28 ms·

John Cleese Sells the Brooklyn Bridge as an NFT

445 points by jshprentz 6y ago

tzm 6y ago
IMO, NFTs are relevant as pop culture artifacts of a tokenized economy. It's less about the art, and more about the artist and buyers as a collective story. Valuations are high due to liquidity, technology and timing as a cultural shift.
Apocryphon 6y ago
That’s a hip target to skewer for such an elder humorist.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Dada of NFTs, the future is going to call this Cleese’s bridge for NFTs as we call Duchamp’s urinal. It will probably sell, that’s why he didn’t just tell us the joke but also listed it.
  - bellyfullofbac 6y ago
    I don't really see the downside (oh yeah, planet's burning, but as the dog in the cartoon said, this is fine), if some rich jerkoffs buy it then Cleese can put the money into charity. I suppose one downside is that the NFT ponzi peddlers can now say "See, we're legitimate, even the founder of Monty Python is here!", but Cleese's comments about terminal insanity isn't exactly support. I suppose everyone knows the emperors are naked, but hey, it seems like that's not stopping megabucks being made, and why should you miss out?
  - rcxdude 6y ago
    NFTs have already started mocking themselves, almost as soon as any money has been spent on it (for example banksy's "I can't belive you morons actually buy this shit: https://opensea.io/assets/0xdfef5ac9745d24db881fef3937eab1d2471dc2c7/1 https://opensea.io/assets/0xdfef5ac9745d24db881fef3937eab1d2... selling for $350k). This is just another high-profile example (though I think it's a slightly pointier critique at NFTs).
trebligdivad 6y ago
I'm surprised he wasn't selling a Norwegian Blue.
- cm2187 6y ago
  This one is more in the spirit of the Klein Blue
- jMyles 6y ago
  it does have beautiful plumage afterall
eloff 6y ago
Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy them, it seems so strange to me though.
- scambier 6y ago
  > Do people really care who pretends to own it They absolutely don't. There's no art collectors or amateurs in this game, only speculators.
  - Theodores 6y ago
    Christie's commissioned the Beeple work to sell as an NFT. Why would an auction house do that? There is more to it than speculation. There is a con where something went on. Maybe the auction house commissioned the money to pay for it and had a 69.3 million fee. It saddens me that journalists have chosen not to follow the money and ask the questions.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      > Christie's commissioned the Beeple work Did they? I thought it was his investor "Metakovan" who commissioned it. Following the money is rather hard in an all-pseudonym system.
- chartpath 6y ago
  Wasn't there an app on iOS way back at the start that was just an image of a ruby/gem of some kind that cost $999? Some people actually bought it before Apple took it off the App Store.
  - Someone 6y ago
    $999.99 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich)
airhead969 6y ago
NFTs are stupid. As soon as this craze is over, they'll be illiquid and absolutely worthless.
- noobermin 6y ago
  Careful there, how many degrees removed is it from other cryptocurrencies? If people follow this logic it will lead some people to be mad.
  - lottin 6y ago
    Cryptocoins are equally useless in practice, but at least they try to serve a purpose. NFTs make no attempt to serve a purpose. It's truly bizarre.
- runeks 6y ago
  They are already illiquid. So they will only become worthless.
- Animats 6y ago
  They may hang on for years, or decades. You can still trade Beanie Babies and Cabbage Patch dolls on eBay. Three Stooges collectable plates from the Franklin Mint[1] don't seem to be selling well, though. Lack of liquidity is implicit in non-fungible tokens. You have to find a buyer who wants the exact item you have. That may be hard. It may require paying for advertising, which means the return can go negative. With a uniform commodity, there's a market with prices. Non-fungible markets don't crash, they stall. You can't sell, but that's not visible on marketplaces, especially if they're designed to hide listings that are not moving. (This is common in real estate; un-saleable property is taken off the market, then re-listed, so it doesn't show as "for sale for 72 weeks".) What we're probably going to see are markets with huge numbers of items that are not selling, but have high asking prices. This will create the illusion of value, because someone will add up the asking prices and claim that's a "market cap". The illusion of volume and liquidity can be created with wash trades. There are getting to be a quite a number of blockchain based virtual worlds, where you can pay way too much for virtual land. Few people actually log into those virtual worlds and spend time there; they just trade land. "The metagame is the game", some analyst wrote of Decentraland. (Which, despite its name, is totally centralized. You can't run a Decentraland server yourself.) I used to go to art openings in SF, and sometimes we'd look at some bad piece and ask "will this be around in 10 years or will it have been tossed out?" Years later, I suspect most of it went to a Dumpster long ago. [1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/Franklin-Mint-The-Three-Stooges-Decorative-Plate-Lot-8/114699073301 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Franklin-Mint-The-Three-Stooges-Dec...
BurningFrog 6y ago
Buying it from such a Legend is what gives it value. It's like Cleese is personally making fun of the buyer! I'm pretty sure this will go down as the Pet Rocks of this era. But... I'm not entirely sure.
- vl 6y ago
  He is only one of the very few people who can pull it off.
- notahacker 6y ago
  tbf if I was stupidly rich and not particularly philanthropically inclined, I'd see far more value in an NFT John Cleese personally mocks me for buying than any others
- tartoran 6y ago
  Having that it’s John Cleese this may truly become a very valuable NFT even if that wasn’t the intention. The only thing John can do to at this point is get this event as public as possible then denounce it as a big scam and refusing to cash in a very large bid. Alternatively he may actually help jumpstart the NFT
xyzzy21 6y ago
If it's NFT, it MUST be true and the transaction MUST be legit! Sigh. NTF is just more nonsense.
daenz 6y ago
Brilliant move by John Cleese. The sale is the performance, and the performance aligns perfectly with his genre.
- theptip 6y ago
  The obvious follow-up is to mint an NFT of the promo announcement/performance and sell that too. Obviously that would require its own performative announcement post...
  - jcwayne 6y ago
    "It's NFTs all the way down."
cs702 6y ago
Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art": https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.
- dylan604 6y ago
  No need, I just bought it now.
- geoduck14 6y ago
  I don't have a Twitter account. Is there another way to see the video?
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    You don't need a Twitter account to enjoy a tweet.
    - C19is20 6y ago
      ...but I enjoy enjoying not having Twitter.
  - gertlex 6y ago
    I got "This is not available to you" or something like that, which I've never seen before. A few refreshes later (I also don't have a twitter) it worked though.
    - brianush1 6y ago
      For me, this was caused by a buggy service worker; unregistering the service worker (from about:debugging > "This Firefox" > "Service Workers" on Firefox, dunno how on Chrome) should fix the issue
- dang 6y ago
simplecto 6y ago
The internet is just a fad. Only nerds want a smartphone Bitcoin is a scam NFTs are just stupid Just because I don’t like the aesthetic qualities of NFTs does not mean the whole space is bunk.
- benjohnson 6y ago
  Sometimes the doubters are correct. AOL keywords, WAP phones, pets.com stock, self driving cars are two years away, X.25, VR, Hydrogen Cars.
  - xondono 6y ago
    The doubters are correct most of the time. That’s what makes VC lucrative.
- clydethefrog 6y ago
  Remember when everything would be nanobots?
toss1 6y ago
Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade. All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly. If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent sale. That could truly change the economics for the perpetually starving artists in the world. If that came to pass, it might be worth all the electricity and carbon footprint.
- gerdesj 6y ago
  "wing-flapping rate of African swallow" Laden or unladen? In a vacuum?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - toss1 6y ago
    Perhaps, only the NFT owner will hold the answer? If that could be setup, it might drive some lively bidding!
- Tenoke 6y ago
  >the electricity and carbon footprint. That's no longer a concern for an increasing number of NFTs minted today[0]. 0. https://svilentodorov.xyz/blog/nft-electricity/ https://svilentodorov.xyz/blog/nft-electricity/
  - toss1 6y ago
    good update - thx! I knew about ETH POS coming (soon we hope...), but aspects of those other projects were good news
wrs 6y ago
Given there’s a $50k bid for this, I can’t decide if the joke backfired, or succeeded brilliantly. It’s a no-lose proposition for Cleese, I guess!
- dylan604 6y ago
  Normally, when these kind of things happen, the receipient of that money tends to do something cool with it like dontating it to causes. However, I think it would be very apropos for Cleese to just keep any earnings.
  - a4isms 6y ago
    (Cleese collects fifty million dollars, goes to the bank and takes the entire amount out in cash.) "I won, I won, I finally came out ahead!" Prunella Scales appears. "Thank you, Basil!" Yoink.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  This is already a famous NFT. "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge? Look, I have that NFT that he sold!". Heck, I would even pay money for that. First of all for the bragging rights, and second of all because I'm sure plenty of people would pay for it. But $50k is a bit over my budget ;). But in no way am I surprised that there is somebody out there that wants to pay this amount. If anyone is surprised by this, you probably also don't understand any other collectibles.
