,000 chances are high I'll never need to work. Even after paying taxes on it. That is what I'd say counts. I'd park it in dividend ETFs or other assets and call it a day. Imagine, being a NEET society can't complain about but can only be jealous of.

[Cannot think of a name]

If I got even $10,000,000 chances are high I'll never need to work. Even after paying taxes on it. That is what I'd say counts. I'd park it in dividend ETFs or other assets and call it a day. Imagine, being a NEET society can't complain about but can only be jealous of.

Oh yeah, no one complains about idle wealth.

[Elejamie]

I'm excited to see the day when they start selling "original screenshots" of NFTs as new NFTs and people actually pay money for them

Considering that someone once pirated a whole bunch of NFTs (not just the artwork itself but also the token which is where the money really lies), I wouldn't be surprised if that's the next logical step.

Would you spend $100,000,000 on a picture of a monkey
or live your life normal and keep the money?

Not just that but a picture of a monkey that was made on the cheap in something like Picrew (or even by an AI) and can easily be replicable with a simple screenshot or right click. At least with physical art like paintings or statues you can see the value and why they're worth so much even if it involves the most precise of magnifying equipment.

Well, that's the thing. You don't have to go to nepharious lengths to use someone else's NFT or have a copy on your hard drive or make and sell t-shirts of it, because you 'own it' in name only, you don't have any control over it, you can't restrict it or license it, just someone set up some code that says you 'own' it and you can pass that 'ownership' on to someone else. Like, what does it really mean to 'own' nan cat? That was one of the first big NFT stories, but people being able to use Nan Cat hasn't changed, just now somewhere someone with money to burn can go, "I 'own' that."

I just dont get the point of NFT's. Unless as a fundraiser for the artist. As you say there is no tangible benefit to ownership

From what I understand it's either money laundering, transferring crypto with extra steps or an attempt to boost egos, although that could be because I'm a cynical person. There have been a couple of legit uses for them where I'll give them passes; View Askewniverse Kevin Smith probably needs money to help keep his Secret Stash comic book shop afloat what with the pandemic and jewel thief turned prison reform advocate Larry Lawton's doing a few for charity.

Besides, not only is the artwork not that important as I had mentioned in my last post but a fair amount of them are copyright infringement if not using stolen artwork outright. There was a case a while back where a dead artist had some of her work stolen for NFTs, there are a few Madness related ones that were made without the permission of Krinkels (who made the series in the first place) and Stjepan Šejić (who has worked on comic books and a fair few webcomics including Sunstone, one of my favourites) has stated his disapproval of them on Twitter and even warned people that any of his artwork being sold as NFTs are more than likely a scam.

The verified Stan Lee account on Twitter just posted an NFT...

(Image)

If it weren't for the fact that he was cremated then Stan Lee would be rolling in his grave with enough speed that he could generate enough power for about half of California.

Anyway, I'm from gold country, we grow up knowing that when people jump up and down shouting "GOLD GOLD GOLD" the gold is gone and the only money to be made is in selling shovels.

And it seems to me that cryptocurrency and NFTs and such suddenly have a whooooole lot of shovel salespeople.

I'm just quoting this cause it's the most quote-worthy thing I've read on here in a while.

There's a thread for that.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

imagine paying hundreds of thousands of usd for a fucking monkey jpeg

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm excited to see the day when they start selling "original screenshots" of NFTs as new NFTs and people actually pay money for them

Considering that someone once pirated a whole bunch of NFTs (not just the artwork itself but also the token which is where the money really lies), I wouldn't be surprised if that's the next logical step.

Would you spend $100,000,000 on a picture of a monkey
or live your life normal and keep the money?

Not just that but a picture of a monkey that was made on the cheap in something like Picrew (or even by an AI) and can easily be replicable with a simple screenshot or right click. At least with physical art like paintings or statues you can see the value and why they're worth so much even if it involves the most precise of magnifying equipment.

I just dont get the point of NFT's. Unless as a fundraiser for the artist. As you say there is no tangible benefit to ownership

From what I understand it's either money laundering, transferring crypto with extra steps or an attempt to boost egos, although that could be because I'm a cynical person. There have been a couple of legit uses for them where I'll give them passes; View Askewniverse Kevin Smith probably needs money to help keep his Secret Stash comic book shop afloat what with the pandemic and jewel thief turned prison reform advocate Larry Lawton's doing a few for charity.

Didn't Smith do it to fund Clerks III? I'm spotty on it because until you mentioned it I forgot all about that.

Besides, not only is the artwork not that important as I had mentioned in my last post but a fair amount of them are copyright infringement if not using stolen artwork outright. There was a case a while back where a dead artist had some of her work stolen for NFTs, there are a few Madness related ones that were made without the permission of Krinkels (who made the series in the first place) and Stjepan Šejić (who has worked on comic books and a fair few webcomics including Sunstone, one of my favourites) has stated his disapproval of them on Twitter and even warned people that any of his artwork being sold as NFTs are more than likely a scam.

The verified Stan Lee account on Twitter just posted an NFT...

(Image)

If it weren't for the fact that he was cremated then Stan Lee would be rolling in his grave with enough speed that he could generate enough power for about half of California.

