top 51 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 89 points 8 months ago (29 children)

When I first learned about NFTs I figured I was simply too stupid to understand it. There was simply no way it was as dumb as it sounded.

Turns out I was right, it was way, way dumber than it sounded.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    Art is money laundering for the rich.

    It all make sense now, doesn't it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    Throw back to Banksy setting a trap in 2006, and springing it 12 years later:

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-14-million-bansky-painting-shred-itself-soon-it-sold-180970486/

    "We’ve been Banksy-ed," Alex Branczik, Sotheby’s head of European Contemporary art said in a press conference after the incident. “I’ll be quite honest, we have not experienced this situation in the past, where a painting is spontaneously shredded upon achieving a record for the artist.”

    Now that... that's fuckin' art right there.

    I love the rest of the article entirely missing the point of Banksy doing that being a surprise.

    There, you idiots, frame that image.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    They keep referring to Banksy as "he." We don't know if Banksy is male or female though, correct?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    As far as I know that's correct, nobody knows who Bansky actually is.

    ... Is what I was going to say.

    What astoundingly serendipitous timing.

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/

    TL:DR

    First posted on the 13th, picked up by other media roughly 6 hours ago, Reuters released a special investigative report, and they believe Bansky is:

    ... are you sure? ...

    Robert Del Naja, the frontman of Massive Attack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Small correction:

    SpoilerThey actually go on, in that Reuters article, to say it isn't Del Naja, but instead David Jones. The Del Naja bit is kind of a red herring. David Jones, formerly Robin Gunningham, as long suspected. The Wikipedia page has already been updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    This fake art for sure, and so much that people start to think monetary value is what is important in art.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There was an experiment where someone set up a high class shoe store in a nice location. They took cheap shoes from discount stores and marked them way up and put them on some nice display racks. People bought them.

    Expensive = good...to some people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    So how is he laundering money now with it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    It went the way it usually goes if anything is used exclusively as a subject of speculation. NFTs were meant to represent things, but people inscribed "value" in the representation instead. As if the housing market suddenly exploded the day someone invented writing its owner on a piece of paper.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    There are lots of legitimate but boring uses of NFTs, just not the kind that make the news like pictures of monkeys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (8 children)
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago* (6 children)

    Proves ownership that is much more difficult for scammers to steal. Banks and insurance companies can use them(contracts...etc). Reduces costs in proving ownership as well. Unfortunately art seems to be the only thing anyone knows about but it should honestly be a very secure but ultra boring technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    We already have mechanisms for all of that. Any security it provides you can have without it, the only difference it had going for it was "it has blockchain" and that was the Arbitrary Magic Hype Word at the time - like "AI" is now and "cloud" was before. In reality that means it's a huge unwieldy system that wastes tons of resources for what's often really poor reasons.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    We do have existing mechanisms in place. More expensive and less safe options. This is definitely not a huge and unwieldy system. Very simple and streamlined and much cheaper. Nothing amazing or world changing... just some minor technological advances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    I don't see how it's more expensive or less safe for authentication to be signing with a private key and publishing the public key...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago

    You don't get it. It's on the block chain, it's a chain of blocks man, like it's decentralized finance man, we're calling it defi, like hifi but defi, it's gonna be huge.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    No there isn't. There's lots of ways you can shoehorn NFTs in, but it's always a poor fit. People always try and claim that NFTs will solve some sort of problem that is already solved with existing technology.

    There is no problem NFTs can solve that can't also be implemented much more cheaply and effectively with an SQL database from the 90s.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 8 months ago

    I've sold some photos as NFTs 🤷‍♀️, and I've bought some art from well known people like sabet and ame72.

    It's not as ridiculous as people make it sound. It's just these headlines of the most ridiculous examples sets people's perception of the tech. It's really not much different than patreon or something, except the creator doesn't get totally screwed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, look at the bright side. Someone scammed Logan Paul out of $635,000.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    He bought it for the headline.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago

    Hahaha remember when they said nfts were going to be valuable because the artists involved were so innovative and cool? Then now the next GPU-selling trend is to rip off artists.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago*

    Future US Senator, folks! Truly a country of serious people.

    ETA: $155 is still comically high.

  • source
  • [+] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Is it really worth $155, tho? Did someone actually buy it for that much? Or is it actually worth nothing since nobody is willing to buy it? 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Correction: today it's worthless and in 2021 it was worth nothing.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    NFTs were a vehicle to launder gains from cryptocurrency.

    dude probably took the loss as a write off and gained millions in clean liquid cash.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    how about this take? logan spent 635K on a publicity stunt and 5 years later you muppets are stilll tweeting about it, pretty good return id say

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    The concept of an NFT and the security of purchasing isn't worthless. The fact that people with too much money bid up and purchased any old crap available as a NFT was and always is idiocy. That crap reverting to worthlessness when it wasn't worth anything to start with is reasonable. Some people were able to make a ton of money with that hype. Same as they now are on AI.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Just means when he sells it he will have quite a bit of capital loss to offset any gains he made.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago
    [–] -4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    why is lemmy obsessed with nft’s?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment