5 ms·

In case anyone missed it, the artist was also double-dipping on the sale: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beeple-art-buyer-and-his-nft-de

In case anyone missed it, the artist was also double-dipping on the sale: https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beeple-art-buyer-and-his-nft-defi-scheme/ https://amycastor.com/2021/03/14/metakovan-the-mystery-beepl...

CryptoPunk 6y ago
The article is baseless speculation, like this: >>The name of this game is “number go up.” This is about pumping B20, so holders and Metapurse can benefit when they go to sell the token—i.e., get more ETH, buy more NFTs, rinse, repeat. First of all, the buyer putting the art up on a digital museum is exactly what you'd expect from someone spending $70 million on an NFT. The author spins it as some scandalous revelation. Similarly, the buyer selling tokenized shares in their art collections is being cynically spun as nothing more than a "number go up" game, which completely discounts the value this business model could provide, in democraticizing art ownership, enabling art to be more readily used as financial collateral to access liquidity, etc.
fastball 6y ago
Might be worth noting that Amy Castor seems to have a pretty strong anti-crypto bias in general, though that of course doesn't necessarily mean what she has written here is counter-factual, but she does seem to have an agenda.
- acdha 6y ago
  She’s a journalist - that job is supposed to involve critical thinking, not regurgitating press releases. If your criticism is that she’s factually correct but not fawning it sounds like she’s doing her job well.
  - fastball 6y ago
    The problem is that I don't know whether or not she's factually correct in this case, that's kinda the issue with journalism. I can't just check some central database of reality to know if what she is saying is straight up true and accurate or completely false or somewhere in between. Even if you could do that, "facts" can be easily presented in a way that is misleading, as I'm sure you are aware. What I have seen is that she has a clear anti-crypto agenda (not just "anti-fraud" as she claims, unless you define all crypto as fraud, in which case sure). So since I don't know the facts myself, I am more skeptical of the narrative she presents than I otherwise would be given her personal bias. Is that not reasonable?
    - acdha 6y ago
      If you are so bothered by her work, do your homework and critically examine it before posting. You would either find that your dislike is emotion not based in fact or you’d find real problems which you could point to — that’d be far more effective at convincing people.
      - fastball 6y ago
        I actually have seen real problems from her on Twitter and had a look, but her timeline is a bit of a mess and unfortunately I do not have the time at the moment to dig through 20k tweets. I used to follow her on Twitter because I appreciated a critical voice about all the crypto shenanigans. But at some point I realized the stance was less "pro-truth" and more "anti-crypto", so I unfollowed for that reason. Actually reminds me of my own stance on Julian Assange – liked him when I thought he stood for truth, stopped when I realized it was less "pro-truth" and more "anti-America". To my mind, being a journalist isn't about stating facts, it's about presenting an accurate picture of reality. You can state facts all day, but if you're cherry-picking them to paint a particular picture, I'm not a fan.
- joosters 6y ago
  What are you suggesting, that we should ignore facts if they are highlighted by people whose views you don't like? Or that Amy is untrustworthy and lying? If that's the case, please point to some lies that she has told?
  - fastball 6y ago
    You can mislead people without using untruths, that is my main concern. I generally prefer to consume content that isn't created by someone with a clear agenda pertaining to the topic at hand, because it's not so simple to separate fact from fiction, as you seem to want to believe.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  I wouldn't call being against fraud "having an agenda" as much as "being a decent human being".
  - fastball 6y ago
    I would agree with you, but then I didn't say she was "against fraud". I said she was anti-crypto. Sure if you think all crypto is fraud then fair enough, but that's a pretty bold claim (and verifiably untrue).
    - user-the-name 6y ago
      As a first-order approximation, "all crypto is fraud" serves you very, very well. Sometimes it's possible that it might not be fraud, but might instead be that you just lost your money because someone was incompetent instead. But then it's hard to tell when they are just lying about being incompetent to cover up the fraud.
      - fastball 6y ago
        The first widespread use of Bitcoin was not for fraud, so as an approximation it seems pretty poor.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        You mean, buying drugs?
        fastball 6y ago
        Yes. Using Bitcoin to buy drugs from other people is not fraud. It's transactional.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        Here's the thing: While I have nothing against drugs, and think them being illegal is ridiculous, the fact that they ARE still illegal means that those who sell them are, by and large, not nice people. Giving them money is not a good thing.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