  - PascLeRasc 6y ago
    Just tell people you own it. Venmo me $5 and I’ll put your name down on the blockchain (a public Google sheet). It’ll have the same effect.
    - TigeriusKirk 6y ago
      But it won't. This is the key conceptual leap you have to make to understand NFTs, or cryptocurrency for that matter. The blockchain is a consensus mechanism, with the emphasis on consensus. A lot of people agreeing on something having value means that it has value to those people. They can then exchange that thing among themselves and thus transfer the value. One person saying something has value means it has value to them. If no one else accepts it has value, it can't be used to transfer value.
runeks 6y ago
Honest question: if I were to buy this, how would I prove to everyone I meet that I am the owner?
- tomerico 6y ago
  You could generate a signature that proves that you have the private key associated with the address
  - worik 6y ago
    I.e., you cannot. You can run a piece of mathematics that not one person in a thousand would understand, but there is no way to show it off, like in a book case or hang it on a wall. But given that most valuable art is sitting in deep storage in free ports, I am not sure it is a problem.
    - dehrmann 6y ago
      I see NFT ownership quickly devolving to "cool story, bro."
  - runeks 6y ago
    And how do I prove that this address is associated with John Cleese’s work? Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet, or how is it associated with him?
    - sellyme 6y ago
      > Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet Yes, he has done so.
- insert_coin 6y ago
  You have to ask the vegans.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago
_ZeD_ 6y ago
it remembers me the italian classic scene of the "selling of the Trevi fountain" from "Tototruffa '62" [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk
- kgwgk 6y ago
  Not sure if you are aware that the choice of the Brooklyn Bridge is not accidental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
ourmandave 6y ago
Apparently there's Fuck You money, and then there's having "I buy NFTs" money. (But you have to say it in Forrest Gump's voice.)
- raverbashing 6y ago
  I wonder if there are NFTs of fruit companies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
This young chap (or collective of chaps) has a bright future.
ASalazarMX 6y ago
Given the logical progression, I think I'll wait until someone sells a NFT of a NFT before being surprised.
- craz8 6y ago
  NFT derivatives will be the next big thing for the ‘20s - perhaps a NFT ETF I can put in my IRA?
  - throw5throw5 6y ago
    Collateralized NFT Obligations!
SMAAART 6y ago
John Cleese is brilliant. Period.
- skeletonjelly 6y ago
  Pity about his views. Wish I could agree, his past stuff is genius.
pazimzadeh 6y ago
*a Drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge
- rvz 6y ago
  They don't call it 'contemporary art' for no reason. We all know that the drawing itself is worthless but the signature is what is 'valued'. NFTs are just giving life to 'contemporary art' again which can be shortened to 'con-art'. Allowing celebrities a get rich quick route with their signatures. Heck, even an AI can paint something and auction it at Christie's and then re-auction it as an NFT. As for this NFT and the rest of them, No thanks and no deal.
  - freetime2 6y ago
    I think this an unfair characterization of contemporary art. I don’t consider myself an expert by any means, but I’ve been to a couple of contemporary art museums (Mass MoCA and one in Kanazawa) and enjoyed both experiences. I believe that the bulk of artists producing contemporary art work very hard at their craft for very little reward. Certainly most of the works I saw featured looked like they required a lot of effort to think up and execute. There were also certainly some pieces that raised an eyebrow and made me think “that’s art?”, but that’s part of the fun IMO. The art collector market is where things tend to go sideways. Collectors do often seem to value the name on the signature over everything else. But in most cases when you see those crazy high sale prices at auction, the money is not going to the artist but rather to some other collector. So I don’t think it’s fair to call an entire genre of art a “con” just because of how rich art collectors behave.
skybrian 6y ago
If you're looking for a discount, you could get this one instead: https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/111671456905903448668754399825500311737993761829133923293106705775283906019329 https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...
- runeks 6y ago
  The top bid is currently quoted at 0.015. Which currency is this? Why don’t they specify this? I see a dollar equivalent, but I don’t see how they translate from the 0.015 figure. EDIT: Never mind. Apparently, the symbol Ξ refers to the Ether cryptocurrency.
  - lupire 6y ago
    It's the greek letter Xi, used because it's looks like an E. Nice metaphor for NFT, which look like a real thing but aren't.
- cs702 6y ago
  The name of the artist is "gcp-nyc", which is evidently a reference to George C. Parker, the only con artist who has successfully "sold" the Brooklyn Bridge to date: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker
worik 6y ago
Is this a scam?
- insert_coin 6y ago
  Yes, NFTs are a scam.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Well, if NFTs are a scam, then anything you buy for money is a scam. Usually we reserve "scams" for "trickeries", fooling someone out of their money, when they don't really want to. In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs. Maybe a better word is to use "hyped" or "mania" or something, because it's not really a "scam" as no one really own NFTs as a whole and are fooling others. Disclaimer: I'm myself not into NFTs because it mostly seems like hype at this point, I own zero NFTs myself and have no interest in buying. But I also care about accuracy.
    - ivanche 6y ago
      > In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs. People being scammed, by definition, don't know they're being scammed. Otherwise they wouldn't be scammed. They also willingly buy something they believe is real.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        What do you mean "they believe is real"? NFTs are "real", not sure what you're on about. Or is it all fake, no one is actually trading NFTs? Yes, people are stupid. Does that mean they are being scammed? No, they're just idiots.
  - jsnk 6y ago
    Getting scammed by John Cleese has clear value.
    - motohagiography 6y ago
dentemple 6y ago
Why would you put the punchline in the title?
craz8 6y ago
I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned that selling the Brooklyn Bridge is a very old scam, made famous by this huckster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker New technology, same scam
- Tenoke 6y ago
  It was mentioned in the original link here, it's just that the link was changed to the tweet which doesn't explain the backstory.
  - blendergeek 6y ago
    Would you link this original link?
    - brianush1 6y ago
      From further down in this thread: https://decrypt.co/62217/monty-pythons-john-cleese-mints-brooklyn-bridge-nft https://decrypt.co/62217/monty-pythons-john-cleese-mints-bro...
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Not a scam in this case. John Cleese has signed the work himself, provided video evidence of its authenticity, and minted it on his own behalf. John Cleese is a famous humorist. The owner of this NFT will have a signed, authentic, John Cleese NFT. You can't copy and paste that. Even if John Cleese decides to mint 100 more of these, you'll have verifiable providence of NFT #1 of John Cleese's Brooklyn Bridge. The drawing, of course, is quite ridiculous. But what else would you expect from one of the masterminds behind the "Ministry of Silly Walks"?
- eitland 6y ago
  At least John Cleese clearly mentions "I have a bridge to sell you" in the video in his tweet. That saying is a reference to the scams of George C. Parker who "sold" the Brooklyn Bridge a number of times to gullible people, and from the context of the video it is clear he is referring to that.
andybak 6y ago
I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wines escalates exponentially whilst the extra utility you get from any quality improvements trends towards nothing. Much of what we value is pointless and bordering on delusional. But unless you're a wandering ascetic or superhumanly utilitarian in your consumption (hint - you're probably not even if you think you are) then the difference is one of degree rather than of category.
- miguelmurca 6y ago
  I've never really seen anyone heavily take issue with the concept of NFTs. Everybody's just taking issue with the PoW.
  - andybak 6y ago
    You obviously follow different people on Twitter to me. The entire topic has become very polarized - well beyond the discussions around C02
- insert_coin 6y ago
  The critic, which you do not address, is that (most) NFTs pretend to give assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset. The problem with NFTs is a conceptual one not a technological or psychological or societal one. The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. Art might be stupid, but you can actually make the claim of having an original insert_coin drawing, despite its value.
  - andybak 6y ago
    I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints. A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.
schoen 6y ago
