JPG File Sells for $69 Million, as ‘NFT Mania’ Gathers Pace

[LazyPiranha]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

They are different, yes. To what end? Why do the differences matter other than to the individual making a decision on whether or not to purchase?
 

The original having more value than a copy is completely arbitrary! We just collectively have decided so. What if in the future we view physical goods as less valuable than high res digital versions of the same thing?

Yes, everyone understands and agrees that the subjective value of owning an original over a duplicate is subjective.  What I am saying is that the material difference between an original and a duplicate is NOT subjective, and whatever value people derive from that difference is entirely personal.  I have seen “The Persistence of Memory” in person at the MOMA.  Would I personally pay whatever millions it would be worth to own it?  Fuck no.  Would I have traveled to a museum to see a bunch of high quality image files of the same artwork?  Also no.  
 

There is no material difference between the linked file NFT of a meme and a meme I copy and paste here for free.  There is no material difference in the thing a person owns.  The problem I have with NFT stuff aside from the obvious environmental issues is that a subjective value is being attached to a nonexistent material difference.  The person who paid half a million dollars for a meme and I have the exact same rights to the image.  

[CitizenVectron]

 

[Keyser_Soze]

6 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

Missed opportunity by @Jason

[Ghost_MH]

Cool, a set of basically NFT trading cards went for $16.9m at auction.

 

CryptoPunks NFTs sell at Christie’s for $16.9 million

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

Including one rare "alien" punk.

 

To put that in prospective, the most expensive Pokemon card went for $360k. Magic card? $250k. How about a 1909 Honus Wagner baseball card? That went for $3.12m. However, this collection of randomly generated pixel art sprites made in 2017 just blew those all out of the water.

 

Beeple's work was totally worth it as an artist. These? Just what are we doing?

[Uaarkson]

Ha ha that is infuriating 

[Jason]

 

[Kal-El814]

Nakomoto must be identified and flogged.

[Keyser_Soze]

 

[Keyser_Soze]

 

[Ghost_MH]

Fuck every single one of us...

 

You can now buy a $475 NFT ticket to see Beeple’s $69 million NFT at an IRL party

WWW.THEVERGE.COM

---

There’s *definitely* no other way to see this image.

 

Nothing like burning through a ton of electricity just to see a JPG projected on a wall. I'm sure the event will be very nice. I'm also sure there was no other way to sell these tickets...no no, wait, they're also selling regular tickets for $150. Nothing like paying $475 for a digital copy of a $150 ticket. Everyone can just jump right off the nearest cliff.

[SuperSpreader]

 

lol wtf is this voodoo money 

[Keyser_Soze]

Microsoft is celebrating Windows 11's launch with a freaking NFT | PC Gamer

WWW.PCGAMER.COM

---

The NFT promises "valuable experiences and rewards."

 

[Ricofoley]

Investors Spent Millions on 'Evolved Apes' NFTs. Then They Got Scammed

WWW.VICE.COM

---

The developer behind the NFT project, 'Evil Ape,' suddenly disappeared along with its Twitter account, website, and $2.7 million.

 

Quote

Even though the money is gone, the Evolved Apes community plans to carry on. Unlike with cryptocurrencies, NFT rug pulls leave behind JPEGs and a narrative surrounding them. Mike_Cryptobull explained in the report that he and others would build a new project called Fight Back Apes out of the ashes of Evolved Apes. Evolved Apes holders would be automatically approved for a Fight Back Apes token linked with the art from the old project.

 

And the same people actually fell for this shit again!

 

 

[thewhyteboar]

Fools and their money, etc. etc.

[Ricofoley]

I'm just floored by every one of these new sets I see because the art somehow looks shittier with every new one that crops up.

[legend]

There's a big part of me that is okay with these people being scammed in the faint hope it accelerates the collapse of this fucking nonsense.

 

It occurs to me this is probably how @Commissar SFLUFAN feels about the US.

[SuperSpreader]

NFT? I don't understand it and I won't respond to it.

[Jason]

 

[thewhyteboar]

47 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Man that is a blast from the past.

[BloodyHell]

On 4/30/2021 at 11:55 AM, sblfilms said:

If a person gets joy out of being the owner of an NFT of the Picasso, how is that different than your enjoyment over looking at brush strokes on canvas?

 

It is all arbitrary.

It's not. 

The painting is a real, rare physical good. A copy cannot replicate the look and feel of a painting. A copy is flat, and there are obvious differences side by side in both color and texture. 

 

But most importantly, I can still sell the painting when my power goes out. It is wealth that can be moved and traded.

 

When you walk through a place like the Louvre, you're very aware that you are in the presence of important, historical artwork. When we visited for our honeymoon, it gave me a much deeper connection to art I had often seen in print  but never cared about. 

 

And yes, I realize some copies are still done with paint, and an idiot like me might not see the difference, but that's very rare, and people who are into art can genuinely tell the difference, but prints aren't even close. I've seen a thousand prints of the Mona Lisa, and none of them look anything like real thing up close. 

 

Edit: damn, didn't realize how old that post was.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

It's not. 

The painting is a real, rare physical good. A copy cannot replicate the look and feel of a painting. A copy is flat, and there are obvious differences side by side in both color and texture. 

 

But most importantly, I can still sell the painting when my power goes out. It is wealth that can be moved and traded.

