We all need a little more of this in our lives. NFT Market Collapses Just As Square Enix Sells Tomb Raider To Bet Big On Blockchain

schoolslave

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
1,112
Someone please explain to me their theory about the benefit of attaching an NFT to a physical good?

Possession is 9/10th's of the law. If you have it you have it. Why would you want to do that?

Simple, if I own a physical rarity, I can now "mint" (lol) multiple NFTs associated with that physical item and sell them to you.
I get $$$, you get NFT(s) - whatever that is worth/means.

Defending this crap is like being in the low-rungs of MLM-schemes - pushing and hoping that people will see "value" in something inherently pointless and valueless like an NFT.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
Pretty much this. Take Masterworks secondary market and replace it with something like Ethereum. What the NFT enables is the ability to exchange with the entire world.
I can do that today. Barret Jackson does it, Mecum does it, etc etc etc.
It increases the liquidity of the underlying asset ten-fold if not more because the NFT can be traded directly to anyone on that blockchain (and done so safely).
Sure, it increases the liquidity by making it more accessible - but safely is a different argument, especially given the significant amount of fraud we're seeing right now (and absolutely ZERO buyers protection our counterfeit protection).
But you're right you do need a trusted company to issue tokens as well handle the redemption for any NFTs that may be traded back in.
So right back where we're at today. So why not just let said company handle that (eg: Barret Jackson, Sotheby's, etc)? Why bother with the NFT or any of the rest?
You can't be buying discounted physical NFTs minted by randoms, otherwise you'll mostly likely end up with NFTs backed by nothing.
This is all NFTs, really.
But what you can do is buy a NFT minted by an entity like Masterworks that's ended up in the hands of a random.
Ok, sure. Fair.

If the random holding the NFT sells you the NFT minted by the original entity, your guarantee is through that entity.
I'll sell you an NFT of the Brooklyn Bridge. Escrow is far safer for physical items (via said prior agencies) for a reason - no reason to keep the NFT. Especially since the escrow organization guarantees each time it comes up for sale that it's the RIGHT item. If I buy, say, the Mona Lisa, mint it as an NFT, and sell it to Bob - what's to keep Bob from making an absolute fake and trying to sell THAT as the NFT on to the next person and keep the original?

Answer: Nothing. Because physical items are NOT bits on a blockchain. So you go back to an escrow company to guarantee authenticity - in which case, why bother with the NFT and the blockchain? Waste of time and energy
The random can also try to sell you a "fake NFT" that he minted that looks like the one minted by the original entity, except any fakes will have always have contract address and token ID mismatches between it and the true original, both of which are public information and validated by thousands of validator nodes on that blockchain. As a buyer, the safest bet would to deploy a "buy offer contract" (which you could do through any NFT marketplace, or even directly from your crypto wallet if you're a savy enough user) where you offer some amount of crypto for the original NFT by its address and token ID. Lots of NFT marketplaces help with this process too. Your buy contract will then reject anything but the true original being exchanged through it. As a seller, it's easier because you're only looking for crypto, so you deploy a sell contract for some amount of crypto and you're done.
You're assuming the NFT is fake. What about the physical item itself?
Say a company like Masterworks buy 20 Rembrandt, Pollock, Picasso, Van Gogh type of painting for 320 millions dollars.

They sells 1/10000th of an index fund to people $3350 has an NFT one can buy and resell has you want, the index fund work has the owner of the NFT receive 1/10,000 of the money (I imagine in the form of etherum ?) when one or all of those artworks are sold one days, if they are sold 200 millions you receive $2,000 worth, if they are sold $400 millions you receive $4,000.
You can already do this, but it's rare since the art market is so absurdly volatile that it's not worth the effort (and selling paintings, given the scarcity of assets backing the fund, impacts everyone else in the fund far more than shares of a company/etc would). Getting everyone to agree on when to buy/sell/etc is also effectively a nightmare, and the fiduciary duty of those involved is stretched to the limit (which is why people want to do this on the blockchain, since if said fiduciary runs off with all the money, there's no recourse for them - you're just screwed, unlike in a fund when someone gets to have a nice word with the US Government about what they've done).
The interesting part is buying part of complicated and high value art piece, not whole ones (and easily to have at home and sell simply on ebay) I think.

The masterwork type of company use the art world company that guarantee authenticity like a regular action house.
Bingo. Every time one of those items is sold it's validated, insured, the validation is insured (by the auction house or gallery), etc - it's a chain of custody, and a blockchain is just a "chain of ownership" - there's nothing that actually ties an NFT to the physical item except unicorns and butterflies. The ONLY place this might make sense is with digital assets, but those are also often copyable (bits are bits), which makes it less useful for that in other ways.
It is maybe that I just not understand what it would change yes (could it make easier to sell to an Iranian from some country or Russian right now, maybe currently some things are closed or a bit more expensive than what it would become ?), that my understanding, would virtually change nothing, but that virtually nothing can be enough to completlely change in the mind of people and popularity (see Robinhood vs Questtrade or IPod versus other mp3 players of the time).
Like I said. Guns and drugs.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
SWIFT is not something I can just hop onto use. Paypal, Venmo, Visa, etc all are. But I can't upload custom code to them for arithmetic processing. Which is something I may be interested in, because for my specific use case, I may like the idea of using Ethereum as both my database and processor.
Why?
And to answer your question: here's one way (and do note, you are here right now, at the forefront of being told something before most other people realize it):

Do you see how successful Masterworks has been? Now apply that to every single physical collectible in existence.
See prior post.
And so in 2028 you'll all be here complaining of even higher crypto prices, but alongside of that, you'll also be complaining about another tulip bubble that you missed out on as physical collectible soar in value because their outreach will many orders of magnitude higher than they are right now via "physical" NFTs; as Masterworks has demonstrated what happens when you digitize and fractionalize rare artwork. If there are any 90s/retro collectibles you'd like - I suggest you consider buying them now before the generation that's building the technology tokenizes all of them. And by the way yes, this is a solution to a problem because it's a significantly better way to exchange physical collectibles compared to our legacy marketplaces, AINEC. And not all physical NFTs will be fractionalized as those that will likely be treated as new alterative investment asset classes, or even new wealth-preservation classes as our fiat currencies continue to fumble around. Many will be functionally redeemable too.
Or we'll be laughing at all of you. See also: Beanie Babies, Cabbage patch dolls, etc etc etc. Or heck - the tulips you mention themselves (which went bust for everyone a few years later, leaving those with the bulbs holding a nice flower, and the ones holding what they traded much better off, especially the lucky sucker that got several hectares of land).
But feel free to ignore this and say that isn't a solution to a problem, because that use case doesn't really "apply to you". Despite now speculating of the financial implications of what may happen, based on what we've seen happen due to Masterworks. Instead, maybe just prepare to return at this end decade complaining, "oh now it's finite useless tangible collectibles that are causing the tulip bubble to go even higher that I missed out on, again" (while I and others are showing them off in whatever inevitable Metaverses we end up in). The only thing potentially stopping the above from happening are non-sensical government regulations, or a black swan event like a Tether bomb causing people to lose all trust in crypto beforehand.
Or it failing, because ponzi scheme needs more people to buy in to not collapse. You actually believe the governments of the world won't step in to regulate currency? Or holes won't be found? Right now they're just happy taxing it.

