12 ms·

NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. I h

NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. I have several hand painted reproductions of famous paintings (impressionist). I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I don't need to have $100M. I'm glad that content creators are getting paid now but remember that most "artists" end up penniless and their art is only highly valued posthumously.

gruez 6y ago
>NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. You can say this about literally every non-productive asset, including NFT's real-life counterparts eg. painting or trading cards.
- bostonpete 6y ago
  Except those sorts of collectibles drive much of their value from their limited supply.
  - gruez 6y ago
    paintings might be limited in supply, but trading cards are easily mass produced.
    - bostonpete 6y ago
      They are easily mass produced, but the companies still limit the supply specifically so there is value for collectors
      - gruez 6y ago
        But the same dynamic exists with NFTs. The issuers can limit supply to ensure value for collectors.
        imtringued 6y ago
        Physical goods have a counterfeiting risk. Is it possible to use NFTs to prevent counterfeiting by verifying that a product is genuine? If not then they really have no use. Physical goods need verification but digital goods can be replicated perfectly. A "bootleg" is just as good as the original so no verification is needed.
        K0balt 6y ago
        Yes. That is precisely one of their best uses. I'm a dev at pruf.io and this is one of the many things our platform is designed to do.
        gruez 6y ago
        >Physical goods need verification but digital goods can be replicated perfectly. A "bootleg" is just as good as the original so no verification is needed. The same can be applied to physical goods as well. Why do people pay millions for the original painting, even though they could probably get a replica that's identical to the naked eye for much less? Clearly they're interested in more than it being "as good as the original".
    - krrrh 6y ago
      They’re both still subject to entropy and the rules of the physical universe in a way that digital isn’t.
      - Bayart 6y ago
        How is digital not affected by physics ? It's all relying on electricity and thermodynamics to begin with. Furthermore digital assets undergo similar attrition to physical goods through people losing access to their goods. The BTC block chain is notorious for its forgotten wallets.
  - Taek 6y ago
    The entire point of NFTs is that you can attach a verifiably limited supply to a set of collectables. Just like with their real world counterparts, you can have knock-offs and reproductions that people collect, but the owner of the actual original one knows they have something of a limited set.
    - Can_Not 6y ago
      When beanie babies have limited supply, it's because the factory has to manufacture other goods for their next contract. When imaginary cryptohashes have limited supply, it's kind of pointless, or at least there is nothing good for the buyer or society.
      - xfkechyk 6y ago
        There are plenty of products where scarcity is intentionally created, though. Disney DVDs are a prime example.
yawnr 6y ago
I’m skeptical about NFTs too but trying to keep an open mind, because at the end of the day, while you or I personally don’t need the 100M to enjoy the impressionist art, you can’t ignore the fact that someone out there is in fact willing to pay that for the original. And that’s kind of the same weird authenticity bragging rights situation.
- bostonpete 6y ago
  Well there's also the allure of the physical object that the artist created by hand. People done go see the Mona Lisa rather than a replica for bragging rights. That's not there with digital goods.
- thinkloop 6y ago
  There's a big practical difference between owning an original and owning a print. People have discovered secrets behind paint or canvas before. New technologies often allow us to introspect qualities of the art that we previously didn't know (chemicals used, techniques, tools, lifestyles, etc.). An original is a snapshot of history that includes tons of unique information that is simply not available in prints or nfts.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  while you or I personally don’t need the 100M to enjoy the impressionist art, you can’t ignore the fact that someone out there is in fact willing to pay that for the original. There are people who happily pay $10,000+ for an Italian purse. There are people who are happy with a $10 Chinese knock-off. There are people who happily pay $2,000 for an Apple laptop. There are people who are happy with Linux on a $100 machine from Goodwill. There are people who go outside to feel the breeze. There are people who are happy with a fan. I don't understand NFTs at all. But I have to remind myself that often value is subjective.
  - Taek 6y ago
