3 ms·
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 "Valuable
by 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 agoIt would be equivalent of Sotheby's starting a second brand competing with themselves, but yes.
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y agoSotheby's was founded in 1744 (1). They have a track record, a _brand_ to maintain. Your average blockchain was founded recently, and have a lot less to lose taking the money and running, or popping up again under a new name, for a second go at the same shtick. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotheby%27s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotheby%27s