The idea here is that you can mostly predict what humans do with their money by looking at history, but then something happens and the market shifts dramatically in another direction without warning. You know, like right now when inflation is high and suddenly the Dow Jones, Bit Coin, and everything in between is falling in value because nobody thought that inflation would change peoples purchase habits. This hasn't happened in recent history so of course nobody could see this happening with statistics. Anyone with common sense would see that people will either stop buying things that are unnecessary like Netflix, or go without name brand version of products to save a buck. This is why we've had 2008 and why 2022 might be the next 2008. Human behavior is hard to predict with math.

He can't because NFT's serve only one purpose and that's to create free money through FOMO. I guarantee you that 99.99% of people who've heard of NFT's still don't know how a NFT works. Even the people here who explain the benefits of NFT's don't know entirely how NFT's work. "You can throw code into the Etherium block chain and make it do things." All an NFT does is prove that you own it. The photo acts like a visualization of the ownership of this NFT. The photo is not proof of ownership. You don't own the photo. The photo is there to please your monkey brain and nothing more.
Pretty much. Ponzi scheme - as long as more people buy in, cash flows upwards. Once they stop, it collapses. Some make money, lots more go broke.
From my very little knowledge (pretty much ads on podcast about that type of solutions)

Some people that want to invest in prestigious art does not want to go thought the regular market for them and either want to diversify or invest less than the price of a single prestigious art piece, which make derivative product interesting to them in the same way someone wanting to invest in Berkshire Hathaway but want to invest way less than half a million in it could look for ways to do it that is not to simply buy one stock on the stock exchange.
Yep. Granted, BRK has a Class B (and I think a Class C) stock as well - you don't have to buy a share of the Class-A to get involved (https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BRK-B/). Buffet just refuses to split the Class A.
Let alone not having to be in charge of storing/managing them/selling them and so on. I am not fully certain how/what NFT would add to this, make it possible to resell your Masterwork/Masterwork like (because you still need a trusted company that manage, buy/sell the physical asset) more easy than currently ? It seem you always still need a trusted company at the end anyway if there is a physical asset involved and if a trusted company is there, could they not let you resell your share like a stock market ?, Masterwork already has a secondary market that do work without it, but it is easy to see how that part could be replaced by a blockchain solution.
BINGO - welcome to the fundamental flaw of using NFTs to transfer high-value goods. At which point they ALSO can handle (or any other market can) the transfers and payments - that's the EASY part. We're taking a complex solution (NFT/Blockchain) and trying to solve the simplest part of the equation (payments) with it. The hard part is handled by the organizations you'll still need to have.
Someone please explain to me their theory about the benefit of attaching an NFT to a physical good?

Possession is 9/10th's of the law. If you have it you have it. Why would you want to do that?
And if you want to sell it, and it's something worth while, you're going to have to prove it's real AND yours to start with.
I haven't had time to watch the video, but just from the title I kind of agree with him.

I think the blockchain ledger has some real promise for secure transactions and other applications (note I said secure, not anonymous) and maybe even applications we can't possibly imagine yet. It's a interesting cryptographic concept that will over time be integrated as a security feature into all sorts of platforms.
There are ideas there that could fit elsewhere - no one has figured out where yet, but it's not these use cases in the long run.
1653167731856.png

We're on the drop of the trough right now - eventually they'll figure out what to do with it, but at the moment, it's not really useful for most things outside of the ponzi schemes and ape jpegs. Every corporation I know of working on it has it as a science project to see what they can come up with - but none of the easy answers made any sense, because it's cheaper/easier to do it a different way.
I just haven't seen any proposed application yet that makes me stand up and proclaim, that will be game changing, or even remotely valuable.

I feel like the blockchain will have a greater impact in more subtle and invisible ways integrated into the back end of all sorts of platforms to boost security.

I don't think physical NFT's are one of them. Far from it.

Blockchain has been a solution looking for a problem for what... almost 10 years now?
Fundamentally I think blockchain has some benefit, but in practice nothing ReVoLuTiOnArY has materialized - not even in supply chain/logistics where you'd think a technology like this is a perfect fit.
Ayup.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,669
I'm getting too tired for this. I don't know even know what you're talking about anymore. I haven't been discussing jpeg NFTs at all. At this point, there's no way to really explain anything I have any more clearly. I'll just leave it to your ignorant self to be back here in 202x telling people to stop wasting money and burning energy buying or even exchanging "ponzi-scheme" fractions of PSA10 Charizards like they're some kind of currency that add up to $5-10M per card instead of the $500K or whatever astronomical values they've already reached even prior to physical NFTs.
Looks like you've been called out on your NFT propaganda marketing by just about everyone in this thread now, and I think we have all had just about enough of this nonsense.
Care to answer anything that's been thrown your way, or can we just sum NFTs up as the ponzi/pyramid scheme that they really are?

Also, PSA10 Charizards are going for roughly $50,000 USD, just as DukenukemX stated - not $500K now and certainly not $5-10M in the next decade.
Talk about an ignorant post...
 
Last edited:

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
12,287
Looks like you've been called out on your NFT propaganda marketing by just about everyone in this thread now, and I think we have all had just about enough of this nonsense.
Care to answer anything that's been thrown your way, or can we just sum NFTs up as the ponzi/pyramid scheme that they really are?

Also, PSA10 Charizards are going for roughly $50,000 USD, just as DukenukemX stated - not $500K now and certainly not $5-10M in the next decade.
Talk about an ignorant post...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
341
Are you guys still in this thread and talking in absolutes about something you dont fully understand and we cant possibly predict?
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
Simple, if I own a physical rarity, I can now "mint" (lol) multiple NFTs associated with that physical item and sell them to you.
I get $$$, you get NFT(s) - whatever that is worth/means.

Defending this crap is like being in the low-rungs of MLM-schemes - pushing and hoping that people will see "value" in something inherently pointless and valueless like an NFT.

Who I am going to trust? A random like you - or established huge corporations like Masterworks (that are audited) to handle the minting? Do you shop at random websites you've never heard of? That kind of be like the equivalent of buying a physical NFT minted by a random such as yourself.
 
Last edited:

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
Also, PSA10 Charizards are going for roughly $50,000 USD, just as DukenukemX stated - not $500K now and certainly not $5-10M in the next decade.
Talk about an ignorant post...

I'm not in the Pokémon card business, but a quick search shows me the 1st Edition or whatever the top-tier card is (there are a few versions of Charizard) fetch $200-$300K. Source from PSA directly: https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/tcg-cards/1999-pokemon-game/charizard-holo/summary/544028. They're likely less now because financial markets are collapsing, but we haven't seen a recent enough trade to know.

Regardless of my example, my point is that when/after physical collectibles have their liquidity maximized through NFTs on a blockchain two things happen:
1. Supply remains fixed while demand goes up simply due to more people being able to buy, so their prices will go up. This is econ 101 not to be confused with a ponzi-scheme. Aka: The Masterworks model. How people behave in cryptoland though, speculating and telling everyone to get in before moon will very much make it look like a ponzi-scheme, and prices will overshoot and come crashing down just like all crypto have done for a few times now.
2. When the dust settles, we will have assets that fit the definition of stores of value that exist on blockchains. Debating Bitcoin or USDC any etc will be moot when you can just trade those tokens away for others representing ownership in assets that humans have treated as stores of value for centuries. And not just that, but also new alternative investment classes thanks to fractionalization and liquidity.

And once maximum liquidity is proven for a real world "low risk" use case like physical collectibles, you know it's going to work its way up the ladder...