    You should also account for how early NFTs are. If you've been following blockchains for a while, you may recall that in 2012 and 2013 there were an ocean of Bitcoin knock offs that distinguished themselves by changing things like the difficulty adjustment algorithm, or the hashing function, or the total coin supply. All of these "altcoins" to experts seemed to be completely useless and many chalked the entire category up as worthless. Eventually of course a lot more interesting altcoins were invented, and it turned out to be a great source of innovation, it just had a hurdle to cross first. I feel like NFTs today are roughly where altcoins were in 2012. Lots of good fundamentals to the ideas, but most of the implementations are really missing the mark. Whatever the NFT equivalent of Ethereum, Zcash, Sia, etc is... it's not here yet. And it may yet be a year or two until it first appears.
stolenmerch 6y ago
>I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I'm sorry, but I simply don't. Not trying to be contrarian, but reproductions bring me a very different joy and appreciation than provable originals. I agree some things in crypto are scams, but NFTs, in my opinion, have a really important function in some domains.
- dcow 6y ago
  NFTs aren't the original and digital reproductions are perfect.
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    NFTs are the orginal NFTs
    - fossuser 6y ago
      The equivalent of painting reproductions with unique IDs on the back. The whole things feels like a scam to me. Taking the best part about digital goods (that they’re non-rival) and attempting to hack on scarcity for the purpose of exploiting a psychological flaw.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        I used to hate veblen goods, until I learned to appreciate the "fool and his money" aspect. Now when I see some $100k handbag I'm glad that person gave away a bunch of actual societal influence (money) for a bit of temporary status.
      - ThomPete 6y ago
        That's because you aren't adding the human perspective into the equation. Who is doing the scamming and why?
        fossuser 6y ago
Igelau 6y ago
> NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme What scares me is that there are artists who I don't think understand how scammy this is. They've drunk the kool-aid and accepted the handwaving "you don't need to know how it works, just that it exists" explanations. Creators who wanted to make an honest dollar but ignorantly perpetuated the scam could find them themselves in hot water.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > Creators who wanted to make an honest dollar but ignorantly perpetuated the scam To be fair, if they're doing it honestly the value proposition is "Support the artist and get bragging rights for having done so!", which doesn't become a scam (or at least any more of scam, depending on your view of bragging rights) just because there's a scammy secondary market that the patron doesn't necessarily have to participate in.
  - Igelau 6y ago
    It seems like there should be a better way to "Support the artist and get bragging rights for having done so!" that doesn't involve the scammy other part. You see this with Patreon all the time where certain tiers get a shout-out.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      Oh certainly, and we should encourage such methods where practical. But if we're going to condemn people for using the same financial tools that can be (and are) also used for scams, I have some bad news about that global economy of yours...
maayank 6y ago
How do you go about having such quality reproductions? What are the costs?
- fossuser 6y ago
  A few hundred dollars: https://www.galeriedada.com/ https://www.galeriedada.com/ This is supposedly the company the movie Ex Machina used for the CEO’s Jackson Pollock. I’ve been tempted to get one from them. :-) https://www.quora.com/Did-they-use-an-original-Jackson-Pollock-painting-in-Ex-Machina-or-a-replica?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Did-they-use-an-original-Jackson-Pollo...
- snarf21 6y ago
  As mentioned in the thread, there are different qualities but a couple of hundred will get you something pretty nice that is hand painted. Usually framing will cost more. Impressionist paintings tend to have some thick paint that can't be captured in a print. Large prints can also be just as expensive as real paint on real canvas. I know it isn't as good but I don't sit and stare at it for hours from 6 inches away. It is also a beautiful reminder of a nice trip to the museum.
theptip 6y ago
Worth noting that NFTs aren’t just cryptokitties; there is a lot more you can do with them. ETH NFT refers to the smart contracts that you would use to digitize ownership of a house or any other (physical or financial) unique asset that you might trade. You can nest an NFT under an ERC20 token, too, so that you can sell partial ownership tokens in your NFT. Of all the use-cases in crypto, I think digitizing ownership is the one that seems most likely to be actually used for a non-trivial volume of non-speculative trading.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  What happens when a judge says "no, the person who the NFT says owns the house doesn't, it's Bob over there"? When it comes down to it, the entry on the local tax rolls or property registration office is going to be the one that counts.
