6 ms·

Some rich dude has bought the "first tweet" for $2.5 million, despite the fact that it's publicly accessible [0]. I imagine it's about showing off how rich the

• sp332 6y ago
  I don't think that's the question. That guy paid for the exclusive NFT thing, but no one else is going to make a profit selling cheap copies of that tweet.
  • lottin 6y ago
    Everybody who wants a copy already has one for free, that's what "publicly accessible" means.
• jameshart 6y ago
  What rights do you get with ‘owning’ the first tweet? Who could you buy those rights from? Do you get any responsibilities along with that? Like if UNESCO declare the first tweet a culturally significant artifact, could you be held liable for allowing it to fall into disrepair? And what does the existence of an NFT allow you to do with respect to that bundle fo rights you bought that couldn’t already be done by having someone write down a rights assignment on a piece of paper, sign it and hand it over to you in exchange for some consideration?
  • lottin 6y ago
    The buyer gets to own not the tweet but a "digital certificate of the tweet" which is the actual NFT thing. So what they buy is a certificate although I'm not sure what it certifies.
    • cachvico 6y ago
      It certifies two things: 1. That you paid a certain amount for the certificate. 2. That there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). Pretty much exactly like owning a baseball card, then.
      • SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
        > it certifies ... that there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates (e.g. "Valuables BY CENT"). How many "brand of certificates" are there now, and what is the barrier to entry? I suspect 1) several and 2) low. Also, how is "there will never be another certificate for the same thing, from the same brand of certificates" technically enforced?
        • cachvico 6y ago
          Correct. Although there is only one brand that has sold a Tweet NFT for $3mil. The enforcement, interestingly, is more traditional; the owners of the "Valuables by CENT" trademark can use existing legal structures to prevent anyone else using that name. Meanwhile the NFT is digitally linked to the Valuables by CENT smart contract on Ethereum, which will presumably have an 'author' property attached to it, set to the string "Valuables by CENT".
          • SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
            > The enforcement, interestingly, is more traditional; Ah, so they pinkie swear not to do it a second time?
            • cachvico 6y ago
              It would be equivalent of Sotheby's starting a second brand competing with themselves, but yes.
              • SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Taek 6y ago
  There's no social validation in throwing $2.5 million into a furnace. Spending $2.5 million on a tweet means you are validating everyone who believes that NFT's are real and an industry with a promising future. Especially in an environment where these objects are so hyped and driving a lot of venture capital investment, participating has large social benefits.
• guiambros 6y ago
  It's not just some "rich dude". The highest bidder [1] (so far) is Justin Sun, creator of TRON crypto [2]. I see this as a big publicity stunt for his personal branding. Not too different than paying $4.5M to have a dinner with Warren Buffett [3]. [1] https://www.coindesk.com/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-is-offering-to-sell-the-first-ever-tweet https://www.coindesk.com/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-is-offering... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Sun [3] https://www.coindesk.com/trons-justin-sun-finally-gets-4-5m-dinner-with-warren-buffett https://www.coindesk.com/trons-justin-sun-finally-gets-4-5m-...