But of course I keep hearing there are better technologies for this. Maybe there are, but there certainly aren't any networks up and running that enable the maximum liquidity (of established blockchains) - something that will benefit buyers, sellers, and businesses in the middle. Blockchain still needs to still scale better, but they're starting to hit throughputs that rival Visa while only consuming about 100 households worth of power.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
Who I am going to trust? A random like you - or established huge corporations like Masterworks (that are audited) to handle the minting?
I wouldn't trust either.
Do you shop at random websites you've never heard of? That kind of be like the equivalent of buying a physical NFT minted by a random such as yourself.
There's a major difference when shopping for goods from random websites vs NFT's. NFT's are inherently a risk because like the stock market and crypto market, their value is subject to change and also a source of revenue. That change as we've learned recently does not always go up. The way these systems work is that your purchase has value so long as not many people pull out and sell their shares, crypto, or NFT's. Which is exactly how one profits from these systems. For someone to gain, someone else has to lose. Loss is just part of these systems, but it's usually those who were already low on cash and made the "wise" investment thinking they too can get rich but being an investor, much like yourself. I know someone who I particularly hate for reasons, who took $150,000 from his homes equity and lost it all on a stock. Lets just say that his wife is having a divorce. Not the first time I've heard this story from someone I know and certainly not the last. I'm waiting to hear from the NFT's bros I know to see how much they lost investing.

Purchasing goods is somewhat protected. If I buy a product from a random website, there's a good chance I've used PayPal or a credit card. If the product never arrives or is not as described then I can ask for a return, go through PayPal, or ultimately dispute the charges from a credit card. You know what you do when a NFT was worth one of itself to none? You get a divorce from your wife.
Regardless of my example, my point is that when/after physical collectibles have their liquidity maximized through NFTs on a blockchain two things happen:
1. Supply remains fixed while demand goes up simply due to more people being able to buy, so their prices will go up. This is econ 101 not to be confused with a ponzi-scheme. Aka: The Masterworks model. How people behave in cryptoland though, speculating and telling everyone to get in before moon will very much make it look like a ponzi-scheme, and prices will overshoot and come crashing down just like all crypto have done for a few times now.
2. When the dust settles, we will have assets that fit the definition of stores of value that exist on blockchains. Debating Bitcoin or USDC any etc will be moot when you can just trade those tokens away for others representing ownership in assets that humans have treated as stores of value for centuries. And not just that, but also new alternative investment classes thanks to fractionalization and liquidity.
I still don't understand how NFT's add value to rare collectibles. Sounds like to me you wanna tie something with physical value like a collectable to NFT's which don't, to give NFT's value. Then from there the relationship of the NFT and physical item will inflate in value in a everlasting cycle of self feeding inflation. Am I getting this right, cause I feel that's too stupid to be a reason for NFT's to exist.
But of course I keep hearing there are better technologies for this. Maybe there are, but there certainly aren't any networks up and running that enable the maximum liquidity (of established blockchains) - something that will benefit buyers, sellers, and businesses in the middle.
I don't want business in the middle to exist. These business have no reason to exist beyond being a leech to society.

Blockchain still needs to still scale better, but they're starting to hit throughputs that rival Visa while only consuming about 100 households worth of power.
Is that suppose to be a good metric? Dude just stop promoting NFT's and admit you made a bad investment. Do it before your wife divorces you for losing god knows how much money you put into it.
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
Who I am going to trust? A random like you - or established huge corporations like Masterworks (that are audited) to handle the minting? Do you shop at random websites you've never heard of? That kind of be like the equivalent of buying a physical NFT minted by a random such as yourself.
And if you have to trust those, you don’t need a blockchain. You can do everything they do today without it.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
And if you have to trust those, you don’t need a blockchain. You can do everything they do today without it.

Nothing offers maximum (and secure) liquidity for buyer and seller of not just "money", but also tokens that can pretty much represent anything (NFTs) the way an established blockchain does. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

Go setup a competing network with one of your proven 50 year running methods that can compete with that secure liquidity . You've got a trillion dollar industry waiting to just throw money at you. Oh wait, you can't. Because we all know "experts" like yourself have been trying for the past decade without any success. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but until a non-blockchain network pops up that rivals Ethereum, all I hear is "you can do this today without it".
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
Nothing offers maximum (and secure) liquidity for buyer and seller of not just "money", but also tokens that can pretty much represent anything (NFTs) the way an established blockchain does. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

Go setup a competing network with one of your proven 50 year running methods that can compete with that secure liquidity . You've got a trillion dollar industry waiting to just throw money at you. Oh wait, you can't. Because we all know "experts" like yourself have been trying for the past decade without any success.
Counter argument: Nothing offers maximum and secure processing of orders and payments and authenticity than the existing systems in place today, since the block chain does nothing for physical verification or legal representation of said items, and is thus relatively useless except for guns and drugs, where you don't care about those things (since a "cloned" gun is still a gun).

I've done it. It's called the systems I mentioned before - which already (in aggregate) make billions, if not trillions. It's a red ocean market - payment processing, auction houses, art galleries, etc all exist and do their jobs quite well today. This isn't like cab companies where Uber replaced them because they sucked - this is something that has certain requirements that are already being met, and the crypto folk want to pretend don't exist.

And as for liquidity, as you've already admitted in several posts that you have to have those same authentication places I keep harping on, it's not really all that liquid - no more than stock transfers, wire transfers, PO Orders, Visa transfers, etc would be.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
I'm not in the Pokémon card business, but a quick search shows me the 1st Edition or whatever the top-tier card is (there are a few versions of Charizard) fetch $200-$300K. Source from PSA directly: https://www.psacard.com/auctionprices/tcg-cards/1999-pokemon-game/charizard-holo/summary/544028. They're likely less now because financial markets are collapsing, but we haven't seen a recent enough trade to know.

Regardless of my example, my point is that when/after physical collectibles have their liquidity maximized through NFTs on a blockchain two things happen:
1. Supply remains fixed while demand goes up simply due to more people being able to buy, so their prices will go up.
This is an argument with very little proof - you have no evidence of, say, the elasticity of the art market or the collectibles market. If you do, I'd love to see the peer reviewed papers demonstrating such. I would argue that since the same verification systems remain in place, the item has increased liquidity very little, since you still have no faith beyond what the seller claims without invoking a (or more than one) third party - all of whom would be involved (and most of whom are perfectly capable of processing payments or transfers) to begin with. Other than adding a blockchain, you've changed almost nothing.
This is econ 101 not to be confused with a ponzi-scheme.
Which you don't seem to fully understand.
Aka: The Masterworks model. How people behave in cryptoland though, speculating and telling everyone to get in before moon will very much make it look like a ponzi-scheme, and prices will overshoot and come crashing down just like all crypto have done for a few times now.
2. When the dust settles, we will have assets that fit the definition of stores of value that exist on blockchains. Debating Bitcoin or USDC any etc will be moot when you can just trade those tokens away for others representing ownership in assets that humans have treated as stores of value for centuries. And not just that, but also new alternative investment classes thanks to fractionalization and liquidity.
Fractionalization exists today, in many if not most markets. We already have those assets - you can buy gold today, or silver, or art, or fancy Mercedes that are 1/20, etc. Folks do this today - it's just buying an appreciating asset (or praying it's appreciating). Why add the token? I already have to go to Mecum to make sure that you're selling me a genuine Ferrari 250 GTO - why not just use them to transfer the cash?
And once maximum liquidity is proven for a real world "low risk" use case like physical collectibles, you know it's going to work its way up the ladder...
lol
But of course I keep hearing there are better technologies for this. Maybe there are, but there certainly aren't any networks up and running that enable the maximum liquidity (of established blockchains) - something that will benefit buyers, sellers, and businesses in the middle. Blockchain still needs to still scale better, but they're starting to hit throughputs that rival Visa while only consuming about 100 households worth of power.
No one wants to make a blockchain liquid except the folks that want to be on the blockchain - everyone else is already doing everything you're talking about. And if the blockchain is so special, why need the businesses in the middle? And if you have those third parties, what have you changed?

