4 ms·

I wonder if this is some sort of tax dodge.

• proc0 6y ago
  I was about to comment along these lines. One thing is digital art, but a screenshot? Uh, something is fishy here, but maybe not and I'm missing something that is making this valuable? IDK
  • doggodaddo78 6y ago
    It's apparent more and more that the image or digital deliverable itself is worthless, it's just the semi-"public" key while the private crypto signature is the crypto-backed part that is an exchange of actual currency. So, it doesn't matter what's exchanged, so long as it's sufficiently unique. I mean, you could auction a dick pic and it would still work.
    • proc0 6y ago
      Agreed, but it implies that piece of digital work has inherent value of some kind, otherwise it's just a vector for sending or storing money. I guess the question why would someone think it's worth that much? It seems equivalent to buying a house for some ridiculous amount and then "donate" it to someone. It's really the fact that it amounts to a picture of someone... I think it follows all celebrities can now NFT all their pictures and movie screenshots... something that by itself seems worthless since actors perform in a film, and the story is the central piece of artwork I think (in most movies). Anyway, it's interesting regardless.
• colechristensen 6y ago
  The intersection of cryptocurrencies and expensive art... it’s like what part of this isn’t some kind of fraud?
  • doggodaddo78 6y ago
    It's shady af rich people (drug dealers, actual princes, Nigerian princes, human traffickers, pimps, illicit arms dealers, stolen property dealers, and some Wall St.-types with gains they don't want to report) instead of burying or stashing money in cash houses or art, they just buy some crypto-backed nothings.