The original conceptual framework for NFT-like instruments is Nick Szabo's "Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority": https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/ https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/ At the very end he says: > Largely unaddressed above is the problem of divergence between actual conditions and directory rights. [...] When divergence becomes too great, a solution to address the unreality of the title registry is needed. Almost nobody selling NFTs today has even bothered to address Szabo's final "correspondence to ground" point, i.e., why anyone should think that the ownership of a particular NFT means anything!
- koonsolo 6y ago
  This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT". Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? I certainly do, but not for $50k, which it already has.
  - lisper 6y ago
    c.f.: http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/ http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
    - enneff 6y ago
      At least those who bought pixels on that page got something for it.
    - m463 6y ago
      That's what I remember. At some point is all of this advertising? a well-known property that people are aware of?
  - pmlnr 6y ago
    > Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot. > I certainly do ...
ufo 6y ago
Is that 69.3 million asking price a reference to something or is it just a humorously large number with no special meaning?
- nuclearsugar 6y ago
  It's referencing the Beeple Christie auction
omgJustTest 6y ago
Oh comedy, you have found a truly original form!
frongpik 6y ago
Elon Musk can make another 100 billions by claiming a chunk of Mars territory and selling NFTs backed by 1 acre lots of Mars land. The NFTs will be real so long as Elon gets the US gov to recognize his landlord rights on Mars, at least near the location of his first rocket landing. The thing is, he can start selling NFTs right now, as his promise alone is this valuable.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  Just as was done a generation above with selling off lots in the desert west ... Barring any international treaties that would probably prevent any such claims, the general rule is that you or a physical representative have to set foot and survey before you can make a claim. And stepping onto Mars in one spot would not be sufficient to claim the whole planet.
  - frongpik 6y ago
    Ah, you're being nitpicky. Buyers of those NFTs will be betting on Musk setting the foot first, and thus claiming a big enough chunk of Mars land. Potential returns are very large when there's a lot of ambiguity and risk. By the time Mars is regulated by a pile laws, returns will be low and a million dollars will buy a tiny lot. Buyers of NFTs will also speculate on finding expensive minerals under the Mars surface. If you have billions rotting in stock market, investing 1% into this, backed by the Musk's reputation and potential, is a no brainer.
- toyg 6y ago
  It’s not just USGOV who has to approve that claim, it’s every country on COPUOUS : https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html It’s more likely that Musk will have to settle for his Earthen technokingdom.
  - vidarh 6y ago
    I think it's total folly to bet on that staying unchallenged once someone has the ability to transport sufficient mass and volume back and forth to create sufficient financial interests in changing it. If someone with sufficient odds of establishing a transport stranglehold started selling promises of land even with the giant caveat of it being subject to substantial changes in relevant treaties and laws, I'd suspect they'd find lots of people willing to take the risk, simply because even if it'd be extremely high risk, the potential payoff could be immense.
sn_master 6y ago
I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex. With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that the famous painter touched and painted, stroke by stroke, that can never be duplicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
- capableweb 6y ago
  Let's say we could replicate the painting stroke by stroke. Let's say we also use the same painter. Still, it doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not the same as the first and initial incarnation of that artifact, physical or digital.
  - sn_master 6y ago
    If the painter makes countless copies, the painting would lose its value. The value of an object is associated with who made it or who owned it or how unique it is. e.g. Hitler's car wouldn't have had its value if it was owned by someone else, despite it being no technically different from other Mercedes cars of the era.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    This is not true. Digital items do not have an original. In fact creating the digital item itself creates multiple copies in the process, and every viewing of it creates infinitely more copies.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      > Digital items do not have an original Sure, except in the case of NFTs which is the subject of this discussion. Then there is one original (the NFT that the original creator created) and it has exactly one owner. Anything else is a copy.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        The point is that without an original, an NFT is just a receipt pointing to one of many completely identical - and fungible - items.
hatboxreappoint 6y ago
Some people in this thread talk about "bragging rights". I am genuinely curious if anyone would be impressed by someone bragging about purchasing this NFT, or know anyone who would be impressed. I wouldn't and can't think of anyone I know who would, the emotional response would probably just be of frustration at the absurd amount of money being spent, much like bragging about any large value novelty purchase.
- sbarre 6y ago
  I think you're missing the point of bragging rights in the first place. It's entirely about the audience. Without even talking about NFTs in particular, you don't brag about something to people who don't care about that something. I mean shit we have this page here that wouldn't exist if people didn't care, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders There clearly is an audience that cares about NFTs, just like there is for plenty of other types of goods/accomplishments/ownership... Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for, or against, this stuff, just pointing out that there's nothing new about the motivations or desires of people getting into the NFT game.
- vidarh 6y ago
  A whole lot of other goods are only expensive because people want to show off their ability to buy expensive things, and for a certain subset of bragging rights, the ability to throw away huge amounts of money on something totally useless is a particularly extravagant demonstration of wealth, because spending money on something useless is a more direct demonstration of the magnitude of your wealth than buying something that you can safely sell again to recoup most of your expense. For what it's worth, I agree with you in general. It's a ridiculous waste of money. But at the same time it's very clear that some people are impressed by this kind of thing.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    Also, if a group with money generally agrees about (and demonstrates by buying) the desirability of something, it becomes just as valuable to people outside the group. I don't have to care about NFTs to buy one that I know I can unload. The problem comes when the auctions start failing i.e. people who bought NFTs with leverage can't sell for enough where they won't be wiped out. The art market runs on the self-image of wealthy people as superior people, which requires constant critical appraisal and reappraisal by designated experts. There's no chance that the ability to piss money away on an acknowledgement in a distributed ledger can compete indefinitely with the ability to piss money away on a canvas by a dead abstract expressionist painted in their own piss and shit. Academics and famous aesthetes will call you a genius for owning the second. How long are you going to be able to brag about one of these, and who to? Every initial transaction with these is giving some real person real money for absolutely nothing in return. Who are going to be the designated issuers, and why? Who is going to pay for Scott Baio's Designated Cool Dude NFT, and how much?
mcrittenden 6y ago
For anyone else wondering what NFTs are: > Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are digital assets that are indivisible and provably unique. They can be used to represent both tangible and intangible items. https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explained-guide-learn-blockchain https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explai...
tibbydudeza 6y ago
I am waiting for a OnlyFans creator to sell her bathwater as a NFT.
squarefoot 6y ago
I'd be willing to throw twice that money at it, but want also bundled the original dead parrot.
didi987 6y ago
Dan Held on a podcast made the point that NFTs, like ICOs, will scale to suck up all of the available [foolish] money and then collapse.
wan23 6y ago
You should consider an NFT to be something like a certificate. Some entity has issued you a certificate saying, e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. The value of certificates in NFT form is that they are difficult to forge and easy to verify. However, like a paper certificate that you might hang on your wall, the actual certificate is worthless. It is representative of something that may have value, e.g. proof that someone who owns the Brooklyn Bridge has transferred ownership to you. What matters is if other people believe the underlying item is worth something and accept control of the token as being sufficient to authenticate you as the owner. Obviously, in this case no one will accept this token in place of a deed for the bridge, but on the other hand if a government did issue tokens this way and recognized them in court then it might work out pretty well (until someone steals your crypto keys).
