Never Forget
-
This post did not contain any content.
And it wasn’t a jpeg. It was a link to a jpeg.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I just want a picture of a god dang hotdog
-
For the last time, it wasn’t $20k/$500k for a JPEG, it was for the rights to a jpeg. Everyone can see and use the JPEG, but only you could prove you owned it.
Was it even the rights, in a legal sense? I thought it was just a digital receipt of sorts that just links to the jpeg, which isn’t necessary the same thing as including control of the IP?
-
I tend to not get excited about the hot new thing in tech. Sometimes the thing has legs, like crypto-currency or LLM chatbots (probably), and sometimes it doesn’t, like metaverse or NFTs. But I work in tech, so I know a lot of people - am friends with some people - that tell me that the thing is the future and that I need to get in on it, too. Of all the fads that didn’t pan out, NFTs was the most satisfying to watch crash and burn.
I actually assumed it would take the place of art for money laundering.
-
Was it even the rights, in a legal sense? I thought it was just a digital receipt of sorts that just links to the jpeg, which isn’t necessary the same thing as including control of the IP?
No, there’s no transfer of copyright ownership, it’s merely proof that you own the token on a given blockchain for that JPEG. You don’t get any additional rights to the JPEG vs anyone else, just the ownership of the token. So people can verify that you own the token, and that’s about it.
-
And it wasn’t a jpeg. It was a link to a jpeg.
And half of those links don’t even work any more, as the businesses went bust.
So they paid $20k for a string of text that leads to nothing.
-
I know someone who bought an nft of a house in the meta verse(???) It was really hard not to laugh at his face. I did tell them it was stupid, just nicely
“You imbecile
” -
This post did not contain any content.
I can’t wait to watch the Internet Historian video about this.
-
“You imbecile
”Sweet summer child, bless your soul.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That was really just a stress test. They needed to see if the intelligence level had dropped below the trump line.
-
And it wasn’t a jpeg. It was a link to a jpeg.
-
I can’t wait to watch the Internet Historian video about this.
It’s not quite the same tone as internet historian, but if you’re looking for an entertaining takedown of NFTs, I highly recommend Line Goes Up by Folding Ideas.
-
I actually assumed it would take the place of art for money laundering.
It was for about 6 months
-
I tend to not get excited about the hot new thing in tech. Sometimes the thing has legs, like crypto-currency or LLM chatbots (probably), and sometimes it doesn’t, like metaverse or NFTs. But I work in tech, so I know a lot of people - am friends with some people - that tell me that the thing is the future and that I need to get in on it, too. Of all the fads that didn’t pan out, NFTs was the most satisfying to watch crash and burn.
That reminds me, we should also never forget that around the same time Mark Zuckerberg got so deep into Metaverse hype that he renamed his company after it and sunk 10s of billions of dollars into development with nothing to show for it
-
That was really just a stress test. They needed to see if the intelligence level had dropped below the trump line.
Heh. Maybe “the trump line” should become slang, like the mendoza line
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yeah, and I laughed at their stupidity the whole time. There was only ever one potential use case for NFTs (paying the artist) and it was immediately trampled by herds of gullible morons trying to make a quick buck.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Was anybody actually paying $500 though? It’s impossible to know but I think a majority of the sales were back to the seller to pump up the price, launder money, dodge taxes etc. There probably weren’t that many people actually paying 20k for these links.
A lot of very dark money got moved around though, which is really the only use case for crypto in general.
-
For the last time, it wasn’t $20k/$500k for a JPEG, it was for the rights to a jpeg. Everyone can see and use the JPEG, but only you could prove you owned it.
No it was never for the rights, and it was never for the jpeg. It was for a link to a jpeg which you didn’t own.
-
Was anybody actually paying $500 though? It’s impossible to know but I think a majority of the sales were back to the seller to pump up the price, launder money, dodge taxes etc. There probably weren’t that many people actually paying 20k for these links.
A lot of very dark money got moved around though, which is really the only use case for crypto in general.
500k
-
And half of those links don’t even work any more, as the businesses went bust.
So they paid $20k for a string of text that leads to nothing.
And people copied it as soon they had the link.
