9 ms·

I don't think anyone understands that this is purely a "fun" thing to raise money. Yes, it's exactly like a donation drive.

by fallat 5y ago

spamalot159 5y ago
Except for that it uses technology that harms the environment. I don't think this trend is "fun" compared to a normal donation drive when it has these negative side effects.
- casi18 5y ago
  "We plan to make a significant carbon offset to mitigate the environmental impact of this NFT. Within one week of the closing of this auction we will update this page with details of the steps we took." Every action we take has tradeoffs. Everyone acts hoping that they can bring more good to the world than bad. Thats not to say we shouldn't be critical of decisions people make, but the moral panic around nfts is overblown imo. There are solutions being worked on [1] and the upside to addressing coordination problems[2] is huge. Or, as the saying goes, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" [1]https://our.status.im/ethereum-is-green/ https://our.status.im/ethereum-is-green/ [2]https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
  - klmadfejno 5y ago
    > Everyone acts hoping that they can bring more good to the world than bad. Not so sure about that one
  - eloff 5y ago
    > Everyone acts hoping that they can bring more good to the world than bad. I want to live in that world. Those are some seriously potent rose colored glasses you've got going on there. I think it's true that many people think and act that way, but I don't know what percentage of people are basically good like that.
  - Can_Not 5y ago
    > Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater But in the case of NFTs, there's no baby in the bathwater.
- TacticalCoder 5y ago
  > Except for that it uses technology that harms the environment. Apparently it's on Ethereum. Ethereum is already using an hybrid PoW / PoS (proof of stake) chain and at some point the PoS chain should be the only one. It PoS works, the impact on the environment should be a rounding error.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Haven't people been saying this for at least 4 years?
    - xur17 5y ago
      Maybe, but as of now the ETH2 beacon chain is running with > $14B of ETH locked in it, not launching honestly seems unlikely at this point.
      - runako 5y ago
        For those who, like me, are not knee-deep in crypto stuff, $14B of ETH appears to be about 3.7% of the total market cap.
    - vcxy 5y ago
      No, people have not been saying that ethereum is already partially on proof of stake for 4 years. I realize that isn't what you meant, but what you meant seems to be missing the point that it's actually happening recently.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    Great, get back to us when it actually happens, right now it is an environmental disaster.
    - throwaway_isms 5y ago
      Check out Ploygon(MATIC) they have an Ethereum L2 PoS network that is fully functional and works. At this point people are voluntarily using an expensive and wasteful mainnet on Ethereum, and it is better to promote the the existing solutions rather than spread FUD that they do not exist.
- eloff 5y ago
  The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. They're literally aiming at saving thousands of lives and the comments are all focused on how bad NFTs are. Give me a break, talk about missing the point.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    > The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. Source? I'm curious to see exactly how the environmental harm of a fundraising dinner is quantified. edit: When I google "ethereum transaction energy cost" the Google featured snippet says 50kwH for a single transaction. I find it hard to believe that it would take 50kWH to cook a single dinner. If you're referring to multiple dinners, then you would have to subtract the cost to eat in general as eating is a human necessity - hence me asking your source since I'm genuinely curious.
    - sp332 5y ago
      With the NFT minting, several bids, sale, and transfer of ownership, it's an average of 340 kWh for a successful NFT, according to https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cost-of-cryptoart-2221d3eb2053 https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cos... which has sources and methodology etc. That seems pretty high even for a fundraising dinner, and at least that includes food.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Think about all the energy costs involved in everyone driving to the dinner, the air conditioning or heating for the venue, etc. It would depend on the number of guests which is more costly to the environment. For a dinner where you aim to raise 2.5 million, I think the dinner is going to have a bigger impact. But again, I want to reiterate that focusing on the environmental impact here is totally missing the point. It's like saying the outside of the hospital is painted a jarring color.
      - 5y ago
- version_five 5y ago
  Plus it gives credibility to what is effectively a scam. People will be able to point to this and say "look, they're being used to do good" and others will take that as social proof that there is actually something legit to an NFT (and the rest of the various "crypto" scams going on).
- throwaway_isms 5y ago
  Does government backed fiat harm the environment? Do the militaries of the nations protecting their government backed fiat have a net positive or negative impact on the environment? Does the infrastructure required by central banks, retail banking have a net positive or negative impact on the environment? I am not arguing blockchain in various implementations do not harm the environment, only that there are many external costs and collateral damage by the current systems which is often ignored. What is a "normal donation drive" after all? Is it a bunch of celebrities and musicians jumping on private airplanes? Is it a $10,000 per plate filet mignon dinner indirectly supporting bigAG and bigAG animal farming? What external costs have you contributed to just to make a post, are there plastics in your device, was coal burned somewhere or fossil fuel burned to supply parts to your device or charge your device? Certainly this NFT is not saving lives, the entity behind it was saving lives before the NFT, and certainly they would have continued to save lives without the NFT, but if the NFT generates $2.5M and they can save 1 life with every ~$1,200, then there is a number. Maybe someone who really believes in the argument that saving 1,000 lives is good but not at the expense of the environment which will result in killing us all can step up and pay this entity double ($5M) not to do it, sure its a number reserved for the 1% but its also a number that means nothing to the 1%.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Look, you'll be hard pressed finding someone who hates the government more than me; even I can tell you that yes, the government wastes a lot of resources and pollutes the environment - but both government and central banking are much more efficient in managing money. You can't solve a political problem with technology. PoW is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. BTC is slow and wastes a lot of energy, just to maintain consensus. I'd rather see a system with decentralised nodes I can trust (imagine tons of trustworthy corporations running these instead of the duopoly of Mastercard / Visa) which can process transactions without worrying about consensus and without wasting energy. Looking forward to PoS, which could bring us closer to that reality. Even with BTC (or a crypto with PoS) the problems with the governments won't disappear, I'm sure they'll find a way to keep ruining our lives and extracting money from us, even with cryptocurrencies.