- freetime2 6y ago
  He isn’t actually selling the Brooklyn Bridge, but a (comically poor) drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321d6701d07/1021 https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321... So this is not really a scam, but rather a legitimate satire of recent NFT sales.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    In this case, I think of it as a sort of performance art, where by buying it you're participating in the performance.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Yes, and John Cleese has made quite a lucrative career out of legitimate satire. This is not unlike how Weird Al would sell more copies of his satirical music than the music he satired.
- gerdesj 6y ago
  "e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge." I note that this whole NFT thing is bollocks but you are only buying an image of the Brooklyn Bridge not the bridge itself. This is not the same as a bloke pretending to flog the real bridge to you. That is why John Cleese picked that bridge because it was famously "sold" several times to victims of fraud. When I say bollocks, that is too trite as well. NFT means non fungible token and yet it clearly is "fungible" in some way. I generate one and sell it to you. The blockchain "proves" the transfer of ownership. Fiat (let it be) money is on pretty shaky ground as well and yet we live with the fibs and outright lies and get on with trade. If you look at the recent GME trading stuff and break it down into the various components - start with "what on earth is a USD?", it all rapidly gets a bit mad. Work your way up through what a short is or even what a simple stock trade actually means and then perhaps look at how the trades are trued up every few days and other weirdness. Calling out NFTs as bollocks is a bit off. Fiat money and stocks n that are basically a game with a lot of rules, a lot of rules. It is possible that some of those rules are made up on the fly by the banker and the banker may not be who you think they are. That said, I don't see myself using crypto coins. I mined over one BT back in the day and lost the wallet on my Pentium II when I dumped err recycled it. At the time it was worth a few quid - the BT that is. I really won't buy a NFT unless I suddenly find my NW in the millions and I get bored. Now Mr Cleese's piccy of the bridge does look quite tasty ... copy, paste .... delete. 8)
cphoover 6y ago
brilliant tongue in cheek.
tippytippytango 6y ago
This is a perfect example of what NFTs really are, a mechanism to monetize attention, not ownership. Yes, they could be used to represent ownership; but, that's not what the current incarnation actually is. Anyone could have made a Brooklyn Bridge NFT (I've seen many make this joke). But, the value of the NFT is based on who is selling it and how compelling the narrative around the NFT is. The valuation of the NFT is going to be based entirely on expectations of growth of future attention to the minter of the NFT. The market for them is going to consist primarily of a person that is a speculator first, collector second. With that said, I think that people are wildly overpricing expectations of future attention for most of these. So there will be a correction. But, I don't think they are a fad, as long as gamblers exist so will NFTs.
- atweiden 6y ago
  This could easily turn into a situation where Twitter / IG profiles contain NFT inventories, which is scary to think about. Social media looks to be on the verge of transitioning into something catastrophically superficial. The pendulum will fully swing to “capturing the moment” then selling it on the way pornographers do, and it will be equally smutty. Everyone might as well soon be doing what CNN and Fox News are doing, and profiting from it on an individual level powered by NFTs. We are staring down at the proliferation of digusting levels of objectification of social interactions powered by the financialization of everything. The people responsible for pushing this for profit should be shamed and disgraced, but will instead likely by rewarded with billions in newly created — and unseizable — wealth. Truly, humanity is a cancer.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > Social media looks to be on the verge of transitioning into something catastrophically superficial. The pendulum will fully swing to “capturing the moment” then selling it on the way pornographers do, and it will be equally smutty. What do you mean "on the verge"? That shift happened a long time ago. I'd say the shift happened when suddenly everyone started being OK with taking pictures of themselves and posting it online. That's when everything was confirmed to just be superficial. Before this, we used to say only vain people took photos of themselves, but now either everyone is vain, or our measure of vain people moved.
chris_wot 6y ago
"A young, unknown artist (or collective of artists) with a firm grasp of Cryptic Currencies and Non Floodable Tokens."
dleslie 6y ago
There are children going hungry at school, people with trivial to fix but prohibitively expensive medical issues, and silicon valley millionaires are spending more than many will make in a year by purchasing bullshit. Shit's on fire, yo.
- GhostVII 6y ago
  Well purchasing an NFT doesn't really reallocate any resources that would have gone to those things, so I don't think it's a huge issue. They are just transferring money from one person to another, essentially.
  - xg15 6y ago
    > They are just transferring money from one person to another, essentially. That's what "reallocating resources" usually means.
    - GhostVII 6y ago
      I said they are not reallocating resources which would have gone towards those things. Unless the person buying the NFT has a greater chance of spending it on the poor than the person selling it, nothing has really changed as far as our spending on health, housing etc. goes. All money does is decide how we allocate physical resources and labour. If it is just sitting in a bank, or being moved from one person to another, nothing is being taken away from the poor.
- drcode 6y ago
  NFTs are a mechanism for transferring money from rich people to artists who are not rich. Isn't this something you should support, given your stated beliefs?
  - qeternity 6y ago
    If you think this is what’s happening in reality, then I have a bridge to sell you...
skyzadev 6y ago
Ommiting the fact that it's a drawing of the bridge and not the actual bridge from the title seems very biased and intentional.
Thristle 6y ago
John Cleese started out as genius and then continued to improve
gesman 6y ago
Here's my NFT of Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/344510305779850782803553725984767142518850069361109379851915909755966586881 https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...
ping_pong 6y ago
What happens when I buy an NFT Type A for a piece of art, but then NFT Type B becomes more popular in the future? Is no one else allowed to create an NFT Type B for that same piece of art? What if someone creates multiple NFTs Type A for that same piece of art?
AzzieElbab 6y ago
Loved that tweet. Someone had to do it
altspace 6y ago
Are there any metrics available for secondary sale of NFTs?
motohagiography 6y ago
NFTs make sense if you have a pile of volatile currency and you want to hedge that volatility by putting it into an asset with a different volatility profile, without having to convert it into a transaction that triggers income or capital gains tax. I'd posit the NFT craze is an unintended consequence of cryptocurrency tax policy. The reason people are burning bubble money in NFTs is because it's more fun setting it on fire than taking on the massive accounting risk of reporting their gains. While I don't hold cryptocurrencies for related reasons, if you're guaranteed to lose 35%+ of your chips when you cash them in, it makes no difference if you do something stupid and fun with it. If you have undeclared crypto gains, making it disappear into a hard to value joke NFT is even lower risk. Just like real art.
davesque 6y ago
Is this supposed to make blockchain look bad or something? Everyone knows John Cleese doesn't own the Brooklyn Bridge. He could have also started a title company on paper and sold the "rights" to the Brooklyn Bridge as a printed certificate and I guess he would have made title companies look like bullshit. And distributed ledgers are still technically more secure than a bunch of trusted bank employees...if that's what you care about. You can place your trust in them on in yourself. Previously, only one of those options was possible. Just more anti-hype hype.
spacemanmatt 6y ago
Fimally!
senectus1 6y ago
such a "John Cleese" move. they guy is a funny factory.
_carbyau_ 6y ago
Buying an object, any object art or otherwise, for any reason. At least gets you that object. Buying an NFT gets you a digital token. That token can say anything it likes but that is all you get. Until NFTs are somehow anchored to ownership of the thing they mention... I don't see the point. Do we need governments to provide a NFT Enforcement Registrar or something? Kinda defeats the purpose of "no central authority" then...
young_unixer 6y ago
Ceci n'est pas un pont.
moistly 6y ago
Next, Cleese should sell an NFT for the NFT that he sold for his Brooklyn Bridge scribble.
TheMagicHorsey 6y ago
I used to think NFTs include the copyright for the underlying work ... but I've just been educated and it seems you don't even own the copyright of the underlying work. That stays with the artist. All you literally have is a few bits on a blockchain that say you paid so and so money to say you own the work on the blockchain. That's it. And not every blockchain mind you. Just that specific blockchain. On another blockchain someone else can own the work. NFTs are ridiculous if they don't act as a registry of actual ownership. I don't know why people think otherwise.

