16 ms·
Twitter's Dorsey auctions first ever tweet as digital memorabilia
- 177tcca 6y agoThis feels wrong.
- garbagetime 6y agoDoesn't really feel wrong to me. Just incredibly stupid.
- esperent 6y agoFeels like someone is trying to invent a new way to launder money.
- tootahe45 6y agoGotta be rewarded for your crypto price-boosting tweets somehow. Directly buying and selling btc would be too obvious, just get some anonymous entity to do it for you, then pay you via your silly blockchain artworks.
- hntrader 6y agoIncredibly stupid things don't feel wrong?
- mike_d 6y agoI would be absolutely shocked if this wasn't a violation of some part of the Twitter Terms of Service. Yes, I understand who Jack is. The Twitter legal team probably hasn't thought out all the ins and outs of tweets becoming a currency.
- Talanes 6y agoWhat happens when someone's account gets removed, but they were in the middle of an auction? I'm sure they at least stir up a fuss.
- Tenoke 6y agoThey are not becoming a currency. At best a non fungible asset.
- dannyw 6y agoLike most platforms, when you tweet, you own the copyright but license it nonexclusively to Twitter. Twitter cannot stop you from selling your tweets because you are the copyright holder.
- gorgonzolachz 6y agoI don't understand why anyone would pay for this, under any circumstances. You're not paying for exlusive access to the tweet, or even ownership in any meaningful context - you get a certificate of authenticity tied to a cryptographic signature. The tweet is still out there in the wild, and it's not like you can delete it or transfer it to your handle or anything like that. I truly, genuinely have no idea who's bidding on this, or what their reasoning is. In fact, I'm not sure I understand the concept of NFTs at all. In the physical world, fine art holds its value because there is exactly one of each painting, and the human hoarding impulse nurtures a sense of reverence towards originality. However, art "sold" via NFT is still accessible and available for anyone to appreciate and download. I don't have to ask for permission from the owner to look at the art, or even go to a specific location (like a gallery for a physical piece). I can just download the art to my computer and stare at it whenever I want. The only argument I've seen for NFTs is that many famous artworks have prints made, that are cheap and available to everyone. The original painting is expensive and owned by a single person, but anyone can have an imitation hanging on their wall. I don't know that I buy the translation of this concept to the digital world, because prints are very obviously not the actual piece (not least because they're printed and not painted). If I download an image or video, or grab a link to @jack's tweet, I have the exact same configuration of bytes that the "owner" has. In the case of a link, I'm staring at the exact same thing the "owner" is, and the fact that it's on a reputable website means I'm not looking at a fake - thus providing the same guarantee as a certificate of authenticity. Hell, there's even a cryptographic element, since the site will use TLS for encryption. Am I missing the paradigm here? Or is this just the method by which crypto millionaires will become crypto penniless?
- Tenoke 6y agoIt's just akin to a recognized by the owner and others deed of ownership over an asset. And this gets bought by the same people that might buy an autograph or memorabilia that would be about equally useless without the story around it and others valuing it too.
- dannyw 6y agoAdvantages of NFTs: • Auctionable and sellable on the blockchain without any AML or KYC • Creates a paper trail that posits as a legitimate way to have accumulated wealth to the taxman and government • Round-trip costs of <2% as compared to traditional money laundering systems which can be an order of magnitude more expensive. • Plausible denialability as art. Basically, NFTs are a great way to launder money. Launders will likely also do some unrelated party transactions to counter anomaly detection, so even if you don't want to launder money, buying NFTs can give you the ability to capture some money laundering premium. You may find this description morally wrong, but don't doubt the ability for NFTs to grow in value. Money laundering is big money.
- shuntress 6y agoI would like to see something like this but for media licenses. It would be nice to be able to keep an offline NFT library (of, for example, music) where the tokens can be presented (with authentication) to streaming services like amazon or spotify in order to download a DRM-free copy of whatever media the NFT proves I own license to hold.
- captn3m0 6y agoNeedless to say, like most crypto-ideas, this doesn't need NFT. A digital signature from the seller of the license would work just as well..
- vntok 6y agoNot really. What happens when the sellers pass away and someone has to check the chain of transmission ? Do you have to go to each spouse in order and ask them to retrieve "you know, a big file full of numbers" somewhere in the deceased's backup usb key? You need a public and immutable chain of authentified transactions for that to be an instant check.
- rossmohax 6y agoIt does not, but agreeing where to keep register is a political problem. Why would register to be run by Sony and not Warner? With NFTs it is already there, held by forever neutral party, so it is easier for all market players to recognize it.
- notahacker 6y agoNot really. The rightsholder determines whether they want to maintain the rights database for their songs themselves or delegate it to one or more distributors to do it. This is a solved problem and the intermediaries provide value to the rightsholder in marketing, managing more complex license types (performance, radio airplay, use in film) and pestering copyright violators
- pavel_lishin 6y ago> it is easier for all market players to recognize it. What advantage do they have for doing so?