The article is baseless speculation, like this: >>The name of this game is “number go up.” This is about pumping B20, so holders and Metapurse can benefit when they go to sell the token—i.e., get more ETH, buy more NFTs, rinse, repeat. First of all, the buyer putting the art up on a digital museum is exactly what you'd expect from someone spending $70 million on an NFT. The author spins it as some scandalous revelation. Similarly, the buyer selling tokenized shares in their art collections is being cynically spun as nothing more than a "number go up" game, which completely discounts the value this business model could provide, in democraticizing art ownership, enabling art to be more readily used as financial collateral to access liquidity, etc.

fastball 6y ago

Might be worth noting that Amy Castor seems to have a pretty strong anti-crypto bias in general, though that of course doesn't necessarily mean what she has written here is counter-factual, but she does seem to have an agenda.

acdha 6y ago
She’s a journalist - that job is supposed to involve critical thinking, not regurgitating press releases. If your criticism is that she’s factually correct but not fawning it sounds like she’s doing her job well.
- fastball 6y ago
  The problem is that I don't know whether or not she's factually correct in this case, that's kinda the issue with journalism. I can't just check some central database of reality to know if what she is saying is straight up true and accurate or completely false or somewhere in between. Even if you could do that, "facts" can be easily presented in a way that is misleading, as I'm sure you are aware. What I have seen is that she has a clear anti-crypto agenda (not just "anti-fraud" as she claims, unless you define all crypto as fraud, in which case sure). So since I don't know the facts myself, I am more skeptical of the narrative she presents than I otherwise would be given her personal bias. Is that not reasonable?
  - acdha 6y ago
    If you are so bothered by her work, do your homework and critically examine it before posting. You would either find that your dislike is emotion not based in fact or you’d find real problems which you could point to — that’d be far more effective at convincing people.
    - fastball 6y ago
      I actually have seen real problems from her on Twitter and had a look, but her timeline is a bit of a mess and unfortunately I do not have the time at the moment to dig through 20k tweets. I used to follow her on Twitter because I appreciated a critical voice about all the crypto shenanigans. But at some point I realized the stance was less "pro-truth" and more "anti-crypto", so I unfollowed for that reason. Actually reminds me of my own stance on Julian Assange – liked him when I thought he stood for truth, stopped when I realized it was less "pro-truth" and more "anti-America". To my mind, being a journalist isn't about stating facts, it's about presenting an accurate picture of reality. You can state facts all day, but if you're cherry-picking them to paint a particular picture, I'm not a fan.
joosters 6y ago
What are you suggesting, that we should ignore facts if they are highlighted by people whose views you don't like? Or that Amy is untrustworthy and lying? If that's the case, please point to some lies that she has told?
- fastball 6y ago
  You can mislead people without using untruths, that is my main concern. I generally prefer to consume content that isn't created by someone with a clear agenda pertaining to the topic at hand, because it's not so simple to separate fact from fiction, as you seem to want to believe.
user-the-name 6y ago
I wouldn't call being against fraud "having an agenda" as much as "being a decent human being".
- fastball 6y ago
  I would agree with you, but then I didn't say she was "against fraud". I said she was anti-crypto. Sure if you think all crypto is fraud then fair enough, but that's a pretty bold claim (and verifiably untrue).
  - user-the-name 6y ago
    As a first-order approximation, "all crypto is fraud" serves you very, very well. Sometimes it's possible that it might not be fraud, but might instead be that you just lost your money because someone was incompetent instead. But then it's hard to tell when they are just lying about being incompetent to cover up the fraud.
    - fastball 6y ago
      The first widespread use of Bitcoin was not for fraud, so as an approximation it seems pretty poor.
      - user-the-name 6y ago
        You mean, buying drugs?
        fastball 6y ago
        Yes. Using Bitcoin to buy drugs from other people is not fraud. It's transactional.
        user-the-name 6y ago
        Here's the thing: While I have nothing against drugs, and think them being illegal is ridiculous, the fact that they ARE still illegal means that those who sell them are, by and large, not nice people. Giving them money is not a good thing.