445 points by jshprentz 6y ago

tzm 6y ago

IMO, NFTs are relevant as pop culture artifacts of a tokenized economy. It's less about the art, and more about the artist and buyers as a collective story. Valuations are high due to liquidity, technology and timing as a cultural shift.

Apocryphon 6y ago

That’s a hip target to skewer for such an elder humorist.

systemvoltage 6y ago
Dada of NFTs, the future is going to call this Cleese’s bridge for NFTs as we call Duchamp’s urinal. It will probably sell, that’s why he didn’t just tell us the joke but also listed it.
- bellyfullofbac 6y ago
  I don't really see the downside (oh yeah, planet's burning, but as the dog in the cartoon said, this is fine), if some rich jerkoffs buy it then Cleese can put the money into charity. I suppose one downside is that the NFT ponzi peddlers can now say "See, we're legitimate, even the founder of Monty Python is here!", but Cleese's comments about terminal insanity isn't exactly support. I suppose everyone knows the emperors are naked, but hey, it seems like that's not stopping megabucks being made, and why should you miss out?
- rcxdude 6y ago
  NFTs have already started mocking themselves, almost as soon as any money has been spent on it (for example banksy's "I can't belive you morons actually buy this shit: https://opensea.io/assets/0xdfef5ac9745d24db881fef3937eab1d2471dc2c7/1 https://opensea.io/assets/0xdfef5ac9745d24db881fef3937eab1d2... selling for $350k). This is just another high-profile example (though I think it's a slightly pointier critique at NFTs).

trebligdivad 6y ago

I'm surprised he wasn't selling a Norwegian Blue.

cm2187 6y ago
This one is more in the spirit of the Klein Blue
jMyles 6y ago
it does have beautiful plumage afterall

eloff 6y ago

Is it just me, or NFTs is just useless bragging rights about ownership of digital goods which can't be owned? You can make unlimited indistinguishable copies of an image. Do people really care who pretends to own it? I mean I guess if you look at show of brands like Luis Vuiton (sp?) There are plenty of people willing to pay for said bragging rights. As someone who's always mocked those brands and the people who buy them, it seems so strange to me though.

scambier 6y ago
> Do people really care who pretends to own it They absolutely don't. There's no art collectors or amateurs in this game, only speculators.
- Theodores 6y ago
  Christie's commissioned the Beeple work to sell as an NFT. Why would an auction house do that? There is more to it than speculation. There is a con where something went on. Maybe the auction house commissioned the money to pay for it and had a 69.3 million fee. It saddens me that journalists have chosen not to follow the money and ask the questions.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    > Christie's commissioned the Beeple work Did they? I thought it was his investor "Metakovan" who commissioned it. Following the money is rather hard in an all-pseudonym system.
chartpath 6y ago
Wasn't there an app on iOS way back at the start that was just an image of a ruby/gem of some kind that cost $999? Some people actually bought it before Apple took it off the App Store.
- Someone 6y ago
  $999.99 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich)

airhead969 6y ago

NFTs are stupid. As soon as this craze is over, they'll be illiquid and absolutely worthless.

noobermin 6y ago
Careful there, how many degrees removed is it from other cryptocurrencies? If people follow this logic it will lead some people to be mad.
- lottin 6y ago
  Cryptocoins are equally useless in practice, but at least they try to serve a purpose. NFTs make no attempt to serve a purpose. It's truly bizarre.
runeks 6y ago
They are already illiquid. So they will only become worthless.
Animats 6y ago
They may hang on for years, or decades. You can still trade Beanie Babies and Cabbage Patch dolls on eBay. Three Stooges collectable plates from the Franklin Mint[1] don't seem to be selling well, though. Lack of liquidity is implicit in non-fungible tokens. You have to find a buyer who wants the exact item you have. That may be hard. It may require paying for advertising, which means the return can go negative. With a uniform commodity, there's a market with prices. Non-fungible markets don't crash, they stall. You can't sell, but that's not visible on marketplaces, especially if they're designed to hide listings that are not moving. (This is common in real estate; un-saleable property is taken off the market, then re-listed, so it doesn't show as "for sale for 72 weeks".) What we're probably going to see are markets with huge numbers of items that are not selling, but have high asking prices. This will create the illusion of value, because someone will add up the asking prices and claim that's a "market cap". The illusion of volume and liquidity can be created with wash trades. There are getting to be a quite a number of blockchain based virtual worlds, where you can pay way too much for virtual land. Few people actually log into those virtual worlds and spend time there; they just trade land. "The metagame is the game", some analyst wrote of Decentraland. (Which, despite its name, is totally centralized. You can't run a Decentraland server yourself.) I used to go to art openings in SF, and sometimes we'd look at some bad piece and ask "will this be around in 10 years or will it have been tossed out?" Years later, I suspect most of it went to a Dumpster long ago. [1] https://www.ebay.com/itm/Franklin-Mint-The-Three-Stooges-Decorative-Plate-Lot-8/114699073301 https://www.ebay.com/itm/Franklin-Mint-The-Three-Stooges-Dec...

BurningFrog 6y ago

Buying it from such a Legend is what gives it value. It's like Cleese is personally making fun of the buyer! I'm pretty sure this will go down as the Pet Rocks of this era. But... I'm not entirely sure.

vl 6y ago
He is only one of the very few people who can pull it off.
notahacker 6y ago
tbf if I was stupidly rich and not particularly philanthropically inclined, I'd see far more value in an NFT John Cleese personally mocks me for buying than any others
tartoran 6y ago
Having that it’s John Cleese this may truly become a very valuable NFT even if that wasn’t the intention. The only thing John can do to at this point is get this event as public as possible then denounce it as a big scam and refusing to cash in a very large bid. Alternatively he may actually help jumpstart the NFT

xyzzy21 6y ago

If it's NFT, it MUST be true and the transaction MUST be legit! Sigh. NTF is just more nonsense.

daenz 6y ago

Brilliant move by John Cleese. The sale is the performance, and the performance aligns perfectly with his genre.

theptip 6y ago
The obvious follow-up is to mint an NFT of the promo announcement/performance and sell that too. Obviously that would require its own performative announcement post...
- jcwayne 6y ago
  "It's NFTs all the way down."

cs702 6y ago

Please consider changing the OP link to Cleese's actual post on Twitter, which embeds a video of him describing this "work of art": https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/1372944852325789704 It's brilliant parody, as usual, from Cleese. Regardless of what you think of NFTs, you will get a good laugh.

dylan604 6y ago
No need, I just bought it now.
geoduck14 6y ago
I don't have a Twitter account. Is there another way to see the video?
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  You don't need a Twitter account to enjoy a tweet.
  - C19is20 6y ago
    ...but I enjoy enjoying not having Twitter.
- gertlex 6y ago
  I got "This is not available to you" or something like that, which I've never seen before. A few refreshes later (I also don't have a twitter) it worked though.
  - brianush1 6y ago
    For me, this was caused by a buggy service worker; unregistering the service worker (from about:debugging > "This Firefox" > "Service Workers" on Firefox, dunno how on Chrome) should fix the issue
dang 6y ago

simplecto 6y ago

The internet is just a fad. Only nerds want a smartphone Bitcoin is a scam NFTs are just stupid Just because I don’t like the aesthetic qualities of NFTs does not mean the whole space is bunk.

benjohnson 6y ago
Sometimes the doubters are correct. AOL keywords, WAP phones, pets.com stock, self driving cars are two years away, X.25, VR, Hydrogen Cars.
- xondono 6y ago
  The doubters are correct most of the time. That’s what makes VC lucrative.
clydethefrog 6y ago
Remember when everything would be nanobots?

toss1 6y ago

Next up will be a set of data on the wing-flapping rate of African swallow and the instructions for the Holy Hand Grenade. All the comments about supposedly "owning" a copy of an item that is trivial to make perfect digital copies... exactly. If, somehow, the NFTs could be made actually non-fungible, and backed by the legal system, the one killer feature would be repeating revenue for the artist with every subsequent sale. That could truly change the economics for the perpetually starving artists in the world. If that came to pass, it might be worth all the electricity and carbon footprint.

gerdesj 6y ago
"wing-flapping rate of African swallow" Laden or unladen? In a vacuum?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toss1 6y ago
  Perhaps, only the NFT owner will hold the answer? If that could be setup, it might drive some lively bidding!
Tenoke 6y ago
>the electricity and carbon footprint. That's no longer a concern for an increasing number of NFTs minted today[0]. 0. https://svilentodorov.xyz/blog/nft-electricity/ https://svilentodorov.xyz/blog/nft-electricity/
- toss1 6y ago
  good update - thx! I knew about ETH POS coming (soon we hope...), but aspects of those other projects were good news

wrs 6y ago

Given there’s a $50k bid for this, I can’t decide if the joke backfired, or succeeded brilliantly. It’s a no-lose proposition for Cleese, I guess!