- leggomuhgreggo 6y ago"you wouldn't download a ~~car~~ tweet?"
- bluesign 6y agoProblem is with physical art, you have guaranteed unique item. Basically item guarantees it is unique. With NFT, auctioneer guarantees item is unique, but nothing prevents you selling the same item on different markets. Basically you are betting on the market you are using will be the ‘one’ in the future.
- vntok 6y agoThat problem already exists in the real world, where for example some paintings or gold necklaces are claimed by multiple countries, due to a lot of war looting and tomb raids. Each country may hold a legitimate deed over the piece of art, whether that deed is recognized by other countries is another thing.
- bluesign 6y agoYeah but still item is unique. Imagine every country claiming this item can sell. In real world, you may have the deed but without the item, it has actually no value. In digital world, you only have deed, not a physical item. So deed has the only value.
- qqii 6y agoHere's an artist talking about this: https://youtu.be/1ERt4BTBbDk https://youtu.be/1ERt4BTBbDk I find his analogy more apt - nothing prevented an artists from making another painting and claiming it to be genuine #1 of #1 either. It's just with NFTs the benefit for a buyer is being able to see this happen on a public blockchain.
- stelliosk 6y agoThis reminds me of the 'buy an acre of Moon real estate and receive a certificate". https://lunarland.com/moon-land/ https://lunarland.com/moon-land/
- notahacker 6y agoIt's exactly that, but mostly not at prices you'd buy your kid as a birthday present.
- guerrilla 6y agoHow do these things work? Wikipedia doesn't actually say. Do you hash the data and then transfer ownership of the hash on the blockchain to somone?
- qqii 6y agoOwnership relies on asymmetric cryptography, at a basic level the tuple (nft token, public key) is unique and enforced to be unique by the rules of the blockchain.
- xodice 6y agoSo I could just screenshot the tweet and would have more physical gain for my $100,000.00 than the purchaser? I guess I don't understand the value of purchasing this or I'm missing something obvious.
- qqii 6y agoYour screenshot of the tweet hasn't been "signed genuine #1 of #1" by Jack Dorsey.
- nbzso 6y agoValue - the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange. ------------------------------------- Game over. NFTs are validated publicly. From here is nothing new.
- godelzilla 6y agoAnother very strong SELL signal for anyone holding crypto. I sold when that Beeple art sold for $6m.
- IdontRememberIt 6y agoPump and dump friendly. Money laundry friendly. For sure this new scam will have powerful forces to drive its marketed attractivity to the roof.
- KoftaBob 6y agoMoney Laundering as a service
- KKKKkkkk1 6y agoRemember in the early days of COVID, Marc Andreessen published his It's Time to Build essay? How America needs to start solving housing, education, transportation, manufacturing? I expect this essay to be the target of criticism. Here’s a modest proposal to my critics. Instead of attacking my ideas of what to build, conceive your own! What do you think we should build? There’s an excellent chance I’ll agree with you. Our nation and our civilization were built on production, on building. Our forefathers and foremothers built roads and trains, farms and factories, then the computer, the microchip, the smartphone, and uncounted thousands of other things that we now take for granted, that are all around us, that define our lives and provide for our well-being. There is only one way to honor their legacy and to create the future we want for our own children and grandchildren, and that’s to build. https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ Well, it's been less than a year, and it looks like a16z is now big on NFTs. https://a16z.com/2021/02/27/nfts-and-a-thousand-true-fans/ https://a16z.com/2021/02/27/nfts-and-a-thousand-true-fans/
- ffggvv 6y agoso instead of building useful things like bridges or infrastructure, we decided to gamble on useless greater fool theory “assets”
- NoOneNew 6y agoTo be fair, it's not like Twitter is useful to society. You cant expect people who got a positive feedback loop for building useless to switch to building a bridge, water treatment plant or a mosquito net.
- adventured 6y agoInstead? As though some VCs allocating a couple billions of dollars of private capital to crypto investments gets in the way of the government properly allocating ~$7.8 trillion in tax revenue every year. Venture capitalists don't build bridges or infrastructure, fortunately (although they could hardly do worse than the various governments in the US). Government does that by and large. It's the responsibility of government to allocate its tax revenue to infrastructure. The US has among the least responsible governments that has ever existed in world history. That's on the shoulders of the voters and the politicians they elect. It's not the VCs or politicians (insert scapegoat here) that are the primary problem (they're all secondary), it's down to the American people that have behaved like absentee sloven bastards for half a century now.
- rzzzt 6y agoCan the future owner edit the tweet?
- hntrader 6y agoOr can the account owner delete a tweet after selling it as a NFT?