I wouldn't trust either.

There's a major difference when shopping for goods from random websites vs NFT's. NFT's are inherently a risk because like the stock market and crypto market, their value is subject to change and also a source of revenue. That change as we've learned recently does not always go up.
True, but this is arguably almost anything - even cash has value changes based on inflation/etc.
The way these systems work is that your purchase has value so long as not many people pull out and sell their shares, crypto, or NFT's.
Ayup.
Which is exactly how one profits from these systems. For someone to gain, someone else has to lose.
Ayup x2. Also, look up definition of Ponzi scheme :D
Loss is just part of these systems, but it's usually those who were already low on cash and made the "wise" investment thinking they too can get rich but being an investor, much like yourself. I know someone who I particularly hate for reasons, who took $150,000 from his homes equity and lost it all on a stock. Lets just say that his wife is having a divorce. Not the first time I've heard this story from someone I know and certainly not the last. I'm waiting to year from the NFT's bros I know to see how much they lost investing.
Or how much they got whacked in taxes through a few inopportune trades. Capital gains are a right proper bitch, don't ya know?
Purchasing goods is somewhat protected. If I buy a product from a random website, there's a good chance I've used PayPal or a credit card. If the product never arrives or is not as described then I can ask for a return, go through PayPal, or ultimately dispute the charges from a credit card.
Yep. Plus it's governed by a whole pile of consumer protection rules, commerce rules, etc etc etc.
You know what you do when a NFT was worth one of itself to none? You get a divorce from your wife.
But the blockchain!!!!!! (BTW - we've already seen this happen in the news, when mistakes are made or things are broken). Bye bye value!
I still don't understand how NFT's add value to rare collectibles. Sounds like to me you wanna tie something with physical value like a collectable to NFT's which don't to give NFT's value. Then from there the relationship of the NFT and physical item will inflate in value in a everlasting cycle of self feeding inflation. Am I getting this right, cause I feel that's too stupid to be a reason for NFT's to exist.
It's supposed to make it easier to bid/buy/track, but it doesn't do the second, who cares about the third (since that shit has to be verified anyway), and the first exists today.
It seems to be folks that have two suppositions:
1. Existing systems are too hard.
2. Because it has an NFT, the value will be higher.

I'd argue the following - there's no requirement for the individual buying to give a shit about the NFT after purchase. If I buy the Mona Lisa, have it minted as an NFT, I can sell the painting to someone (with the NFT). From there, they can sell it back to the Louvre, and simply ignore the NFT - now what value did the NFT provide? What can the next "owner" of that token do? NFT is now useless. You're requiring EVERYONE take part - you have no control over individuals.

If your solution requires 100% of people to contribute and consume, then you don't have a solution - you have a religion.
I don't want business in the middle to exist. These business have no reason to exist beyond being a leech to society.
I think he's responding to my argument on authenticity and reliability of ownership and provenance of said collectables - which yeah, you want someone in the middle to verify, especially for easily-copied or duplicated items.
Is that suppose to be a good metric? Dude just stop promoting NFT's and admit you made a bad investment. Do it before your wife divorces you for losing god knows how much money you put into it.
I mean, that's not horrible - but given how few people are using it, and since most of that (IIRC, may be wrong here) is in laboratory testing and not real-world... uh huh.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
And as for liquidity, as you've already admitted in several posts that you have to have those same authentication places I keep harping on, it's not really all that liquid - no more than stock transfers, wire transfers, PO Orders, Visa transfers, etc would be.

The authentication process is done one time, up front. From that point it can exchange hands an infinite number of times without the original issuer having to do anything (including not having to maintain any of their own internal databases tracking who owns it, where it is, etc). And buyers and sellers from anywhere in the world, don't need to verify or vet each other, at all. No time or resources that need to be wasted there (in case you're wondering where blockchain's "wasted" energy is going).

I can't exchange stocks to you (but you know what I could - tokens a company issues over an established blockchain). I need to get your info for a wire transfer and likewise for PO orders. What do I need to sell you a physical NFT, that let's say you can redeem (if you want) from the original issuer? A public key. That's it. How long does it take? A few minutes to fully confirm exchange, meaning you resell it 10 minutes later to someone in Cambodia for all you or I care. What does it cost? Cheaper than shipping. How much power does it use? Less than shipping.

Again, waiting on the Ethereum or gen3.0 blockchain competitor that can do this with better technology. I'm all ears: point me to where I can go since it should be a gold mine. ;)
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
The authentication process is done one time, up front. From that point it can exchange hands an infinite number of times without the original issuer having to do anything (including not having to maintain any of their own internal databases tracking who owns it, where it is, etc).
This is untrue. I've demonstrated it in this thread before.
1. You have no guarantee a later sale won't happen without the NFT being involved, thus breaking both your chain of custody and the value of the NFT (since people care about the physical item, not the random bit-token).
2. You have no way to enforce rules against item 1 - especially since the majority of the world doesn't care. If I sell the item and pretend the NFT doesn't exist, the NFT has no validity or value - unless the buyer cared (and good luck with that in the high-value world)
3. You have no guarantee that the buyer won't copy/modify/etc the item represented by the NFT, and fraudulently sell the copy instead of the original (still need verification on each sale) with the NFT attached - NFTs have no actual relationship to the physical item except in the buyer's heads.
4. You have no legal claim based on an NFT that the owner owns "anything" - if that's your only proof of ownership and the NFT is stolen, who cares? If that's your only proof of ownership and the item is stolen - the NFT is useless.
5. You have no basis to claim that the NFT guarantees anything whatsoever about the physical item it is supposed to represent - just because the NFT hasn't changed and is immutable, doesn't mean the physical item(s) is/are. Thus rendering the NFT an extra gimmick on the thing people actually care about - the item.

The original owner doesn't have to maintain anything - the only people that care about that are the buyers, and they're going to want a third party to verify ownership of the ITEM, it's authenticity, it's provenance (since you don't do anything to guarantee authenticity with the chain).

NFTs in the physical landscape are a gimmick, unless implemented by a government (see item 1/2/4), or run through a third party (items 3/5) - both of which invalidate the need for an NFT; we can already store property records securely. On top of that, it provides very little security or notable value (other than high-risk validation-less trades for low-value items, item 4) and is thus relatively pointless. WRT digital items, it only works if the item is something already maintained by a back-end service (see: game items), which could also handle transactions based around said item - random digital JPGs can be copied with a mouse click, after all. And we can already trade those in game items (see- star hanger, ebay, etc) without much difficulty.

And buyers and sellers from anywhere in the world, don't need to verify or vet each other, at all. No time or resources that need to be wasted there (in case you're wondering where blockchain's "wasted" energy is going).
Doing this makes you rather likely to get utterly scammed and is incredibly unsafe. See: The NFTs that have been "traded" for the wrong value, stolen, etc.
I can't exchange stocks to you
Sure you can, I do this about once a month. Cross-brokerage even. This isn't hard. Hell, Chipotle uses stock to pay leases (see their 10k, I can pull up the analysis if you wish) on more unusual properties at times.
(but you know what I could - tokens a company issues over an established blockchain).
Why? I can already do that.
I need to get your info for a wire transfer and likewise for PO orders.
Not really. LLCs, anonymizing services, etc exist - but they also guarantee that you're not say, selling into an embargoed country (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/new...inal-cryptocurrency-sanctions-case/ar-AAXkfZp). For that matter, several of the trading platforms are already blocking embargoed countries - so your basic point is even moot (https://cointelegraph.com/news/open...untries-list-sparking-decentralization-debate).

