Today's Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Forums › Off topic › Today's Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

1 | ... | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | ... | 270

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#3117879 18-Aug-2023 23:13

eracode:

NFTs represent ownership of an intangible asset.

My understanding is the digital item can still be (and often is) copied and transferred so it might be more accurate to say that holding an NFT shows you paid for the intangible asset.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3117880 18-Aug-2023 23:21

elpenguino:

eracode:

NFTs represent ownership of an intangible asset.

My understanding is the digital item can still be (and often is) copied and transferred so it might be more accurate to say that holding an NFT shows you paid for the intangible asset.

The NFT shows you have been swindled.

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3117882 18-Aug-2023 23:43

freitasm:
elpenguino:

My understanding is the digital item can still be (and often is) copied and transferred so it might be more accurate to say that holding an NFT shows you paid for the intangible asset.

The NFT shows you have been swindled.

More like it shows you aren’t familiar with tulips.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3117893 19-Aug-2023 06:47

elpenguino:

eracode:

NFTs represent ownership of an intangible asset.

My understanding is the digital item can still be (and often is) copied and transferred so it might be more accurate to say that holding an NFT shows you paid for the intangible asset.

Not sure what difference your change in wording makes. Surely in this case paid implies ownership - and vice versa.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3117931 19-Aug-2023 11:26

eracode:
Surely in this case paid implies ownership - and vice versa.

It implies ownership of the NFT, in other words the link, not necessarily the item being linked to. I can sell an NFT of the same thing 20 times, and in no case will the NFT owner get much in the way of standard owners rights, e.g. copyright control, over the linked item.

NFTs are pretty much the digital embodiment of the greater fool theory from economics.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3118870 22-Aug-2023 02:15

eracode:

Just saw this story about a local crypto-exchange on the NZH website:

“Furious customers of Auckland-based cryptocurrency exchange Dasset say they are unable to access their funds - and the firm is not responding to complaints.

Its 16 members (and counting) say they have been locked out of accounts holding between $3,000 and $40,000.

One customer who has been unable to withdraw $40,000 after three months of trying told the Herald she was the mother of two young boys.

“This was our entire life savings, [which] we were counting on, and now we are facing a very dire situation,” she said.”

My Whiskey Tango on this is “what was this one customer thinking?”. If her story is true, why on earth would you 1. put your entire life savings into crypto and 2. entrust the crypto to a very small exchange in 3. a very small country?

Fools and their money …..

Here’s an update on this story in the NZH. Liquidators appointed and report a $6.3m deficit - liabilities $6.9m, assets $0.6m.

Serious Fraud Office called in. Looks like fraud combined with likely Ponzi Scheme.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3118871 22-Aug-2023 02:21

eracode:
Fraud Squad called in. Looks like fraud combined with likely Ponzi Scheme.

I don't know about this specific case but cryptocurrencies as a whole are pump-and-dumps, not Ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes rely on paying off earlier investors with funds from newer ones but with the hodl philosophy of cryptocurrencies that's typically not necessary, while pump-and-dumps are, well, exactly how cryptocurrencies function.

cddt

1548 posts

Uber Geek

#3118872 22-Aug-2023 04:21

neb: I don't know about this specific case but cryptocurrencies as a whole are pump-and-dumps, not Ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes rely on paying off earlier investors with funds from newer ones but with the hodl philosophy of cryptocurrencies that's typically not necessary, while pump-and-dumps are, well, exactly how cryptocurrencies function.

Ah but you see this is a cryptocurrency exchange, which could be running a Ponzi scheme (the exchange pays off earlier depositors with funds from newer ones) while also promoting the pump-and-dump of cryptocurrencies.

So it's a bit of a "why not both" situation.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
8846 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3118875 22-Aug-2023 06:23

cddt:

neb: I don't know about this specific case but cryptocurrencies as a whole are pump-and-dumps, not Ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes rely on paying off earlier investors with funds from newer ones but with the hodl philosophy of cryptocurrencies that's typically not necessary, while pump-and-dumps are, well, exactly how cryptocurrencies function.