  - fredfoobar 6y ago
    What's the other proof of ownership? NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      My point is, that states have monopolized property transfers and there's all sorts of weird and arcane laws and practice around how you transfer property- especially real estate- and convincing the state to recognize an NFT as evidence of anything is going to be a real challenge. ex, if the law requires an actual notarized handwritten signature to transfer ownership, what you and I do on the blockchain will simply not count when it comes down to it. If I accidentally burn the NFT that represents ownership of my house I'm definitely still the owner of the house, there's no world where a government would shrug and say "I guess nobody owns it anymore, oops"
      - berenza 6y ago
samvher 6y ago
Not sure if it's just me but it sounds like you're sort of making an argument in favor of NFTs here. The main argument against NFTs I hear is that what is being certified can just as easily be enjoyed by people who are not the certified owner. And you're saying that that's actually the case for regular art as well - but still someone ends up willing to pay $100M for the original! I think there is a case to be made for NFTs, but would also not be surprised if you're right that it ends up with mostly bag holders.
- curryst 6y ago
  I think the real issue is that NFTs are really a secondary to the data they're certifying (i.e. the art). In the same sense that "stealing" means something different in the digital world, "ownership" also means something very different. Ownership of physical goods precludes other people owning them. There is only one original. Ownership of a digital good does not preclude other people "owning" it in the sense that they have one they can use/view/whatever. The only thing you "own" in the physical goods sense of precluding other people from using it, is the NFT itself. It is exclusively assigned to you, other people can't conceptually say they own it. Another example of how that divide manifests is how would someone show off their NFTs? Art is easy, hang it on the wall conspicuously with canister lights. You could do the same with an NFT piece, or you could put it on your profile or something, but anybody can do that. You're not showing off your NFT, you're showing off the art. Your NFT is just a jumble of cryptographic data. It has to be random for functional reasons, I presume, so it's not like the author can make your NFT a piece of art in and of itself.
fredfoobar 6y ago
> NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
K0balt 6y ago
The underlying thing has to be already considered valuable. Consider tokenized single cask scotch. So, it's made, and costs 150 a bottle. Why? Ostensibly, it's good scotch whiskey, and it's a limited run, 10 years in the making. So why tokenize it? Gamification. Only people with the actual bottle can play. Open it, scan the qr under the cap, then you can share the official tweet from posh-makers whisky announcing the opening of the bottle.... "that was us last night, good times all around!" maybe you get a 25 dollar certificate for your next limited run bottle. It's a social flex, and it's great publicity for the brand. ...and the remaining 237 bottles just went up in price. Fast forward a few years, and somebody has one of the last three bottles.... Which is mostly because he can actually prove he has one of the last three. Now its worth 270k.
- op00to 6y ago
  Why is it worth 270k? It could also be worthless. It could be worth a little.
Bayart 6y ago
What's nonsense is dismissing the idea and the work that's been done because there are people looking for a cash grab. Following from that logic, you should throw your routeur in the garbage dump. After all, the early days of the Internet were filled with shady companies selling buzzwords. So the Internet is by essence trash, right ? NFTs are revolutionary for digital assets and allow for something beyond the world of licences as well as much greater scaling.
- snarf21 6y ago
  I think you have my comments out of context but to each their own. Do you believe in NFTs enough to put your entire net worth in them? I don't see this current pump and dump ending any better than CryptoKitties but I guess time will tell for sure.
  - Bayart 6y ago
    I wouldn't put my wealth into NFTs any more than I would into Magic The Gathering cards, sports memorabilia or any other collectibles. But that's the point. If you do put your money into it, it's dissociated from central control, online services that might go belly up at any moment and so on. It completely solves the problem of never really owning anything online (software licences, items in video games and so on). Fads like CryptoKitties are completely irrelevant to the core tech, just like Bitcoin is in the grand scheme of things irrelevant to the potential of block chains.