You can't trade to anyone - except guns and drugs, when you're trying to dodge the system. Or to folks in the states, where you could, you know, use any existing system now. Or unembargoed countries - where you can use the existing international systems. In fact, many of the countries on the opensea (and the like) banned list? I can do business in today. Because they're banning BTC/etc, but aren't embargoed by the government.
What do I need to sell you a physical NFT, that let's say you can redeem (if you want) from the original issuer? A public key.
See my initial 5 point post.
That's it. How long does it take? A few minutes to fully confirm exchange, meaning you resell it 10 minutes later to someone in Cambodia for all you or I care. What does it cost? Cheaper than shipping. How much power does it use? Less than shipping.
You haven't sold anything then. Possession, as they say, is 9/10ths of the law. How does said buyer get the item? How do they take ownership? Oh, you're just talking fractionals? So you're going to eliminate the value the existing fractional systems have, since they have no interest in dealing with NFTs? That cuts your buyer pool too - reducing value. (See items 1/3/4 above again). You're assuming people have interest in owning a "NFT" of an item they don't have. WTF would I want to do that? Do you have any idea some of the liability concerns that might arise on high-value items?
Again, waiting on the Ethereum or gen3.0 blockchain competitor that can do this with better technology. I'm all ears: point me to where I can go since it should be a gold mine. ;)
I already told you. If you want to open an auction house, go ahead - it's not hard. Just hard to scale to the point of hitting the existing folks in that space - RM Sotheby's is, after all, very good at their job. In fact, they're so good, that you might say they make physical items very much liquid assets:

https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/uc22?utm_source=website&utm_medium=tile&utm_campaign=MercedesBenz

1 out of 2 in the world, turned into money instantly! And a HELL of a lot of money too - and the authenticity was verified. You think any of those folks complained they couldn't buy it as an NFT?
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
And... RM Sotheby's is actually using NFTs too. https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/pf22

It's only a matter of time before they full on start releasing physical, and likely fractional, NFTs. Even in the description I linked, they are included signed physical prints (maybe serving as a testing case for how to handle a physical NFT). It's not going to be an overnight thing as there is a business model that needs to be well planned, but a successful one could result in a never ending stream of passive income.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
And... RM Sotheby's is actually using NFTs too. https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/pf22

It's only a matter of time before they full on start releasing physical, and likely fractional, NFTs. Even in the description I linked, they are included signed physical prints (maybe serving as a testing case for how to handle a physical NFT). It's not going to be an overnight thing as there is a business model that needs to be well planned, but a successful one could result in nearly infinite passive income for them, assuming that income outweighs the cost of being a custodian.
Yes - for digital art. All my points stand for physical items - and I already pointed out that the digital product is pointless because I can copy it. You have no control over a digital asset like that - unless Pinifaria is just going to hold them where only someone with a username/password (or the NFT) can access it... in which case, why not just use the username/password? That's pointless extra complexity.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
Yes - for digital art. All my points stand for physical items - and I already pointed out that the digital product is pointless because I can copy it. You have no control over a digital asset like that - unless Pinifaria is just going to hold them where only someone with a username/password (or the NFT) can access it... in which case, why not just use the username/password? That's pointless extra complexity.

I know that digital is mostly pointless. We just finished the jpeg NFT phase, and as pointless as owning a jpeg is: NFTs proved one solid use case: ownership. Now add in physical items where ownership actually has meaning, and huge trusted (or audited) entities to provide the onramp and offramps for these items (like Coinbase does for fiat).

Sotheby's is not the innovator here. They cannot afford to be as physical NFTs have hardly been released nor battle tested yet. They will wait for "lesser" use cases to show success before ever throwing up anything near $135M cars (which who knows how much the storage costs would run for something like that). This isn't surprising though since the progression of innovation goes something along the lines: academia or open source -> private industry -> government. Or... flows from low risk to high risk. Companies like them are going to need to figure out business models. Cost of storage versus tokenization fees profits + royalties income. Some will figure it out. Others will find their in-house model to be better. And that's fine.

And plus, the race is going to begin with new smaller entities that will likely end up being bought out by huge entities like Sotheby's if the business model is there. Why? Because that's the direction risk moves, as I mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited:

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,669
I know that digital is mostly pointless. We just finished the jpeg NFT phase, and as pointless as owning a jpeg is: NFTs proved one solid use case: ownership. Now add in physical items where ownership actually has meaning, and huge trusted (or audited) entities to provide the onramp and offramps for these items (like Coinbase does for fiat).

Sotheby's is not the innovator here. They cannot afford to be as physical NFTs have hardly been released nor battle tested yet. They will wait for "lesser" use cases to show success before ever throwing up anything near $135M cars (which who knows how much the storage costs would run for something like that). This isn't surprising though since the progression of innovation goes something along the lines: academia or open source -> private industry -> government. Or... flows from low risk to high risk. Companies like them are going to need to figure out business models. Cost of storage versus tokenization fees profits + royalties income. Some will figure it out. Others will find their in-house model to be better. And that's fine.

And plus, the race is going to begin with new smaller entities that will likely end up being bought out by huge entities like Sotheby's if the business model is there. Why? Because that's the direction risk moves, as I mentioned earlier.
Digital NFTs are pointless, and the physical NFTs - as you have literally just stated - have hardly been released nor battle tested yet.
So in other words, you are pushing an agenda for something that is totally unproven, has no real value, has no real business model, and will somehow make things have more value in the future by adding functionalities that already exist in current markets which would be entirely redundant.

But we should all invest because "that's the direction risk moves"... ok.
To quote Dean Yeager from Ghostbusters (1984):

6h5cmi.jpg
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
I know that digital is mostly pointless. We just finished the jpeg NFT phase, and as pointless as owning a jpeg is: NFTs proved one solid use case: ownership. Now add in physical items where ownership actually has meaning, and huge trusted (or audited) entities to provide the onramp and offramps for these items (like Coinbase does for fiat).

Sotheby's is not the innovator here. They cannot afford to be as physical NFTs have hardly been released nor battle tested yet. They will wait for "lesser" use cases to show success before ever throwing up anything near $135M cars (which who knows how much the storage costs would run for something like that). This isn't surprising though since the progression of innovation goes something along the lines: academia or open source -> private industry -> government. Or... flows from low risk to high risk. Companies like them are going to need to figure out business models. Cost of storage versus tokenization fees profits + royalties income. Some will figure it out. Others will find their in-house model to be better. And that's fine.

And plus, the race is going to begin with new smaller entities that will likely end up being bought out by huge entities like Sotheby's if the business model is there. Why? Because that's the direction risk moves, as I mentioned earlier.
You still haven't answered a single point I brought up. So now you're expecting them to just store the car, even though someone new owns it? Yeah, good luck telling a buyer that. That's not ownership, that's, well, unicorns and butterflies. Liability alone they're going to tell you to pound sand - and once possession of the physical item changes hands, all the points I brought up come into play. You can't fix those - without government regulation - at which point you don't need (and don't benefit from) NFTs anymore.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
as you have literally just stated - have hardly been released nor battle tested yet.
So in other words, you are pushing an agenda for something that is totally unproven

It's call foresight - but as I said earlier, I expect the mob to hindsight cope again in a few years (by the time it has been battle tested) by calling this use case a useless ponzi-scheme that offers nothing to humanity, as usual.