dylan604 6y ago
Normally, when these kind of things happen, the receipient of that money tends to do something cool with it like dontating it to causes. However, I think it would be very apropos for Cleese to just keep any earnings.
- a4isms 6y ago
  (Cleese collects fifty million dollars, goes to the bank and takes the entire amount out in cash.) "I won, I won, I finally came out ahead!" Prunella Scales appears. "Thank you, Basil!" Yoink.
koonsolo 6y ago
This is already a famous NFT. "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge? Look, I have that NFT that he sold!". Heck, I would even pay money for that. First of all for the bragging rights, and second of all because I'm sure plenty of people would pay for it. But $50k is a bit over my budget ;). But in no way am I surprised that there is somebody out there that wants to pay this amount. If anyone is surprised by this, you probably also don't understand any other collectibles.
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  Just tell people you own it. Venmo me $5 and I’ll put your name down on the blockchain (a public Google sheet). It’ll have the same effect.
  - TigeriusKirk 6y ago
    But it won't. This is the key conceptual leap you have to make to understand NFTs, or cryptocurrency for that matter. The blockchain is a consensus mechanism, with the emphasis on consensus. A lot of people agreeing on something having value means that it has value to those people. They can then exchange that thing among themselves and thus transfer the value. One person saying something has value means it has value to them. If no one else accepts it has value, it can't be used to transfer value.

runeks 6y ago

Honest question: if I were to buy this, how would I prove to everyone I meet that I am the owner?

tomerico 6y ago
You could generate a signature that proves that you have the private key associated with the address
- worik 6y ago
  I.e., you cannot. You can run a piece of mathematics that not one person in a thousand would understand, but there is no way to show it off, like in a book case or hang it on a wall. But given that most valuable art is sitting in deep storage in free ports, I am not sure it is a problem.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    I see NFT ownership quickly devolving to "cool story, bro."
- runeks 6y ago
  And how do I prove that this address is associated with John Cleese’s work? Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet, or how is it associated with him?
  - sellyme 6y ago
    > Does John Cleese post this address in a tweet Yes, he has done so.
insert_coin 6y ago
You have to ask the vegans.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
6y ago

_ZeD_ 6y ago

it remembers me the italian classic scene of the "selling of the Trevi fountain" from "Tototruffa '62" [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQNPg5-hgk

kgwgk 6y ago
Not sure if you are aware that the choice of the Brooklyn Bridge is not accidental: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker

ourmandave 6y ago

Apparently there's Fuck You money, and then there's having "I buy NFTs" money. (But you have to say it in Forrest Gump's voice.)

raverbashing 6y ago
I wonder if there are NFTs of fruit companies.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago

This young chap (or collective of chaps) has a bright future.

ASalazarMX 6y ago

Given the logical progression, I think I'll wait until someone sells a NFT of a NFT before being surprised.

craz8 6y ago
NFT derivatives will be the next big thing for the ‘20s - perhaps a NFT ETF I can put in my IRA?
- throw5throw5 6y ago
  Collateralized NFT Obligations!

SMAAART 6y ago

John Cleese is brilliant. Period.

skeletonjelly 6y ago
Pity about his views. Wish I could agree, his past stuff is genius.

pazimzadeh 6y ago

*a Drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge

rvz 6y ago
They don't call it 'contemporary art' for no reason. We all know that the drawing itself is worthless but the signature is what is 'valued'. NFTs are just giving life to 'contemporary art' again which can be shortened to 'con-art'. Allowing celebrities a get rich quick route with their signatures. Heck, even an AI can paint something and auction it at Christie's and then re-auction it as an NFT. As for this NFT and the rest of them, No thanks and no deal.
- freetime2 6y ago
  I think this an unfair characterization of contemporary art. I don’t consider myself an expert by any means, but I’ve been to a couple of contemporary art museums (Mass MoCA and one in Kanazawa) and enjoyed both experiences. I believe that the bulk of artists producing contemporary art work very hard at their craft for very little reward. Certainly most of the works I saw featured looked like they required a lot of effort to think up and execute. There were also certainly some pieces that raised an eyebrow and made me think “that’s art?”, but that’s part of the fun IMO. The art collector market is where things tend to go sideways. Collectors do often seem to value the name on the signature over everything else. But in most cases when you see those crazy high sale prices at auction, the money is not going to the artist but rather to some other collector. So I don’t think it’s fair to call an entire genre of art a “con” just because of how rich art collectors behave.

skybrian 6y ago

If you're looking for a discount, you could get this one instead: https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/111671456905903448668754399825500311737993761829133923293106705775283906019329 https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...

runeks 6y ago
The top bid is currently quoted at 0.015. Which currency is this? Why don’t they specify this? I see a dollar equivalent, but I don’t see how they translate from the 0.015 figure. EDIT: Never mind. Apparently, the symbol Ξ refers to the Ether cryptocurrency.
- lupire 6y ago
  It's the greek letter Xi, used because it's looks like an E. Nice metaphor for NFT, which look like a real thing but aren't.
cs702 6y ago
The name of the artist is "gcp-nyc", which is evidently a reference to George C. Parker, the only con artist who has successfully "sold" the Brooklyn Bridge to date: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker

worik 6y ago

Is this a scam?

insert_coin 6y ago
Yes, NFTs are a scam.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Well, if NFTs are a scam, then anything you buy for money is a scam. Usually we reserve "scams" for "trickeries", fooling someone out of their money, when they don't really want to. In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs. Maybe a better word is to use "hyped" or "mania" or something, because it's not really a "scam" as no one really own NFTs as a whole and are fooling others. Disclaimer: I'm myself not into NFTs because it mostly seems like hype at this point, I own zero NFTs myself and have no interest in buying. But I also care about accuracy.
  - ivanche 6y ago
    > In this case, people are willingly buying NFTs. People being scammed, by definition, don't know they're being scammed. Otherwise they wouldn't be scammed. They also willingly buy something they believe is real.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      What do you mean "they believe is real"? NFTs are "real", not sure what you're on about. Or is it all fake, no one is actually trading NFTs? Yes, people are stupid. Does that mean they are being scammed? No, they're just idiots.
- jsnk 6y ago
  Getting scammed by John Cleese has clear value.
  - motohagiography 6y ago

dentemple 6y ago

Why would you put the punchline in the title?

craz8 6y ago

I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned that selling the Brooklyn Bridge is a very old scam, made famous by this huckster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker New technology, same scam

Tenoke 6y ago
It was mentioned in the original link here, it's just that the link was changed to the tweet which doesn't explain the backstory.
- blendergeek 6y ago
  Would you link this original link?
  - brianush1 6y ago
    From further down in this thread: https://decrypt.co/62217/monty-pythons-john-cleese-mints-brooklyn-bridge-nft https://decrypt.co/62217/monty-pythons-john-cleese-mints-bro...
chrisco255 6y ago
Not a scam in this case. John Cleese has signed the work himself, provided video evidence of its authenticity, and minted it on his own behalf. John Cleese is a famous humorist. The owner of this NFT will have a signed, authentic, John Cleese NFT. You can't copy and paste that. Even if John Cleese decides to mint 100 more of these, you'll have verifiable providence of NFT #1 of John Cleese's Brooklyn Bridge. The drawing, of course, is quite ridiculous. But what else would you expect from one of the masterminds behind the "Ministry of Silly Walks"?
eitland 6y ago
At least John Cleese clearly mentions "I have a bridge to sell you" in the video in his tweet. That saying is a reference to the scams of George C. Parker who "sold" the Brooklyn Bridge a number of times to gullible people, and from the context of the video it is clear he is referring to that.

andybak 6y ago

I'd like to defend NFTs from a slightly different angle. (Leaving aside the carbon emissions - let's assume everyone finally switches to Proof of Stake) They are stupid. They are pointless. But then so is most of the art world - and going a step forward - so is much of what we value. As several people have pointed out they are no less arbitrary than a limited edition print vs a commodity print. The value of fine wines escalates exponentially whilst the extra utility you get from any quality improvements trends towards nothing. Much of what we value is pointless and bordering on delusional. But unless you're a wandering ascetic or superhumanly utilitarian in your consumption (hint - you're probably not even if you think you are) then the difference is one of degree rather than of category.