gruez 6y ago

>NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. People will get left holding the bag at the top just like with CryptoKitties. You can say this about literally every non-productive asset, including NFT's real-life counterparts eg. painting or trading cards.

bostonpete 6y ago
Except those sorts of collectibles drive much of their value from their limited supply.
- gruez 6y ago
  paintings might be limited in supply, but trading cards are easily mass produced.
  - bostonpete 6y ago
    They are easily mass produced, but the companies still limit the supply specifically so there is value for collectors
    - gruez 6y ago
      But the same dynamic exists with NFTs. The issuers can limit supply to ensure value for collectors.
      - imtringued 6y ago
        Physical goods have a counterfeiting risk. Is it possible to use NFTs to prevent counterfeiting by verifying that a product is genuine? If not then they really have no use. Physical goods need verification but digital goods can be replicated perfectly. A "bootleg" is just as good as the original so no verification is needed.
        K0balt 6y ago
        Yes. That is precisely one of their best uses. I'm a dev at pruf.io and this is one of the many things our platform is designed to do.
        gruez 6y ago
        >Physical goods need verification but digital goods can be replicated perfectly. A "bootleg" is just as good as the original so no verification is needed. The same can be applied to physical goods as well. Why do people pay millions for the original painting, even though they could probably get a replica that's identical to the naked eye for much less? Clearly they're interested in more than it being "as good as the original".
  - krrrh 6y ago
    They’re both still subject to entropy and the rules of the physical universe in a way that digital isn’t.
    - Bayart 6y ago
      How is digital not affected by physics ? It's all relying on electricity and thermodynamics to begin with. Furthermore digital assets undergo similar attrition to physical goods through people losing access to their goods. The BTC block chain is notorious for its forgotten wallets.
- Taek 6y ago
  The entire point of NFTs is that you can attach a verifiably limited supply to a set of collectables. Just like with their real world counterparts, you can have knock-offs and reproductions that people collect, but the owner of the actual original one knows they have something of a limited set.
  - Can_Not 6y ago
    When beanie babies have limited supply, it's because the factory has to manufacture other goods for their next contract. When imaginary cryptohashes have limited supply, it's kind of pointless, or at least there is nothing good for the buyer or society.
    - xfkechyk 6y ago
      There are plenty of products where scarcity is intentionally created, though. Disney DVDs are a prime example.

yawnr 6y ago

I’m skeptical about NFTs too but trying to keep an open mind, because at the end of the day, while you or I personally don’t need the 100M to enjoy the impressionist art, you can’t ignore the fact that someone out there is in fact willing to pay that for the original. And that’s kind of the same weird authenticity bragging rights situation.

bostonpete 6y ago
Well there's also the allure of the physical object that the artist created by hand. People done go see the Mona Lisa rather than a replica for bragging rights. That's not there with digital goods.
thinkloop 6y ago
There's a big practical difference between owning an original and owning a print. People have discovered secrets behind paint or canvas before. New technologies often allow us to introspect qualities of the art that we previously didn't know (chemicals used, techniques, tools, lifestyles, etc.). An original is a snapshot of history that includes tons of unique information that is simply not available in prints or nfts.
reaperducer 6y ago
while you or I personally don’t need the 100M to enjoy the impressionist art, you can’t ignore the fact that someone out there is in fact willing to pay that for the original. There are people who happily pay $10,000+ for an Italian purse. There are people who are happy with a $10 Chinese knock-off. There are people who happily pay $2,000 for an Apple laptop. There are people who are happy with Linux on a $100 machine from Goodwill. There are people who go outside to feel the breeze. There are people who are happy with a fan. I don't understand NFTs at all. But I have to remind myself that often value is subjective.
- Taek 6y ago
  You should also account for how early NFTs are. If you've been following blockchains for a while, you may recall that in 2012 and 2013 there were an ocean of Bitcoin knock offs that distinguished themselves by changing things like the difficulty adjustment algorithm, or the hashing function, or the total coin supply. All of these "altcoins" to experts seemed to be completely useless and many chalked the entire category up as worthless. Eventually of course a lot more interesting altcoins were invented, and it turned out to be a great source of innovation, it just had a hurdle to cross first. I feel like NFTs today are roughly where altcoins were in 2012. Lots of good fundamentals to the ideas, but most of the implementations are really missing the mark. Whatever the NFT equivalent of Ethereum, Zcash, Sia, etc is... it's not here yet. And it may yet be a year or two until it first appears.