I also haven't told anyone to invest anything either. I suggested that back in 2014, 2015, and maybe even early 2017 - while you all continued to hate on crypto. I'm not telling anyone to do that right now. I'm just countering all the blind NFT hate. You're all doing literally the same things you all did back in 2015 when you all hated on Bitcoin because you saw crypto as Bitcoin and nothing more, and now you're doing the same with NFTs seeing them as nothing other than or implying they are jpegs.

Everything is all but redundant in functionality at this point. But don't ignore upgrades. Because the when functionalities are limited in scope or what you can do with them - there's cause to try something else. Maybe you don't care but, I'd rather be able exchange freely over a blockchain to gain maximum exchange liquidity. I also like that it's plug-and-play, doesn't require me to put any of my personal info (and not because I'm trying evade taxes - I've paid all mine and then some).

You still haven't answered a single point I brought up. So now you're expecting them to just store the car, even though someone new owns it? Yeah, good luck telling a buyer that. That's not ownership, that's, well, unicorns and butterflies. Liability alone they're going to tell you to pound sand - and once possession of the physical item changes hands, all the points I brought up come into play. You can't fix those - without government regulation - at which point you don't need (and don't benefit from) NFTs anymore.

So then WTF is the point of GLD, IAU, and SLV and other precious metals? And there you don't even get ownership. You just a piece of electronic paper that says it tracks the price of the metal. And you get back a maintenance fees on top of that. At least with physical NFTs there's an opportunity for tokenization profit, royalties earnings, and profits through internal marketplaces or other features that can built around the NFTs.

And lastly, I've now said many times this is going to start with far lower risk items at play. $100, $1000, maybe $100,000 for the whales of crypto. Items that will require far less and and thus lower storage costs. But let's keep focusing on the extreme use cases because it's easier to try to make a point there.
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
It's call foresight - but as I said earlier, I expect the mob to hindsight cope again in a few years (by the time it has been battle tested) by calling this use case a useless ponzi-scheme that offers nothing to humanity, as usual.

I also haven't told anyone to invest anything either. I suggested that back in 2014, 2015, and maybe even early 2017 - while you all continued to hate on crypto. I'm not telling anyone to do that right now. I'm just countering all the blind NFT hate. You're all doing literally the same thing you all did back in 2015 when you hated on Bitcoin because you saw crypto as Bitcoin and nothing more, and now you're doing the same with NFTs seeing them as nothing other than or implying they are jpegs.
You still have not answered a single point I've raised about the faults with NFTs. I get it - you want your NFTs to be worth more. And the only way a ponzi scheme works is conning more folks into "investing." Let me know when you have an actual answer to those points.
Everything is all but redundant in functionality at this point. But don't ignore upgrades. Because the when functionalities are limited in scope or what you can do with them - there's cause to try something else. Because me personally, I'd rather people able exchange freely over a blockchain to gain maximum exchange liquidity. I also like that it's plug-and-play, doesn't require me to put any of my personal info (and not because I'm trying evade taxes - FWIW I've already paid more than most you will make in your careers).
None of these features are upgrades - at best they're extra, pointless steps. At worst, they're a false sense of security or wastes of time.

Oh, and yeah - you still have to pass out your info bud. Can't ship something overseas without that. Can't ship something in the states without it most of the time either, without going through those third parties that could solve all these problems for you either way. You're assuming people just want the NFT - I call BS on that. Physical items still have to be shipped.
So then WTF is the point of GLD, IAU, and SLV and other precious metals? And there you don't even get ownership. You just a piece of paper that says it tracks the price of the metal. And you get back a maintenance fee on that. At least with physical NFTs there's an opportunity for tokenization profit, royalties earnings, and profits through internal marketplaces or other features that can built around the NFTs.
1. You're conflating NFTs with mutual funds? Ok, sure - but that exists already (see prior points). Why recreate it? To make it easier to sell? They're already easy to sell, since brokerages have to be involved anyway. And if you REALLY want to trade directly, you can.
2. You're assuming that you can charge a royalty based on ownership of an NFT. This is, outside the digital realm, laughable - there are currently no laws establishing that an NFT has anything to do with ownership or transfer of rights to the item in question. And if it does - then it's just buying art again. Nothing new, nothing special, and requires specific negotiation (effectively) since buying art does NOT normally transfer royalty rights to said art from the creator. This way leads lawsuits.
3. Why would you build something around the NFT? It's just a token.
And lastly, I've now said many times this is going to start with far lower risk items at play. $100, $1000, maybe $100,000 for the whales of crypto. Items that will require far less and and thus lower storage costs. But let's keep focusing on the extreme use cases because it's easier to try to make your point there.
Storage costs again. You're still assuming that folks are happy with only the NFT and not the item in question. Can you show me one market in the world where this is actually true, outside of the investment markets (fractional shares in business/etc)? Once you add in the movement of physical items, your entire argument falls apart. At that point, you have to deal with the same systems you're trying to avoid.

Believing someone wants to own an NFT of art, or NFT of a car, etc - and not have possession of the actual item - is insane. For a plethora of reasons.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,691
I love coming here and seeing all the boomer talk about NFTs and crypto. You guys better jump on before you get left behind in the next few years. Easy money to be made here as someone who's been on the internet since a kid in the mid 90's, you're in for a revolution.

Also Gamestop just launched their wallets. https://wallet.gamestop.com/wallets
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
I love coming here and seeing all the boomer talk about NFTs and crypto. You guys better jump on before you get left behind in the next few years. Easy money to be made here as someone who's been on the internet since a kid in the mid 90's, you're in for a revolution.

Also Gamestop just launched their wallets. https://wallet.gamestop.com/wallets
Left behind from what? Also, probably younger than you are - I just understand the technology AND the business side, and see the holes you could drive a giant ape through. Everyone had a blockchain project 6 years ago - almost none of those are active now. So GME is jumping on the hype train to boost stock price. Yay. Watch as it goes nowhere after this.

Someone finds a valid use for crypto I'll buy in - same as MP3s, DVDs, broadband, and all the other innovations I've jumped on over the years. This is a solution looking for a problem - there's nothing there I can't (or don't) do today. Everything mentioned? I already do. Commissioned art. Resale and royalty rights. International transfers and funding. International business - half of that is my job, half is stuff I do personally, but everything ya'll are talking about? Done today. Cheaply too, most of the time (international shipping sometimes sucks, but the blockchain doesn't change that - that's import/export rules and regulations). MP3s offered an immediate benefit over CDs - and once things like the iPod started offering real storage capacities, it eliminated everything (other than arguably cost - cheap CD players were cheap) that would make one want to use a CD. Same for DVDs, etc.

EVerything the blockchain and NFTs offer? I can do today just as easily. If anything, it adds additional complexity and steps with no tangible benefit whatsoever, until you start addressing regulation and governance around it - which is exactly what the crypto community is trying to avoid. That makes it a niche at best. It's also WAY too freaking volatile to be an actual standardized consumable currency - can't easily do GAAP accounting when your currency values are all over the place like that, so it's all about transferring back to USD (or other equivalent local funds). Without the SEC accepting BTC/ETH/etc quantities as cash, that is - and that goes back to my first point.
 
Last edited:

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,691
Left behind from what? Also, probably younger than you are - I just understand the technology AND the business side, and see the holes you could drive a giant ape through. Everyone had a blockchain project 6 years ago - almost none of those are active now. So GME is jumping on the hype train to boost stock price. Yay. Watch as it goes nowhere after this.

