12 ms·
Grumpy Cat NFT sold for nearly $80K
- Synaesthesia 6y agoMore like best NFT ever! I love grumpy cat.
- codetrotter 6y agoThese NFTs are just like those crypto cats a few years back. The only reason people pay for them is that they think they can sell them for more to someone else. But at some point someone is going to be the one that pays so much for a given NFT that nobody else wants to buy it from them. And then you are stuck holding the bag.
- rapsey 6y agoIsn't that the art market anyway? Most stuff gets bought and put into storage.
- creshal 6y agoPeople can't just spin up new realities and re-sell the same original Picasso painting to 30 more people, but we can spin up infinite amounts of new NTF blockchains and submit the same JPEG to all of them. You cannot limit ownership of digital goods.
- aaron695 6y agoClearly the 7,852,741,969 people on the planet (alive today) can buy paint and canvas for close to nothing and pump out art. Also not hard to photocopy things. You can even make them better. You have 4 copies of "The Scream" and then you have Andy Warhol. This meme to me makes so little sense, I can only see it exists because people want to destroy new ideas. That seems to be peoples default state. Think about the amazing Tulip industry, worth billions and billions and all the people 100s of years ago saying they are only stupid flowers. I'm not big on flowers but I do think they make the world a better place.
- insert_coin 6y agoAn object, a real world object, can never be copied, never. Objects can only be imitated but the original is still the original. There are no 2 Picassos, there is only one and 8 billion imitations.
- aaron695 6y agoExactly the same as an NFT. Are we not having an original conversation because it's just ones and zeros? Except the average person can't tell the difference between a 'fake' Picasso and originals. Nor experts. Once again this meme that because ~infinity can be produced the value of all of them goes to zero is somewhat insane. We can produce ~infinity real paintings as well. I find it similar to the idea modern art is stupid and my child could do that, but I'm not earning millions with my kids because I'm too smart. Fine, spin NFT's up and make money. Lets see how we go. If you jump in right now you might be the first to print a million soup cans for a $1.
- insert_coin 6y agoThe conversation is original, the representation, the ones and zeros, is just that, a representation. When someone else reads these posts us two won't be having this conversation again. > Once again this meme that because ~infinity can be produced the value of all of them goes to zero is somewhat insane. We can produce ~infinity real paintings as well. The value of things is not dictated by how much of it we can produce. Value is not directly related to quantity but to the relationship between quantity, demand, and time. > Fine, spin NFT's up and make money. Lets see how we go. If you jump in right now you might be the first to print a million soup cans for a $1. Not interested. Lastly, you use the word meme out of context a lot like someone who just learned it, and you keep calling other people stupid, people you do not know. That is no way to have a conversation.
- qqii 6y agoThe specific representation (the part that has value) is protected by elliptic curve cryptography. Your point of supply, demand and time is a good one. The supply and costs to creating an NFT is low, but the demands for NFTs in general are also low. Popular NFTs have low supply as they are created by popular individuals, of which there are few. The demand for these NFTs are high for a numerous reasons including but not limited to speculation and investors simply having excess capital. From a technical perspective there is no limit to how many NFTs a popular artist could create but unless they are unique there isn't demand. Like anything, making money by creating NFTs is non trivial whilst only the successful outlines are reported.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mjlee 6y agoThe term for this in the general case is Greater Fool Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_fool_theory
- mtrycz2 6y agoCoincidentally, that's the entirety of BTC's usecase after 2017's pivot.
- nikanj 6y agoDon't forget drug trade.
- willio58 6y agoWould you rather USD be used for the drug trade? I never understood people’s fixation on crypto being used for drugs. Maybe it’s because I also hold the view that all drugs should be decriminalized and rehab should be used over incarceration.. if you believe these then why does it matter the currency used in the drug transaction?
- exikyut 6y agoHuh, like an ideological or meme Ponzi scheme!
- minikomi 6y agoBig run up on GFTs. Get in now!
- splintercell 6y agoMy friend made literally the same point few days ago regarding anyone buying these NFTs. My question to him was, "Would you buy the ownership of Heroes by David Bowie (his favorite song of all time), for $2000 (a price he can afford)?" He conceded the point before I finished the sentence. Now imagine if the NFT also came with the royalty rights of the song (not that this Grumpy cat came with that, but NFTs can be created where they carry rights with them), wouldn't he be willing to pay an even higher price?
- teekert 6y agoMy mind goes from: "This is insanity." to "Why didn't I think of this?"
- jcpham2 6y agoProbably the same reason I don’t scam fools on the internet. I was born with a debilitating moral compass
- enriquto 6y agoOvertly scamming super-rich fools is not that bad in most moral compasses. Most folks will cheer you on that.
- seniorivn 6y agomost people you know, probably, but you have no data about everyone else
- WJW 6y agoThis is not even scamming. People willingly pay for the NFT and they know what they are getting. That you and I don't put any value on an NFT is meaningless, I also don't put a value of hundreds of millions on a Rembrand painting yet museums do it all the time.