stolenmerch 6y ago

>I get just as much enjoyment looking at them on my wall as I have at the museums looking at the real ones. I'm sorry, but I simply don't. Not trying to be contrarian, but reproductions bring me a very different joy and appreciation than provable originals. I agree some things in crypto are scams, but NFTs, in my opinion, have a really important function in some domains.

dcow 6y ago
NFTs aren't the original and digital reproductions are perfect.
- ThomPete 6y ago
  NFTs are the orginal NFTs
  - fossuser 6y ago
    The equivalent of painting reproductions with unique IDs on the back. The whole things feels like a scam to me. Taking the best part about digital goods (that they’re non-rival) and attempting to hack on scarcity for the purpose of exploiting a psychological flaw.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      I used to hate veblen goods, until I learned to appreciate the "fool and his money" aspect. Now when I see some $100k handbag I'm glad that person gave away a bunch of actual societal influence (money) for a bit of temporary status.
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      That's because you aren't adding the human perspective into the equation. Who is doing the scamming and why?
      - fossuser 6y ago

Igelau 6y ago

> NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme What scares me is that there are artists who I don't think understand how scammy this is. They've drunk the kool-aid and accepted the handwaving "you don't need to know how it works, just that it exists" explanations. Creators who wanted to make an honest dollar but ignorantly perpetuated the scam could find them themselves in hot water.

a1369209993 6y ago
> Creators who wanted to make an honest dollar but ignorantly perpetuated the scam To be fair, if they're doing it honestly the value proposition is "Support the artist and get bragging rights for having done so!", which doesn't become a scam (or at least any more of scam, depending on your view of bragging rights) just because there's a scammy secondary market that the patron doesn't necessarily have to participate in.
- Igelau 6y ago
  It seems like there should be a better way to "Support the artist and get bragging rights for having done so!" that doesn't involve the scammy other part. You see this with Patreon all the time where certain tiers get a shout-out.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    Oh certainly, and we should encourage such methods where practical. But if we're going to condemn people for using the same financial tools that can be (and are) also used for scams, I have some bad news about that global economy of yours...

maayank 6y ago

How do you go about having such quality reproductions? What are the costs?

fossuser 6y ago
A few hundred dollars: https://www.galeriedada.com/ https://www.galeriedada.com/ This is supposedly the company the movie Ex Machina used for the CEO’s Jackson Pollock. I’ve been tempted to get one from them. :-) https://www.quora.com/Did-they-use-an-original-Jackson-Pollock-painting-in-Ex-Machina-or-a-replica?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Did-they-use-an-original-Jackson-Pollo...
snarf21 6y ago
As mentioned in the thread, there are different qualities but a couple of hundred will get you something pretty nice that is hand painted. Usually framing will cost more. Impressionist paintings tend to have some thick paint that can't be captured in a print. Large prints can also be just as expensive as real paint on real canvas. I know it isn't as good but I don't sit and stare at it for hours from 6 inches away. It is also a beautiful reminder of a nice trip to the museum.

theptip 6y ago

Worth noting that NFTs aren’t just cryptokitties; there is a lot more you can do with them. ETH NFT refers to the smart contracts that you would use to digitize ownership of a house or any other (physical or financial) unique asset that you might trade. You can nest an NFT under an ERC20 token, too, so that you can sell partial ownership tokens in your NFT. Of all the use-cases in crypto, I think digitizing ownership is the one that seems most likely to be actually used for a non-trivial volume of non-speculative trading.