Ah but you see this is a cryptocurrency exchange, which could be running a Ponzi scheme (the exchange pays off earlier depositors with funds from newer ones) while also promoting the pump-and-dump of cryptocurrencies.

So it's a bit of a "why not both" situation.

Exactly - was almost certainly doing this - hard to see how could they could avoid that with $6.9m owing and only $0.6m on hand.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#3118930 22-Aug-2023 09:59

eracode:

Not sure what difference your change in wording makes. Surely in this case paid implies ownership - and vice versa.

The point is that with pretty much everything else you 'own' (car, land, IP) , you have exclusive rights to decide how that thing is used.

What's the point of 'owning' an NFT for a JPG (or whatever it is) if anyone else can view, copy and distribute that digital thing as if they were the owner?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

mkissin

388 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3118986 22-Aug-2023 13:08

elpenguino:

The point is that with pretty much everything else you 'own' (car, land, IP) , you have exclusive rights to decide how that thing is used.

What's the point of 'owning' an NFT for a JPG (or whatever it is) if anyone else can view, copy and distribute that digital thing as if they were the owner?

Those rights are only ever as good as the enforcement behind them. For traditional IP etc, the enforcement is strong (arguably overboard in a lot of cases) but is non-existent for the case of NFTs (along with a slew of other issues of course).

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3118995 22-Aug-2023 13:43

mkissin:

Those rights are only ever as good as the enforcement behind them. For traditional IP etc, the enforcement is strong (arguably overboard in a lot of cases) but is non-existent for the case of NFTs (along with a slew of other issues of course).

Yes... I can see NFTs having value if they're backed by a trusted issuer (e.g. the creator of the original artwork, or perhaps the owner of the artwork) who guarantees there will only ever be one NFT. Since there can only be one "authorised" NFT, it is rare and becomes collectable and therefore valuable. But if creating an NFT is cheap and easy (i.e. it's a commodity), there will be a slew of people creating NFTs for any given artwork. If the price goes up, someone new can enter the market and start creating and selling them. In which case the value of the NFT will never be much more than the cost of creating one... i.e. very little.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3118999 22-Aug-2023 13:58

frankv:

mkissin:

Those rights are only ever as good as the enforcement behind them. For traditional IP etc, the enforcement is strong (arguably overboard in a lot of cases) but is non-existent for the case of NFTs (along with a slew of other issues of course).

Yes... I can see NFTs having value if they're backed by a trusted issuer (e.g. the creator of the original artwork, or perhaps the owner of the artwork) who guarantees there will only ever be one NFT. Since there can only be one "authorised" NFT, it is rare and becomes collectable and therefore valuable. But if creating an NFT is cheap and easy (i.e. it's a commodity), there will be a slew of people creating NFTs for any given artwork. If the price goes up, someone new can enter the market and start creating and selling them. In which case the value of the NFT will never be much more than the cost of creating one... i.e. very little.

NFTs are a made-up scam. With so many real things to collect and invest in, who needs fictional ones? Go put your money into buttons or Diana mugs or miniature horses. At least then you have something you can take out and admire.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3119006 22-Aug-2023 14:29

Not even good for creators. NFTs were seemingly invented with the idea that any sale even after the first one would generate royalties for the art creator.

OpenSea recently announced "plans to move away from its “mandatory” creator fees to “optional” creator fees this month."

Obviously, creators aren't happy - and I use "creator" very loosely here because... Apes? Really?

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#3119012 22-Aug-2023 14:59

mkissin:

elpenguino:

The point is that with pretty much everything else you 'own' (car, land, IP) , you have exclusive rights to decide how that thing is used.

What's the point of 'owning' an NFT for a JPG (or whatever it is) if anyone else can view, copy and distribute that digital thing as if they were the owner?

Those rights are only ever as good as the enforcement behind them. For traditional IP etc, the enforcement is strong (arguably overboard in a lot of cases) but is non-existent for the case of NFTs (along with a slew of other issues of course).

Ahh, are you saying owning an NFT brings some kind of exclusive rights as well ? Well if so, that's great for the owner. But yeah, apes ......

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

1 | ... | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | ... | 270