Someone finds a valid use for crypto I'll buy in - same as MP3s, DVDs, broadband, and all the other innovations I've jumped on over the years. This is a solution looking for a problem - there's nothing there I can't (or don't) do today. Everything mentioned? I already do. Commissioned art. Resale and royalty rights. International transfers and funding. International business - half of that is my job, half is stuff I do personally, but everything ya'll are talking about? Done today. Cheaply too, most of the time (international shipping sometimes sucks, but the blockchain doesn't change that - that's import/export rules and regulations). MP3s offered an immediate benefit over CDs - and once things like the iPod started offering real storage capacities, it eliminated everything (other than arguably cost - cheap CD players were cheap) that would make one want to use a CD. Same for DVDs, etc.

EVerything the blockchain and NFTs offer? I can do today just as easily. If anything, it adds additional complexity and steps with no tangible benefit whatsoever, until you start addressing regulation and governance around it - which is exactly what the crypto community is trying to avoid. That makes it a niche at best. It's also WAY too freaking volatile to be an actual standardized consumable currency - can't easily do GAAP accounting when your currency values are all over the place like that, so it's all about transferring back to USD (or other equivalent local funds). Without the SEC accepting BTC/ETH/etc quantities as cash, that is - and that goes back to my first point.

Digital contracts are more powerful than you can imagine. Everything that can be digital will be and in the hands of the individual rather than some bank or financial agent. I can go into explaining all the little details and facets but the internet has done plenty and contrarians that post this much negativity over it have already dug their heels in so I don't bother anymore. I'll say this, by the time you see its usefulness it may be too late to hop on the gravy train.
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
Digital contracts are more powerful than you can imagine. Everything that can be digital will be and in the hands of the individual rather than some bank or financial agent. I can go into explaining all the little details and facets but the internet has done plenty and contrarians that post this much negativity over it have already dug their heels in so I don't bother anymore. I'll say this, by the time you see its usefulness it may be too late to hop on the gravy train.
A contract is a contract, except when it's effectively unenforceable (cough NFTs cough - haven't gone through the courts yet to establish laws around them).

And you're going to trust an individual? See my prior 5 point post. That's unicorn and butterfly thinking. And I've got the Mona Lisa to sell you. As well as 3 Picassos. They're real, trust me! I bought them as an NFT and I SWEAR I didn't have them copied! Oh, and you're never going to get them. I'll just keep them in storage.

Right.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,167
A contract is a contract, except when it's effectively unenforceable (cough NFTs cough - haven't gone through the courts yet to establish laws around them).

And you're going to trust an individual? See my prior 5 point post. That's unicorn and butterfly thinking. And I've got the Mona Lisa to sell you. As well as 3 Picassos. They're real, trust me! I bought them as an NFT and I SWEAR I didn't have them copied! Oh, and you're never going to get them. I'll just keep them in storage.

Right.

You'll hate your own ignorance reading back on this in a few years, that's all I can say.

And yes, if you're holding a NFT of the Mona Lisa that was minted by a trusted tokenizer that's been audited because they're a legitimate business that resides in a country like the US, then of course of its real. I don't even need to ask you. I'll just know by the thousands of nodes validating the NFT you hold is of the original issuer. You don't seem to get that the minting of a physical NFT isn't just going to be some free for all that anyone can do and pass of as real. With that said, yes scammers will still try. It's cryptoland. But overall, these aren't JPEGs where the barrier is nothing. There's going to be another level of trust required, just like there already is with non-blockchain based models or mutual funds that do the similar things, but without the maximum liquidity and least level of maintenance that blockchain offers.

Again, why is this so difficult to understand? It's literally like asking if you trust PSA to authenticate a card, or some random to do it. So what do you trust, a PSA minted NFT (that only needs to be minted one time, and then it can be safely exchanged an infinite number of times afterward outside of PSA's marketplace, before maybe finally coming back to PSA years later for redemption), or or some random? Really, what is so hard to comprehend here?!

By the way you mention storage being a problem, like it's a blockchain only problem but you also say this already done using other technology. So which is it? Physical storage is not a problem then, is it?
 
Last edited:

Armenius

Extremely [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
34,309
You'll hate your own ignorance reading back on this in a few years, that's all I can say.

And yes, if you're holding a NFT of the Mona Lisa that was minted by a trusted tokenizer that's been audited because they're a legitimate business that resides in a country like the US, then of course of its real. I don't even need to ask you. I'll just know by the thousands of nodes validating the NFT you hold is of the original issuer. You don't seem to get that the minting of a physical NFT isn't just going to be some free for all that anyone can do and pass of as real. With that said, yes scammers will still try. It's cryptoland. But overall, these aren't JPEGs where the barrier is nothing. There's going to be another level of trust required, just like there already is with non-blockchain based models or mutual funds that do the similar things, but without the maximum liquidity and least level of maintenance that blockchain offers.

Again, why is this so difficult to understand? It's literally like asking if you trust PSA to authenticate a card, or some random to do it. So what do you trust, a PSA minted NFT (that only needs to be minted one time, and then it can be safely exchanged an infinite number of times afterward outside of PSA's marketplace, before maybe finally coming back to PSA years later for redemption), or or some random? Really, what is so hard to comprehend here?!

By the way you mention storage being a problem, like it's a blockchain only problem but you also say this already done using other technology. So which is it? Physical storage is not a problem then, is it?
You're not changing anything but adding unneeded complexity to the system. Why?
 

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
Still haven’t answered any of my questions I see. Sigh. Fine. Here we go again.
You'll hate your own ignorance reading back on this in a few years, that's all I can say.
Doubt it.
And yes, if you're holding a NFT of the Mona Lisa that was minted by a trusted tokenizer that's been audited because they're a legitimate business that resides in a country like the US, then of course of its real. I don't even need to ask you. I'll just know by the thousands of nodes validating the NFT you hold is of the original issuer. You don't seem to get that the minting of a physical NFT isn't just going to be some free for all that anyone can do and pass of as real.
Still haven’t answered the 5 points for any sale but the first. All are still valid. Either answer or admit you can’t. Enough already.
With that said, yes scammers will still try. It's cryptoland. But overall, these aren't JPEGs where the barrier is nothing. There's going to be another level of trust required, just like there already is with non-blockchain based models or mutual funds that do the similar things, but without the maximum liquidity and least level of maintenance that blockchain offers.
Bullshit on liquidity. Already proven, you haven’t countered. Trust required are the same third parties that can handle the transaction now. If you have to use them, why bother with the blockchain? Never mind the fraud aspect you’re brushing over.
Again, why is this so difficult to understand? It's literally like asking if you trust PSA to authenticate a card, or some random to do it. So what do you trust, a PSA minted NFT (that only needs to be minted one time, and then it can be safely exchanged an infinite number of times afterward outside of PSA's marketplace, before maybe finally coming back to PSA years later for redemption), or or some random? Really, what is so hard to comprehend here?!
I trust an audited and regulated corporation that has major financial and physical penalties over a system that has already been compromised on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. Because those existing systems handle trillions of dollars of commerce today just fine without a blockchain.

Also, still ignoring the points raised against safely/etc. crypto is no more or less safe than cash- it’s just extra steps and suckers.
By the way you mention storage being a problem, like it's a blockchain only problem but you also say this already done using other technology. So which is it? Physical storage is not a problem then, is it?
I mention it because you keep trying to claim borders go away with crypto. You seem to be assuming that the original older will hold the physical asset while you fuck around with the NFT- there’s no way that works. Ever. The original owner isn’t taking on that liability, and as a buyer, you shouldn’t trust them to do that either - they can go and sell the physical item out from under you since NFT are not a recognized contract. And if you have a real contract, why do you need a second one?