miguelmurca 6y ago
I've never really seen anyone heavily take issue with the concept of NFTs. Everybody's just taking issue with the PoW.
- andybak 6y ago
  You obviously follow different people on Twitter to me. The entire topic has become very polarized - well beyond the discussions around C02
insert_coin 6y ago
The critic, which you do not address, is that (most) NFTs pretend to give assurance of ownership to an "original" digital asset. The problem with NFTs is a conceptual one not a technological or psychological or societal one. The problem with NFTs is digital "products" by their nature cannot claim originality. Art might be stupid, but you can actually make the claim of having an original insert_coin drawing, despite its value.
- andybak 6y ago
  I thought I had covered this point by talking about limited edition prints. A print is a print is a print. The artist simple decides to make a set of 5. If someone later makes a run of 10,000 - why is the former more valuable. The artist might never actually touch the print. They are simply authorizing them.

schoen 6y ago

The original conceptual framework for NFT-like instruments is Nick Szabo's "Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority": https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/ https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/ At the very end he says: > Largely unaddressed above is the problem of divergence between actual conditions and directory rights. [...] When divergence becomes too great, a solution to address the unreality of the title registry is needed. Almost nobody selling NFTs today has even bothered to address Szabo's final "correspondence to ground" point, i.e., why anyone should think that the ownership of a particular NFT means anything!

koonsolo 6y ago
This NFT is not "The Brooklyn Bridge", this NFT is "Remember when John Cleese sold the Brooklyn Bridge NFT". Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? I certainly do, but not for $50k, which it already has.
- lisper 6y ago
  c.f.: http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/ http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com/
  - enneff 6y ago
    At least those who bought pixels on that page got something for it.
  - m463 6y ago
    That's what I remember. At some point is all of this advertising? a well-known property that people are aware of?
- pmlnr 6y ago
  > Do you think nobody wants the bragging rights of owning that? It would be nice to believe that eventually we evolve beyond bragging about being an idiot. > I certainly do ...

ufo 6y ago

Is that 69.3 million asking price a reference to something or is it just a humorously large number with no special meaning?

nuclearsugar 6y ago
It's referencing the Beeple Christie auction

omgJustTest 6y ago

Oh comedy, you have found a truly original form!

frongpik 6y ago

Elon Musk can make another 100 billions by claiming a chunk of Mars territory and selling NFTs backed by 1 acre lots of Mars land. The NFTs will be real so long as Elon gets the US gov to recognize his landlord rights on Mars, at least near the location of his first rocket landing. The thing is, he can start selling NFTs right now, as his promise alone is this valuable.

URSpider94 6y ago
Just as was done a generation above with selling off lots in the desert west ... Barring any international treaties that would probably prevent any such claims, the general rule is that you or a physical representative have to set foot and survey before you can make a claim. And stepping onto Mars in one spot would not be sufficient to claim the whole planet.
- frongpik 6y ago
  Ah, you're being nitpicky. Buyers of those NFTs will be betting on Musk setting the foot first, and thus claiming a big enough chunk of Mars land. Potential returns are very large when there's a lot of ambiguity and risk. By the time Mars is regulated by a pile laws, returns will be low and a million dollars will buy a tiny lot. Buyers of NFTs will also speculate on finding expensive minerals under the Mars surface. If you have billions rotting in stock market, investing 1% into this, backed by the Musk's reputation and potential, is a no brainer.
toyg 6y ago
It’s not just USGOV who has to approve that claim, it’s every country on COPUOUS : https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html https://www.space.com/33440-space-law.html It’s more likely that Musk will have to settle for his Earthen technokingdom.
- vidarh 6y ago
  I think it's total folly to bet on that staying unchallenged once someone has the ability to transport sufficient mass and volume back and forth to create sufficient financial interests in changing it. If someone with sufficient odds of establishing a transport stranglehold started selling promises of land even with the giant caveat of it being subject to substantial changes in relevant treaties and laws, I'd suspect they'd find lots of people willing to take the risk, simply because even if it'd be extremely high risk, the potential payoff could be immense.

sn_master 6y ago

I can't imagine any real purpose for NFTs except money laundry and the 'I Am Rich' complex. With paintings, you're at least getting a physical artifact that the famous painter touched and painted, stroke by stroke, that can never be duplicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

capableweb 6y ago
Let's say we could replicate the painting stroke by stroke. Let's say we also use the same painter. Still, it doesn't matter. A copy is a copy. It's not the same as the first and initial incarnation of that artifact, physical or digital.
- sn_master 6y ago
  If the painter makes countless copies, the painting would lose its value. The value of an object is associated with who made it or who owned it or how unique it is. e.g. Hitler's car wouldn't have had its value if it was owned by someone else, despite it being no technically different from other Mercedes cars of the era.
- manigandham 6y ago
  This is not true. Digital items do not have an original. In fact creating the digital item itself creates multiple copies in the process, and every viewing of it creates infinitely more copies.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    > Digital items do not have an original Sure, except in the case of NFTs which is the subject of this discussion. Then there is one original (the NFT that the original creator created) and it has exactly one owner. Anything else is a copy.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      The point is that without an original, an NFT is just a receipt pointing to one of many completely identical - and fungible - items.

hatboxreappoint 6y ago

Some people in this thread talk about "bragging rights". I am genuinely curious if anyone would be impressed by someone bragging about purchasing this NFT, or know anyone who would be impressed. I wouldn't and can't think of anyone I know who would, the emotional response would probably just be of frustration at the absurd amount of money being spent, much like bragging about any large value novelty purchase.

sbarre 6y ago
I think you're missing the point of bragging rights in the first place. It's entirely about the audience. Without even talking about NFTs in particular, you don't brag about something to people who don't care about that something. I mean shit we have this page here that wouldn't exist if people didn't care, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders There clearly is an audience that cares about NFTs, just like there is for plenty of other types of goods/accomplishments/ownership... Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for, or against, this stuff, just pointing out that there's nothing new about the motivations or desires of people getting into the NFT game.
vidarh 6y ago
A whole lot of other goods are only expensive because people want to show off their ability to buy expensive things, and for a certain subset of bragging rights, the ability to throw away huge amounts of money on something totally useless is a particularly extravagant demonstration of wealth, because spending money on something useless is a more direct demonstration of the magnitude of your wealth than buying something that you can safely sell again to recoup most of your expense. For what it's worth, I agree with you in general. It's a ridiculous waste of money. But at the same time it's very clear that some people are impressed by this kind of thing.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  Also, if a group with money generally agrees about (and demonstrates by buying) the desirability of something, it becomes just as valuable to people outside the group. I don't have to care about NFTs to buy one that I know I can unload. The problem comes when the auctions start failing i.e. people who bought NFTs with leverage can't sell for enough where they won't be wiped out. The art market runs on the self-image of wealthy people as superior people, which requires constant critical appraisal and reappraisal by designated experts. There's no chance that the ability to piss money away on an acknowledgement in a distributed ledger can compete indefinitely with the ability to piss money away on a canvas by a dead abstract expressionist painted in their own piss and shit. Academics and famous aesthetes will call you a genius for owning the second. How long are you going to be able to brag about one of these, and who to? Every initial transaction with these is giving some real person real money for absolutely nothing in return. Who are going to be the designated issuers, and why? Who is going to pay for Scott Baio's Designated Cool Dude NFT, and how much?

mcrittenden 6y ago

For anyone else wondering what NFTs are: > Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are digital assets that are indivisible and provably unique. They can be used to represent both tangible and intangible items. https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explained-guide-learn-blockchain https://decrypt.co/resources/non-fungible-tokens-nfts-explai...

tibbydudeza 6y ago

I am waiting for a OnlyFans creator to sell her bathwater as a NFT.

squarefoot 6y ago

I'd be willing to throw twice that money at it, but want also bundled the original dead parrot.

didi987 6y ago

Dan Held on a podcast made the point that NFTs, like ICOs, will scale to suck up all of the available [foolish] money and then collapse.

wan23 6y ago

You should consider an NFT to be something like a certificate. Some entity has issued you a certificate saying, e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge. The value of certificates in NFT form is that they are difficult to forge and easy to verify. However, like a paper certificate that you might hang on your wall, the actual certificate is worthless. It is representative of something that may have value, e.g. proof that someone who owns the Brooklyn Bridge has transferred ownership to you. What matters is if other people believe the underlying item is worth something and accept control of the token as being sufficient to authenticate you as the owner. Obviously, in this case no one will accept this token in place of a deed for the bridge, but on the other hand if a government did issue tokens this way and recognized them in court then it might work out pretty well (until someone steals your crypto keys).