- qqii 6y agoLegally, who knows? Technically yes. As for my take, the NFT is just a data, accepted to represent the idea of that Jack minted and is now selling the tweet. Contractually he hasn't agreed to give you rights to editing or deleting the tweet.
- rzzzt 6y agoThe last two paragraphs are a bit confusing to me. One is saying that the company auctioning the tweets compares the process to acquiring signed baseball cards -- but I can draw sunglasses on the player's photo with a sharpie if I want to, in that case. I am certainly not allowed to draw sunglasses on the player with a sharpie, of course, that would be very rude. So is Jack selling _the_ tweet, or a signed "photograph" of the tweet? Is the buyer the "tweet's buyer", as it stands in the last paragraph or a... I'm out of analogies.
- almost_usual 6y agoPeople will pay anything right now to not hold cash.
- christiansakai 6y agoThis is just the tech version of "Donate to Kylie Jenner" to become the world's youngest female billionaire. I think it is just the reality of this world that there exists people in this world whose sole purpose in life is to be exploited by others, and they gain pleasure knowing that.
- nobrains 6y agoWhile Bitcoins are not tulips (of the Tulip Mania fame), NFTs are.
- Traster 6y agoApart from the obvious questions such as "What does owning an NFT associated with a tweet actually mean?" an interesting aspect of this is: Is Jack Dorsey selling this tweet as CEO of twitter. Does he own it because he's the CEO of twitter and twitter owns the tweet, or does he own it because he wrote the tweet. If he owns it because he wrote it then does that mean I can sell my tweets? If he owns it because he's CEO of twitter does that mean twitter is selling it and it'll be listed on their accounts? Also, the top bid is by Justin Sun at $2m, a man who from what I can gather is more famous as a "Tech entrepeneur" brand than for anything he's actually done. Also famous for bidding $4.5m for lunch with Warren Buffet.... and then failed to pay up. Frankly, he looks like a great poster child for this transparent pump and dump.
- ketamine__ 6y ago> Also famous for bidding $4.5m for lunch with Warren Buffet.... and then failed to pay up. Do you have a source for this?
- maest 6y agoFrom: https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/tron-ceo-justin-sun-had-5-million-lunch-warren-buffett-2020-2-1028882022?op=1 https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/tron-ceo... Looks like he complained about some health issues: "[Justin Sun] unexpectedly dropped out days before the scheduled lunch date, blaming a bout of kidney stones. However, he apologized on social media for overpromoting himself, and Bloomberg reported that Chinese authorities briefly detained Tron employees, sparking conspiracies that he bowed out under pressure from Beijing."
- ketamine__ 6y agoThat doesn't say he didn't pay. I would assume payment is upfront.
- spurdoman77 6y agoHe paid and there was dinner, it was just delayed. Shitcoins are good business, Justin can afford stupid shit.
- rumblecat 6y agoThe case for NFTs rests on a virtuous cycle between artists and buyers. On the artist side, there are temporary benefits, such as increased prices and pandemic-safe fundraising. But the killer feature is programmability - for example, it is possible to program the NFT such that the artist takes a chunk out of every resale on the secondary market. This means that as long as there are buyers, there will be artists issuing their work as NFTs. The buy side is more complicated, because people buy art for different reasons. But there are benefits such as digitization making money laundering more convenient. The main issue is legitimacy concerns, but so long as artists can benefit from NFTs, they are incentivized to express the legitimacy of the NFT. In the equation of who gets to decide legitimacy, I would say the artist has the most sway. Of course, it's entirely possible that NFTs will fail. First off, it could fail if the issuing blockchain failed or had a contentious fork. Secondly, it's possible that the primary blockchain or issuer for NFTs could change, which could reduce the value of "obsolete" NFTs. There is also regulatory risk. Finally, there is the possibility that people who abuse NFT system, such as repeatedly reissuing art or issuing pirated art, could poison the well. But that's entirely different from saying NFTs are doomed to fail and inherently worthless.
- AVTizzle 6y ago> it is possible to program the NFT such that the artist takes a chunk out of every resale on the secondary market I hear this and like the notion, but I'm curious - how does the smart contract know what the sale price was?
- qqii 6y agoThe sale is done in via smart contract, a buyer essentially sends tokens (commonly Ethereum) to the smart contact. Under commissioned scheme the smart contact will create transactions that split the Ethereum between the relevant parties (commonly buyer, platform, seller).
- rumblecat 6y agoCurrently it's done through the marketplace platform, so actually commissions don't track when you sell through other platforms. EIP-2981 aims to standardize this. Depending on your view of platforms, this could be less than ideal. It should also be possible to modify the transfer function in the EIP-721 contract to be a swap, but this would require a new standard. In any case, it could be gotten around by an escrowed transfer with swap amount being set to 0. I don't think there is a way to prevent this.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thenoblesunfish 6y agoThis is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read about here, and bear in mind that people like to post articles about Bitcoin.