Storage becomes the buyers problem, which means international commerce and import/export, which means you’ve changed nothing except adding extra steps. NFTs do nothing. Just because you sold it with ether instead of USD or GBP doesn’t mean you don’t have to handle customs/etc. which means you still need all the red tape you had before. Which means absolutely zero things changed.

Either answer the logistical challenges or admit that you cannot.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,993
Meh, Crypto and NFT's are really just boosted by a bunch of dumbasses who don't understand basic economics who think they can will success into existence if they just desire it enough.

It's quite pathetic if you think about it.

It may still succeed, dumb things succeed sometimes. After all, the pet rock was a success in the 70's. That won't vindicate it in any way. It will still be dumb as fuck.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,391
I love coming here and seeing all the boomer talk about NFTs and crypto.
What's with the ageism with pro NFT's scammers? Not sure how old you are but chances are we understand NFT's better than you do. NFT's aren't about the technology but about the social engineering. Telling people they may miss out on the next big thing that they don't understand anything about, which even drives them harder to invest.

I hate to agree with Asmongold but he's right.

You guys better jump on before you get left behind in the next few years. Easy money to be made here as someone who's been on the internet since a kid in the mid 90's, you're in for a revolution.
This reads to me as a MLM or someone who invested way too much of their money into NFT's. I have yet to hear a valid reason for NFT's to exist other than to extract wealth from stupid people. It certainly isn't environmentally friendly considering how much electricity is wasted into this.
Also Gamestop just launched their wallets. https://wallet.gamestop.com/wallets
As did every company who's looking to make free money, and it costs them nothing to make these NFT's. We all know GameStop is going out of business, so they will milk the to the moon and diamond hand guys for all their worth before they collapse.
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,957
About as secure as your house would be if you left the door wide open.
Funny thing is - he could probably go ahead and make his show.
1. There's no legal ground to claim an NFT is an actual contract; it's not in a form enforceable yet by most measures.
2. If it WAS enforceable, the person who has it coming forward to claim royalties would be admitting to theft (and if it wasn't theft, then we go back to point 1.)
3. If the thief sold it - the new owner would be in possession of stolen goods, see point 2, roll back to point 1.
4. Or the courts will just laugh and it means nothing, unless the original artist suddenly claims royalties, in which case... who knows?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
34,993
I love coming here and seeing all the boomer talk about NFTs and crypto. You guys better jump on before you get left behind in the next few years. Easy money to be made here as someone who's been on the internet since a kid in the mid 90's, you're in for a revolution.

Also Gamestop just launched their wallets. https://wallet.gamestop.com/wallets

We are probably about the same age. I may be just a couple of years older than you. Not sure, but probably close enough. I am what they call an Xennial. Grew up in the 80's in a pre-digital world, yet came of age in the 90's at the same time as the internet was starting to become important. I feel like most people on these forums are roughly in my age group. We probably have a range of mid to late Gen Xers, and first half of the millennial gen in here, but that is really the main age group of the Hardforums with only a few outliers. If there are any actual boomers in here, they are few and far between. Remember, the last of the baby boomers were born in 1964, so the very youngest boomers are 57 years old today.

Do you remember the 90's .com boom and bust?

There was a period where everyone had to "be on the internet". The problem was, they didn't know why they had to "be on the internet". They just had to be there. Entire companies were created and billions of investor dollars raised based on FOMO and the hope of "the internet".

I remember being a teenager in the 90's and rolling my eyes at these early dotcom initiatives. Why create a website if it doesn't DO anything useful? At the very least give me your store locations and hours! I didn't yet have a good concept of economic bubbles but I do remember thinking that all of these people had lost their goddamn minds. The internet does not have intrinsic value, it only has value when you do something useful with it.

Where we are right now with crypto is very reminiscent of those early days when companies were trying to impress investors with keywords such as "internet" and "multimedia" without knowing what they were doing, and dumping tons of cash into useless online gimmicks with nothing of value to show for it.

Of course, the internet has revolutionized the way we live our lives since then, but most of those early companies don't exist anymore. They crashed and burned in the dotcom bust when investors finally realized they were full of shit. The internet became important because the traditional players took it over and integrated it into their existing playbooks.

This is - I think - where we are with blockchain based technologies today. NFT's, Cryptocurrencies, you name it. They may some day be integrated in every technology we use, but probably in less sexy ways in the back ends of apps and server infrastructures, or to support existing trades, etc. You will have the likes of IBM, Google, Facebook, the New York Stock Exchange, heck, even government integrate these technologies into supporting their existing business models, to boost security, etc. Heck, picture the IRS tracking your W2's using the blockchain to try to keep track of tax cheats :p

All of these silly supposedly "revolutionary" concepts like cryptocurrencies and NFT's that exist outside of existing government and business frameworks will likely eventually collapse, just like the early dotcoms before them, but eventually the technology that fueled them will cement itself transparently in the backend in ways most of us are not exposed to. Anywhere where there is an advantage to a secure ledger, there is a potential for it being applied, but the real benefit will not be in some free-wheeling anti-government cryptocurrency get rich scheme, it will be as a technology like any other, just like how corporations have developed end-to-end encryption schemes to secure some messages, etc. It will be something that succeeds because it is leveraged as part of the technology used by big business and government, silently behind the scenes as part of application layer protocols.

Think of it this way. Valve already has a marketplace in stupid things like Skins and other tradeables. They are making a lot of money from that. What benefit is it to them to turn them into NFT's? Maybe something on the security side? If they do - however - it will likely be transparent to users. The blockchain will be in the background, and users won't be exposed to it, or even know it is there. The likes of GameStop are no longer really relevant. This "crypto wallet" of theirs is just a last desperate attempt to jump on the bandwagon and stay relevant.

Or maybe it won't. Maybe the blockchain concept won't have as many good applications to support business and government as I suggest above. No one can read the future. The one thing that IS certain is that this looks just like a bubble. We have seen so many of them before, it should be obvious by now. The FOMO, the irrational exuberance, the fanboyism, it is all there. And eventually the crypto-bubble (including the NFT bubble) will all collapse. The technology will likely survive and be heavily used as part of other products, as mentioned above, but the whole decentralized free-wheeling get rich quick MLM scheme that is currently ongoing is unlikely to have any kind of long term viability. It will either collapse on its own, or be regulated out of existence by the SEC. The SEC may or may not win their lawsuit against Ripple, but either way, they will not be stopping there. I expect them to keep pushing until they have the full right to regulate all crypto assets as securities, and as soon as they do the crypto assets will lose a lot of their luster to many who are into them from the freewheeling anti-government perspective.

Some people have and will still be able to make lots of money in crypto, just like there were some who cashed in on their dotcom bubble businesses before the collapse, but if you are #hodl:ing, get ready to lose everything. It's only a matter of time.
 
Last edited:

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
12,287
We are probably about the same age. I may be just a couple of years older than you. Not sure, but probably close enough. I am what they call an Xennial. Grew up in the 80's in a pre-digital world, yet came of age in the 90's at the same time as the internet was starting to become important. I feel like most people on these forums are roughly in my age group. We probably have a range of mid to late Gen Xers, and first half of the millennial gen in here, but that is really the main age group of the Hardforums with only a few outliers. If there are any actual boomers in here, they are few and far between. Remember, the last of the baby boomers were born in 1964, so the very youngest boomers are 57 years old today.

....
This is a very fair assessment of what is happening and I couldn't have said it better myself. Also thanks for the history lesson on the internet adoption.
 
Top