roywiggins 6y ago
What happens when a judge says "no, the person who the NFT says owns the house doesn't, it's Bob over there"? When it comes down to it, the entry on the local tax rolls or property registration office is going to be the one that counts.
- fredfoobar 6y ago
  What's the other proof of ownership? NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    My point is, that states have monopolized property transfers and there's all sorts of weird and arcane laws and practice around how you transfer property- especially real estate- and convincing the state to recognize an NFT as evidence of anything is going to be a real challenge. ex, if the law requires an actual notarized handwritten signature to transfer ownership, what you and I do on the blockchain will simply not count when it comes down to it. If I accidentally burn the NFT that represents ownership of my house I'm definitely still the owner of the house, there's no world where a government would shrug and say "I guess nobody owns it anymore, oops"
    - berenza 6y ago

samvher 6y ago

Not sure if it's just me but it sounds like you're sort of making an argument in favor of NFTs here. The main argument against NFTs I hear is that what is being certified can just as easily be enjoyed by people who are not the certified owner. And you're saying that that's actually the case for regular art as well - but still someone ends up willing to pay $100M for the original! I think there is a case to be made for NFTs, but would also not be surprised if you're right that it ends up with mostly bag holders.

curryst 6y ago
I think the real issue is that NFTs are really a secondary to the data they're certifying (i.e. the art). In the same sense that "stealing" means something different in the digital world, "ownership" also means something very different. Ownership of physical goods precludes other people owning them. There is only one original. Ownership of a digital good does not preclude other people "owning" it in the sense that they have one they can use/view/whatever. The only thing you "own" in the physical goods sense of precluding other people from using it, is the NFT itself. It is exclusively assigned to you, other people can't conceptually say they own it. Another example of how that divide manifests is how would someone show off their NFTs? Art is easy, hang it on the wall conspicuously with canister lights. You could do the same with an NFT piece, or you could put it on your profile or something, but anybody can do that. You're not showing off your NFT, you're showing off the art. Your NFT is just a jumble of cryptographic data. It has to be random for functional reasons, I presume, so it's not like the author can make your NFT a piece of art in and of itself.

fredfoobar 6y ago

> NFTs are nonsense and just as much a pyramid scheme as everything else crypto. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

K0balt 6y ago

The underlying thing has to be already considered valuable. Consider tokenized single cask scotch. So, it's made, and costs 150 a bottle. Why? Ostensibly, it's good scotch whiskey, and it's a limited run, 10 years in the making. So why tokenize it? Gamification. Only people with the actual bottle can play. Open it, scan the qr under the cap, then you can share the official tweet from posh-makers whisky announcing the opening of the bottle.... "that was us last night, good times all around!" maybe you get a 25 dollar certificate for your next limited run bottle. It's a social flex, and it's great publicity for the brand. ...and the remaining 237 bottles just went up in price. Fast forward a few years, and somebody has one of the last three bottles.... Which is mostly because he can actually prove he has one of the last three. Now its worth 270k.

op00to 6y ago
Why is it worth 270k? It could also be worthless. It could be worth a little.

Bayart 6y ago

What's nonsense is dismissing the idea and the work that's been done because there are people looking for a cash grab. Following from that logic, you should throw your routeur in the garbage dump. After all, the early days of the Internet were filled with shady companies selling buzzwords. So the Internet is by essence trash, right ? NFTs are revolutionary for digital assets and allow for something beyond the world of licences as well as much greater scaling.

snarf21 6y ago
I think you have my comments out of context but to each their own. Do you believe in NFTs enough to put your entire net worth in them? I don't see this current pump and dump ending any better than CryptoKitties but I guess time will tell for sure.
- Bayart 6y ago
  I wouldn't put my wealth into NFTs any more than I would into Magic The Gathering cards, sports memorabilia or any other collectibles. But that's the point. If you do put your money into it, it's dissociated from central control, online services that might go belly up at any moment and so on. It completely solves the problem of never really owning anything online (software licences, items in video games and so on). Fads like CryptoKitties are completely irrelevant to the core tech, just like Bitcoin is in the grand scheme of things irrelevant to the potential of block chains.