- Robin_Message 6y agoAt least the museum then owns the Rembrand and could, for example, charge people to come and see it, or increase the prestige of their museum by displaying it. Whereas, with the Grumpy Cat NFT, someone, somewhere, can exhibit some bits that shows they "own"(?) this particular image of Grumpy Cat, which is reproduced millions of times across the internet. Does the NFT even convey the legal rights to the image? Can you send DMCA takedowns based on owning the NFT for an image? What even makes the NFT non-fungible? In fact, if anyone wants it, I'll happily sell you the NFT https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat https://robinmessage.com/nft/GrumpyCat for $100,000 and I'll promise: - to probably never issue that NFT to anyone else; - and that, in some ineffable way, it represents the original Grumpy Cat.
- tomp 6y agoI don't get it. Who profits from this? > Proof of Authenticity Authenticity how? That the user who created this has a nickname @grumpycat on foundation.app? What if I create a new such user on another platform, and sell that? Is it still authentic? Is the domain actually-authentic-ntfs.com still available? Edit: looks like it might be the same people that are running Twitter and Instagram accounts @RealGrumpyCat ... whether or not these are the original owners of the grumpy cat (according to Wikipedia), I've no idea.
- qqii 6y agoYou can complete the chain from the Wikipedia article by following the citations in the "Social media presence" section. Different platforms have different requirements to be authenticated. Most tailored platforms will have specific agreements against creating the same artwork on a different platform.
- WJW 6y agoThe guy who created this just profited ~80k, clearly. And yes, you can create more grumpycat users on other platforms, make an NFT out of those and try to sell it.
- lovedswain 6y agoGiven the huge amount of free coins floating in the system from the prehistoric days, chances are the guy who created this is also the guy who bought it, or a close friend. That was even already shown to be the case for the massive sale last week -- the purchaser was the owner of an NFT startup. The entire thing is a scam designed to get time in the news. Never forget what kind of folk you're dealing with in this space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneCoin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneCoin
- tartoran 6y agoThis is exactly what I thought to. Similarly some artworks value is pumped up with fictitious buys and sales so it makes it into the news (at least in that market these type of sales don’t go unnoticed).
- santialbo 6y agoThis is ridiculous. How is this not considered a fucking scam?
- dbrgn 6y agoI've heard the term "NFT" a lot in the past days. However, I still don't know what it stands for. It's a fancy website. But do you think the website would explain on their home page what "NFT" means, how it works, and what the goal of the website is? No, of course not. I guess that would be old-fashioned... Edit: Thanks for the explanations about NFTs. I know that search engines exist. My point was that the website does not state what it's all about.
- exikyut 6y ago(Non-fungible token)
- KindOne 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token https://medium.com/cortexlabs/what-is-ntf-da442a7d2728 https://medium.com/cortexlabs/what-is-ntf-da442a7d2728
- thegeekbin 6y agoIn relaxed terms, NFT is a special type of token that is universally unique. There is no two identical tokens, and by holding this "token", it's like holding a certified purchase receipt. It's the "proof of ownership" for this item. Think of it like a freshly printed 10 dollar bill - it's all unique because of the serial number, and there's no two bills with the identical serial number (in theory on bills... in practice on crypto it is truly unique)
- the_snooze 6y ago>It's the "proof of ownership" for this item. Does the "proof of ownership" actually map onto anything in the real world? It sounds like people are paying out the nose for a notion of "this is mine" instead of "this is mine, and the courts will back me up." Who's actually respecting these ownership claims to justify the cost? How is this any different from those "name a star after your sweetie" scams?
- 6y ago
- schrototo 6y agoGod this is infuriating. Apart from being an obvious scam, NFTs are actively doing harm to the environment. This is not funny, it's just bad. It’s a net negative for humanity. As, of course, are any and all cryptocurrencies and blockchain-related get-rich-quick schemes. I can’t wait for this whole pyramid to collapse.
- qqii 6y agoWhen it comes to NFTs who's being scammed? Longer term crypto investors, CEOs of companies and already wealthy that are buying these NFTs? It's not that difficult to look through each wallet and see their substantial holdings. I also hope blockchain related get rich quick schemes collapse, so we can finally look at areas where distributed hash technology can actually be benificial.
- whatl3y 6y agoI think it's necessary to put emphasis on the "get-rich-quick schemes" part, and not the "blockchain/cryptocurrencies" part. I hope you're not implying blockchain tech and all cryptocurrencies don't/can't provide real utility value, but if so I beg to differ substantially. I built a hook to the Stellar blockchain to store SHA256 hashes of audit evidence that can be validated against at a later time as tamper-proofing evidence. This is just one extremely simple use case, not to mention the entire Defi ecosystem that's being developed as we speak.
- captn3m0 6y agohttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3161 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3161
- schrototo 6y agoI am absolutely implying that blockchain tech is fundamentally useless, and cryptocurrencies doubly so.