freetime2 6y ago
He isn’t actually selling the Brooklyn Bridge, but a (comically poor) drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321d6701d07/1021 https://opensea.io/assets/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321... So this is not really a scam, but rather a legitimate satire of recent NFT sales.
- mbg721 6y ago
  In this case, I think of it as a sort of performance art, where by buying it you're participating in the performance.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yes, and John Cleese has made quite a lucrative career out of legitimate satire. This is not unlike how Weird Al would sell more copies of his satirical music than the music he satired.
gerdesj 6y ago
"e.g. you are the rightful owner of the Brooklyn Bridge." I note that this whole NFT thing is bollocks but you are only buying an image of the Brooklyn Bridge not the bridge itself. This is not the same as a bloke pretending to flog the real bridge to you. That is why John Cleese picked that bridge because it was famously "sold" several times to victims of fraud. When I say bollocks, that is too trite as well. NFT means non fungible token and yet it clearly is "fungible" in some way. I generate one and sell it to you. The blockchain "proves" the transfer of ownership. Fiat (let it be) money is on pretty shaky ground as well and yet we live with the fibs and outright lies and get on with trade. If you look at the recent GME trading stuff and break it down into the various components - start with "what on earth is a USD?", it all rapidly gets a bit mad. Work your way up through what a short is or even what a simple stock trade actually means and then perhaps look at how the trades are trued up every few days and other weirdness. Calling out NFTs as bollocks is a bit off. Fiat money and stocks n that are basically a game with a lot of rules, a lot of rules. It is possible that some of those rules are made up on the fly by the banker and the banker may not be who you think they are. That said, I don't see myself using crypto coins. I mined over one BT back in the day and lost the wallet on my Pentium II when I dumped err recycled it. At the time it was worth a few quid - the BT that is. I really won't buy a NFT unless I suddenly find my NW in the millions and I get bored. Now Mr Cleese's piccy of the bridge does look quite tasty ... copy, paste .... delete. 8)

cphoover 6y ago

brilliant tongue in cheek.

tippytippytango 6y ago

This is a perfect example of what NFTs really are, a mechanism to monetize attention, not ownership. Yes, they could be used to represent ownership; but, that's not what the current incarnation actually is. Anyone could have made a Brooklyn Bridge NFT (I've seen many make this joke). But, the value of the NFT is based on who is selling it and how compelling the narrative around the NFT is. The valuation of the NFT is going to be based entirely on expectations of growth of future attention to the minter of the NFT. The market for them is going to consist primarily of a person that is a speculator first, collector second. With that said, I think that people are wildly overpricing expectations of future attention for most of these. So there will be a correction. But, I don't think they are a fad, as long as gamblers exist so will NFTs.

atweiden 6y ago
This could easily turn into a situation where Twitter / IG profiles contain NFT inventories, which is scary to think about. Social media looks to be on the verge of transitioning into something catastrophically superficial. The pendulum will fully swing to “capturing the moment” then selling it on the way pornographers do, and it will be equally smutty. Everyone might as well soon be doing what CNN and Fox News are doing, and profiting from it on an individual level powered by NFTs. We are staring down at the proliferation of digusting levels of objectification of social interactions powered by the financialization of everything. The people responsible for pushing this for profit should be shamed and disgraced, but will instead likely by rewarded with billions in newly created — and unseizable — wealth. Truly, humanity is a cancer.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > Social media looks to be on the verge of transitioning into something catastrophically superficial. The pendulum will fully swing to “capturing the moment” then selling it on the way pornographers do, and it will be equally smutty. What do you mean "on the verge"? That shift happened a long time ago. I'd say the shift happened when suddenly everyone started being OK with taking pictures of themselves and posting it online. That's when everything was confirmed to just be superficial. Before this, we used to say only vain people took photos of themselves, but now either everyone is vain, or our measure of vain people moved.

chris_wot 6y ago

"A young, unknown artist (or collective of artists) with a firm grasp of Cryptic Currencies and Non Floodable Tokens."

dleslie 6y ago

There are children going hungry at school, people with trivial to fix but prohibitively expensive medical issues, and silicon valley millionaires are spending more than many will make in a year by purchasing bullshit. Shit's on fire, yo.

GhostVII 6y ago
Well purchasing an NFT doesn't really reallocate any resources that would have gone to those things, so I don't think it's a huge issue. They are just transferring money from one person to another, essentially.
- xg15 6y ago
  > They are just transferring money from one person to another, essentially. That's what "reallocating resources" usually means.
  - GhostVII 6y ago
    I said they are not reallocating resources which would have gone towards those things. Unless the person buying the NFT has a greater chance of spending it on the poor than the person selling it, nothing has really changed as far as our spending on health, housing etc. goes. All money does is decide how we allocate physical resources and labour. If it is just sitting in a bank, or being moved from one person to another, nothing is being taken away from the poor.
drcode 6y ago
NFTs are a mechanism for transferring money from rich people to artists who are not rich. Isn't this something you should support, given your stated beliefs?
- qeternity 6y ago
  If you think this is what’s happening in reality, then I have a bridge to sell you...

skyzadev 6y ago

Ommiting the fact that it's a drawing of the bridge and not the actual bridge from the title seems very biased and intentional.

Thristle 6y ago

John Cleese started out as genius and then continued to improve

gesman 6y ago

Here's my NFT of Brooklyn Bridge: https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/344510305779850782803553725984767142518850069361109379851915909755966586881 https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200...

ping_pong 6y ago

What happens when I buy an NFT Type A for a piece of art, but then NFT Type B becomes more popular in the future? Is no one else allowed to create an NFT Type B for that same piece of art? What if someone creates multiple NFTs Type A for that same piece of art?

AzzieElbab 6y ago

Loved that tweet. Someone had to do it

altspace 6y ago

Are there any metrics available for secondary sale of NFTs?

motohagiography 6y ago

NFTs make sense if you have a pile of volatile currency and you want to hedge that volatility by putting it into an asset with a different volatility profile, without having to convert it into a transaction that triggers income or capital gains tax. I'd posit the NFT craze is an unintended consequence of cryptocurrency tax policy. The reason people are burning bubble money in NFTs is because it's more fun setting it on fire than taking on the massive accounting risk of reporting their gains. While I don't hold cryptocurrencies for related reasons, if you're guaranteed to lose 35%+ of your chips when you cash them in, it makes no difference if you do something stupid and fun with it. If you have undeclared crypto gains, making it disappear into a hard to value joke NFT is even lower risk. Just like real art.

davesque 6y ago

Is this supposed to make blockchain look bad or something? Everyone knows John Cleese doesn't own the Brooklyn Bridge. He could have also started a title company on paper and sold the "rights" to the Brooklyn Bridge as a printed certificate and I guess he would have made title companies look like bullshit. And distributed ledgers are still technically more secure than a bunch of trusted bank employees...if that's what you care about. You can place your trust in them on in yourself. Previously, only one of those options was possible. Just more anti-hype hype.

spacemanmatt 6y ago

Fimally!

senectus1 6y ago

such a "John Cleese" move. they guy is a funny factory.

_carbyau_ 6y ago

Buying an object, any object art or otherwise, for any reason. At least gets you that object. Buying an NFT gets you a digital token. That token can say anything it likes but that is all you get. Until NFTs are somehow anchored to ownership of the thing they mention... I don't see the point. Do we need governments to provide a NFT Enforcement Registrar or something? Kinda defeats the purpose of "no central authority" then...

young_unixer 6y ago

Ceci n'est pas un pont.

moistly 6y ago

Next, Cleese should sell an NFT for the NFT that he sold for his Brooklyn Bridge scribble.

TheMagicHorsey 6y ago

I used to think NFTs include the copyright for the underlying work ... but I've just been educated and it seems you don't even own the copyright of the underlying work. That stays with the artist. All you literally have is a few bits on a blockchain that say you paid so and so money to say you own the work on the blockchain. That's it. And not every blockchain mind you. Just that specific blockchain. On another blockchain someone else can own the work. NFTs are ridiculous if they don't act as a registry of actual ownership. I don't know why people think otherwise.