3 ms·
I think that, just like the first NFT craze (Cryptokitties), a lot of it is conscious money down the drain from people who already got dirty rich and now care l
by 3np 6y ago
I think that, just like the first NFT craze (Cryptokitties), a lot of it is conscious money down the drain from people who already got dirty rich and now care less about $100k than about stimulating the market and promoting the growth of cryptocurrencies in general. They'll throw money at anything they perceive as aligning with their vision of what should come.
Consider the case that this truly is here to stay. Kind of cool to be able to flair one of the first really pricey NFTs, which also happens to be an art piece you think is kind of rad.
- libertine 6y agoI understand that, but those are the wrong motivations in my point of view. That's just overbloated hyped, I don't see it stick. >Kind of cool to be able to flair one of the first really pricey NFTs, which also happens to be an art piece you think is kind of rad. Which you nailed here, it's like they are pricey for the sake of being pricey. Or they're unique for the sake of being unique, not being unique because there were restrains that make it rare. If some of these pieces are going to millions of USD, then we might be at a point where any Picasso painting reached the billion dollar mark, that circles back to one of my questions: is there so much money in circulation? Or this is just fake money being thrown around?
- bondarchuk 6y agoIf we use the Dow Jones index with dividends reinvested as a proxy for inflation, instead of the phony official stats, then we can see that Picasso's self portrait, which was sold in May 1989 for 98.7m usd, would be worth 1.2 billion in today's dollars.