 

When you walk through a place like the Louvre, you're very aware that you are in the presence of important, historical artwork. When we visited for our honeymoon, it gave me a much deeper connection to art I had often seen in print  but never cared about. 

 

And yes, I realize some copies are still done with paint, and an idiot like me might not see the difference, but that's very rare, and people who are into art can genuinely tell the difference, but prints aren't even close. I've seen a thousand prints of the Mona Lisa, and none of them look anything like real thing up close. 

 

Edit: damn, didn't realize how old that post was.

You perfectly described the arbitrary nature of it. It made you feel a certain way, which drives the value in your mind. In the not too distant future we will be able to create exact replicas of famous paintings, brush strokes and all…and you’ll still feel differently towards the original work than the replicas for the arbitrary reason that one is a original even if they look exactly the same.

[Kal-El814]

I thought this thread was a fun take on the whole grift.

 

 

[Guest]

Nothing has intrinsic value and all markets are a shared delusion. That is why I am always amused at the disdain for NFTs because they just remove the pretense of rationality and legitimacy to market economics  

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

You perfectly described the arbitrary nature of it. It made you feel a certain way, which drives the value in your mind. In the not too distant future we will be able to create exact replicas of famous paintings, brush strokes and all…and you’ll still feel differently towards the original work than the replicas for the arbitrary reason that one is a original even if they look exactly the same.

 

I think we should differentiate here that NFT's aren't granting ownership to the thing, they're granting ownership to a link to the thing. This isn't like owning the Picasso. Instead the artist is selling directions to their house where the painting is stored with the caveat being that they're allowed to move whenever they want rendering the address they sold you a 404. NFT's are less like buying art and more like buying plots on the moon.

[CitizenVectron]

11 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I think we should differentiate here that NFT's aren't granting ownership to the thing, they're granting ownership to a link to the thing. This isn't like owning the Picasso. Instead the artist is selling directions to their house where the painting is stored with the caveat being that they're allowed to move whenever they want rendering the address they sold you a 404. NFT's are less like buying art and more like buying plots on the moon.

 

Right. And I think there are two things being argued here (well, three):

• Is the value arbitrary? Yes, and so is everything in life except that which is fundamental to life itself
• Is it really just a giant scam? Yes. A lot of art sales are also scams, but that's separate
• Is the whole thing stupid? Yes

[Ghost_MH]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Right. And I think there are two things being argued here (well, three):

• Is the value arbitrary? Yes, and so is everything in life except that which is fundamental to life itself
• Is it really just a giant scam? Yes. A lot of art sales are also scams, but that's separate
• Is the whole thing stupid? Yes

 

Oh, art sales in general are all a scam, but at least they're imparting actual ownership of a thing. The scam is from the curators who collude to elevate certain artists over others to manipulate the arbitrary value of the artwork being sold. However, again, at least there is a thing that is being sold. The actual ownership of the thing is actually being transferred. If artists were actually selling their digital goods with NFTs it would be far less of a stupid scam and I'd be less gobsmacked about the whole thing. However, even high profile sales like Beeple's aren't actually selling the rights to anything.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Art sales are for money laundering and avoiding some European wealth taxes nothing more

[Ghost_MH]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Art sales are for money laundering and avoiding some European wealth taxes nothing more

 

Well, this too. At least you're getting a cool thing to commemorate your money laundering, though.

[Guest]

You keep bringing up the “thing” aspect as though holding a physical thing in your possession is fundamentally superior to an entry in a database representing your ownership of a digital thing.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

One is electrons on a drive somewhere the other reflects photons and is made of electrons so they're basically the same thing

[Ghost_MH]

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You keep bringing up the “thing” aspect as though holding a physical thing in your possession is fundamentally superior to an entry in a database representing your ownership of a digital thing.

 

You're skipping the part where NFTs don't represent ownership of a digital thing. They represent ownership of a link to a thing while the seller maintains the right to move the thing, rendering the link you own a 404.

[legend]

17 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You keep bringing up the “thing” aspect as though holding a physical thing in your possession is fundamentally superior to an entry in a database representing your ownership of a digital thing.

 

The "thing" aspect is important if the only way to interact with it is by physically owning it. If I don't buy a painting, I can't hang it on my wall.

 

If I don't buy an NFT, I still have an identical interaction experience as I would if I bought it.

 

 

If the question is "what about buying a copy of the painting," yes, if the copy is actually indistinguishable, buying the copy is just as good as buying the original.

[Keyser_Soze]

Look he brought up a necro conversation because he only goes to unread topics and responds. Can we not go through this whole thing again?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

You're skipping the part where NFTs don't represent ownership of a digital thing. They represent ownership of a link to a thing while the seller maintains the right to move the thing, rendering the link you own a 404.

A lot of pro-nft people I've seen on Twitter refer to people who save these digital images derisively as "right clickers" which is just *chefs kiss*

Like look at some of the replies to this tweet. It's a lot of cope

 

 

 

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

You're skipping the part where NFTs don't represent ownership of a digital thing. They represent ownership of a link to a thing while the seller maintains the right to move the thing, rendering the link you own a 404.

This is merely *one* way NFTs work. Look at what Nike is doing with their NFT schema for validating the authenticity and ownership of shoes. I’m not skipping anything, you’re just incorrect.