- moistbar 6y agoConsidering your incredibly uninformed stance on NFT's, I don't think you have any real right to an opinion on crypto as a whole unless you go and do some serious reading.
- curiousgal 6y agoTo me it's less outrageous when you think of it in terms of crypto. The buyer paid 44 ETH for it, they probably had thousands of ETH that they created from nothing a few years back.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 6y agoI'm curious when I see this kind of news if the buyers are just the sellers buying from themselves to pump this NFT idea.
- ginko 6y agoSo how does this work? Does whoever buys that NFT now own the copyright to that image?
- bhouston 6y agoHere is the license: https://www.niftylicense.org https://www.niftylicense.org The rights are quite limited: > Use the Kitty art for your own personal, non-commercial use; > Use the Kitty art to commercialize your own merchandise, provided that you aren’t earning more than $100,000 in revenue each year from doing so. You can not: > Modifying the art; > Using the art to market or sell third-party products; > Using the art in connection with images of hatred, violence, or other inappropriate behavior; or > Trying to trademark your art, or otherwise acquire intellectual property rights in it. So basically you get to look at it mostly and resell it otherwise you need to reacquire another commercial license.
- qqii 6y agoWhere are you getting that? This is just a possible licence that can be adopted and I see no evidence that this specific nft has adopted this licence.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoThat's the real kicker. This NFT fad isn't about ownership of the underyling asset, it seems more accurate to call it a fiction that has value as a novelty collectible, analogous to baseball cards. Buying an NFT for a tweet doesn't buy you the copyrights, neither does it buy you the ability to delete the tweet. [0] The true owner of the tweet isn't even obligated not to delete it. [0] [0] https://www.wired.com/story/nft-art-market-tweets/ https://www.wired.com/story/nft-art-market-tweets/
- qqii 6y agoIt depends on the asset being NFTified. A lot of art NFTs now come with similar licences whereas obviously tweet and collectable NFTs come with their own licences.
- afkqs 6y agoMany famous memes are now being sold as NFTs. The Bad Luck Brian was sold for $35K a couple of days ago [1] [1] https://foundation.app/badluckbrian/bad-luck-brian-4263 https://foundation.app/badluckbrian/bad-luck-brian-4263
- raspyberr 6y agoIf you think NFTs are stupid or a scam. I think you must reasonably conclude that paying money for anything digital is also the same.
- ykevinator 6y agoI do
- vultour 6y agoMost digital content actually has some sort of use, compared to an NFT.
- ykevinator 6y agoWhat is nft?
- bsaul 6y agoHas anyone here tried to sell an NFT for a picture they don't own on this website ? I'm curious to know if they at least got the "rightful owner certification" part correct or not.
- qqii 6y agoYou can easily verify this by following the link to the twitter account and cross referencing that with the Wikipedia links. If you want to go further I'm sure you can find a link from the original reddit post.
- michaelbuckbee 6y agoThere are already multiple cases of artists finding their artwork being "sold" as an NFT without their consent.
- vuciv1 6y agoNot on this site, but I sold a copy of the Mona Lisa for $5 Https://jerseyfonseca.com/blogs/nft There's nothing stopping people from doing this. V.cent.co does a decent job, though.
- rileymat2 6y agoIf these become popular, how do you prevent money laundering?
- qqii 6y agoThere are better ways to launder money than on a public blockchain. The difficult part of laundering money on a blockchain is the on ramp/off ramp. Laundering is the easy part and doesn't need NFTs.
- isthisreality 6y agoYou don't
- Imnimo 6y agoWhy would I buy a Grumpy Cat NFT when I could buy an entire real-life star on the star registry for only $50?
- qqii 6y agoThe Grumpy Cat NFT is created by Tabatha Bundesen.
- isthisreality 6y agoThis is obvious money laundering. I can understand suckers paying $5 for a worthless meme NFT, but no one would pay $80K unless they can verify the original creator minted a NFT for a historically significant thing. Some rando minting a NFT for a meme they didn't invent is obviously worthless to anyone with that kind of money.
- nmfisher 6y agoI suspect these are mostly marketing stunts by people who own NFT brokerage platforms. It’a probably just moving 80k between a few wallets, and eureka - free press for days.
- rybosworld 6y agoI don't understand the outrage/surprise. This is just people laundering some money. Nothing more. It happens in the art world as well. It's not random joe paying for a meme in hopes they can sell it for more (okay, maybe there is some tiny percentage of NFT's where this is true). But the majority is money laundering. Occam's razor.
- qqii 6y agoNFTs, like art are a good medium to launder money but, like art this does not mean every NFT sale is laundering money. I went over this idea in some detail in a previous comment but NFTs are no better at laundering money than mixers like tornado.cash. In brief you still need an on ramp and off ramp. In this case the creator would have to be involved as since the auction there haven't been any offers or a listing.
- Klwohu 6y agoMoney laundering is getting ever more obscure.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]