4 ms·

Good for her, but, she's just being used here to trick people into pumping money into a huge scam.

poisonborz 6y ago
Anyone interested would just buy some other NFT instead. I'd say this is still a more valid """art piece""" to own compared to a random generated pixel dude.
bellyfullofbac 6y ago
As Winston Zeddemore said during his interview to be a Ghostbuster, "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFX4fmldZFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFX4fmldZFs Of course a one-time six-digit check is also enough...
jrochkind1 6y ago
She's the one who just made $500K, I agree it's a huge scam, but she doesn't seem to be the one getting exploited.
- e-clinton 6y ago
  Why is this a huge scam but paying 500k for a baseball card isn’t? To me, a baseball card is equally useless.
  - setr 6y ago
    perhaps because NFT's offer no meaningful version of ownership -- you don't control it according to the government (no copyright/ip transfer), you don't control it according to the physical universe (you don't actually have anything -- not even bits), you don't control it according to the internet (others have just as much access and distribution as they did before), you don't control it according to blockchains in general (you can trivially establish a second NFT chain and claim ownership there). The thing that's being traded is a certificate of ownership that is enforced and considered by almost no one. It's equivalent to trading on emails that say "I own the Eiffel Tower". The fundamental question is why the hell does anyone want an NFT in the first place? "it's art" doesn't cut it, and "it's like baseball cards" doesn't really cut it either, because you aren't buying the card in a way that you can claim ownership over -- you're buying a certificate that contains a link to the card, and trading on that. Entirely independent of the object under question. In fact, you don't need the digital asset in the first place. You might as well trade tokens directly, and let go of the farce. But I suppose you just have a normal coin then.
    - dmarcos 6y ago
      NFTs are probably more similar to baseball cards and other collectables than you give credit. I can easily find an image on any card and print it. Still we value the original. NFTs are a proof the you own an original and not a copy. A piece of cardboard is all you own with a baseball card. Value comes from artificial scarcity that owner has no control over. Baseball card companies can easily print more cards and destroy value. They don’t. There’s a social contract between collector and producer. Similar to NFTs.
      - tompazourek 6y ago
        I think it's more like if the player portrayed on the baseball card sold a certificate saying it's actually him on the baseball card with his signature on the certificate. The actual original of the card isn't traded. As the buyer, you don't end up owning anything new, you get just a signature from some guy.

Anyone interested would just buy some other NFT instead. I'd say this is still a more valid """art piece""" to own compared to a random generated pixel dude.

bellyfullofbac 6y ago

As Winston Zeddemore said during his interview to be a Ghostbuster, "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFX4fmldZFs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFX4fmldZFs Of course a one-time six-digit check is also enough...

jrochkind1 6y ago

She's the one who just made $500K, I agree it's a huge scam, but she doesn't seem to be the one getting exploited.

e-clinton 6y ago
Why is this a huge scam but paying 500k for a baseball card isn’t? To me, a baseball card is equally useless.
- setr 6y ago
  perhaps because NFT's offer no meaningful version of ownership -- you don't control it according to the government (no copyright/ip transfer), you don't control it according to the physical universe (you don't actually have anything -- not even bits), you don't control it according to the internet (others have just as much access and distribution as they did before), you don't control it according to blockchains in general (you can trivially establish a second NFT chain and claim ownership there). The thing that's being traded is a certificate of ownership that is enforced and considered by almost no one. It's equivalent to trading on emails that say "I own the Eiffel Tower". The fundamental question is why the hell does anyone want an NFT in the first place? "it's art" doesn't cut it, and "it's like baseball cards" doesn't really cut it either, because you aren't buying the card in a way that you can claim ownership over -- you're buying a certificate that contains a link to the card, and trading on that. Entirely independent of the object under question. In fact, you don't need the digital asset in the first place. You might as well trade tokens directly, and let go of the farce. But I suppose you just have a normal coin then.
  - dmarcos 6y ago
    NFTs are probably more similar to baseball cards and other collectables than you give credit. I can easily find an image on any card and print it. Still we value the original. NFTs are a proof the you own an original and not a copy. A piece of cardboard is all you own with a baseball card. Value comes from artificial scarcity that owner has no control over. Baseball card companies can easily print more cards and destroy value. They don’t. There’s a social contract between collector and producer. Similar to NFTs.
    - tompazourek 6y ago
      I think it's more like if the player portrayed on the baseball card sold a certificate saying it's actually him on the baseball card with his signature on the certificate. The actual original of the card isn't traded. As the buyer, you don't end up owning anything new, you get just a signature from some guy.