For the record, this is the actual NFT. And it's the second one (or at least not the first). They gave out a Spider-man one in August.

[Cannot think of a name]

imagine paying hundreds of thousands of usd for a fucking monkey jpeg

Apparently you have to turn money into "ETH" and then into 'ownership' of a monkey that's not in fact ownership.

[Ifreann]

I just dont get the point of NFT's. Unless as a fundraiser for the artist. As you say there is no tangible benefit to ownership

From what I understand it's either money laundering, transferring crypto with extra steps or an attempt to boost egos, although that could be because I'm a cynical person. There have been a couple of legit uses for them where I'll give them passes; View Askewniverse Kevin Smith probably needs money to help keep his Secret Stash comic book shop afloat what with the pandemic and jewel thief turned prison reform advocate Larry Lawton's doing a few for charity.

I wouldn't say that these uses are legitimate. Selling digital gewgaws to raise money for charity or to buy weed for Jason Mewes, sure, that's fine. But selling cryptocoins with receipts to digital gewgaws is adding a needless layer of scam to otherwise legit fundraising.

[Elejamie]

Didn't Smith do it to fund Clerks III? I'm spotty on it because until you mentioned it I forgot all about that.

I can't seem to find anything on Google about it, although I did see something about him selling a movie as an NFT yes, which I can at least approve of because there is some actual genuine scarcity (at least I hope there is).

[For the record, this is the actual NFT. And it's the second one (or at least not the first). They gave out a Spider-man one in August.

As nice at it looks, I would rather have it as a proper print that I can put up on my wall for about a tenner or twenty quid rather than an image that's supposedly worth hundreds if not thousands and I could easily just save as my wallpaper with a couple of clicks.

I wouldn't say that these uses are legitimate. Selling digital gewgaws to raise money for charity or to buy weed for Jason Mewes, sure, that's fine. But selling cryptocoins with receipts to digital gewgaws is adding a needless layer of scam to otherwise legit fundraising.

Touché. In that case, they're more "this is why you don't deserve to be roasted as much" reasons at the very least.

[Bear Stearns]

About as legit as any other investment vehicle. never bet more than you are willing to lose.

[FNU]

Well, that's the thing. You don't have to go to nepharious lengths to use someone else's NFT or have a copy on your hard drive or make and sell t-shirts of it, because you 'own it' in name only, you don't have any control over it, you can't restrict it or license it, just someone set up some code that says you 'own' it and you can pass that 'ownership' on to someone else. Like, what does it really mean to 'own' nan cat? That was one of the first big NFT stories, but people being able to use Nan Cat hasn't changed, just now somewhere someone with money to burn can go, "I 'own' that."

It's interesting how many of these digital currency type things start out with the intention of actually being a currency and slowly devolve into a "oh look, Larry bought himself a jellyfish with a tophat. Neat."

[The Alma Mater]

Well, that's the thing. You don't have to go to nepharious lengths to use someone else's NFT or have a copy on your hard drive or make and sell t-shirts of it, because you 'own it' in name only, you don't have any control over it, you can't restrict it or license it, just someone set up some code that says you 'own' it and you can pass that 'ownership' on to someone else. Like, what does it really mean to 'own' nan cat? That was one of the first big NFT stories, but people being able to use Nan Cat hasn't changed, just now somewhere someone with money to burn can go, "I 'own' that."

It's interesting how many of these digital currency type things start out with the intention of actually being a currency and slowly devolve into a "oh look, Larry bought himself a jellyfish with a tophat. Neat."

Tbf, NFTs are far more useful to identify the owners of things like characters in a videogame.

[Necroghastia]

It's interesting how many of these digital currency type things start out with the intention of actually being a currency and slowly devolve into a "oh look, Larry bought himself a jellyfish with a tophat. Neat."

Tbf, NFTs are far more useful to identify the owners of things like characters in a videogame.

Is, uh... is that a thing that is a problem anywhere?

[FNU]

Tbf, NFTs are far more useful to identify the owners of things like characters in a videogame.

Usually people will let you know if they created a video game character, otherwise Nintendo wouldn't have anything for their lawyers to do. While I see what you're saying, NFT's as some form of ID is absurd in my opinion.

[Necroghastia]

Tbf, NFTs are far more useful to identify the owners of things like characters in a videogame.

Usually people will let you know if they created a video game character, otherwise Nintendo wouldn't have anything for their lawyers to do. While I see what you're saying, NFT's as some form of ID is absurd in my opinion.

I think they mean customizable characters, like in an MMO, but it still feels like a solution in search of a problem.

[Korwin]

My problem with NFTs is the same problem I have with cryptocurrencies.

Like, what are they worth? Like seriously, think about this for a second:
- If you spend thousands of dollars in cryptocurrency and NFTs, what tangible value do they have in reality? Can you use dogecoin to pay your rent? Bitcoin your groceries? Fuel for your car? Or are they both just strings of code on a screen?

- Is the point of a NFT simply to have a random jumble of letters and numbers assigned to "you?" Simply to leave your digital footprint for the price of tens of thousands of dollars (or, if you are rich, spending millions on a .jpg or .gif of pixels, instead of doing something that actually matters and is actually sanctified and is holy, like donating money to those in need or building homeless shelters, or paying for people's education, or churches)?