I don't think anyone understands that this is purely a "fun" thing to raise money. Yes, it's exactly like a donation drive.

by fallat 5y ago

I don't think anyone understands that this is purely a "fun" thing to raise money. Yes, it's exactly like a donation drive.

spamalot159 5y ago

Except for that it uses technology that harms the environment. I don't think this trend is "fun" compared to a normal donation drive when it has these negative side effects.

casi18 5y ago
"We plan to make a significant carbon offset to mitigate the environmental impact of this NFT. Within one week of the closing of this auction we will update this page with details of the steps we took." Every action we take has tradeoffs. Everyone acts hoping that they can bring more good to the world than bad. Thats not to say we shouldn't be critical of decisions people make, but the moral panic around nfts is overblown imo. There are solutions being worked on [1] and the upside to addressing coordination problems[2] is huge. Or, as the saying goes, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" [1]https://our.status.im/ethereum-is-green/ https://our.status.im/ethereum-is-green/ [2]https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
- klmadfejno 5y ago
  > Everyone acts hoping that they can bring more good to the world than bad. Not so sure about that one
- eloff 5y ago
  > Everyone acts hoping that they can bring more good to the world than bad. I want to live in that world. Those are some seriously potent rose colored glasses you've got going on there. I think it's true that many people think and act that way, but I don't know what percentage of people are basically good like that.
- Can_Not 5y ago
  > Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater But in the case of NFTs, there's no baby in the bathwater.
TacticalCoder 5y ago
> Except for that it uses technology that harms the environment. Apparently it's on Ethereum. Ethereum is already using an hybrid PoW / PoS (proof of stake) chain and at some point the PoS chain should be the only one. It PoS works, the impact on the environment should be a rounding error.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Haven't people been saying this for at least 4 years?
  - xur17 5y ago
    Maybe, but as of now the ETH2 beacon chain is running with > $14B of ETH locked in it, not launching honestly seems unlikely at this point.
    - runako 5y ago
      For those who, like me, are not knee-deep in crypto stuff, $14B of ETH appears to be about 3.7% of the total market cap.
  - vcxy 5y ago
    No, people have not been saying that ethereum is already partially on proof of stake for 4 years. I realize that isn't what you meant, but what you meant seems to be missing the point that it's actually happening recently.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Great, get back to us when it actually happens, right now it is an environmental disaster.
  - throwaway_isms 5y ago
    Check out Ploygon(MATIC) they have an Ethereum L2 PoS network that is fully functional and works. At this point people are voluntarily using an expensive and wasteful mainnet on Ethereum, and it is better to promote the the existing solutions rather than spread FUD that they do not exist.
eloff 5y ago
The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. They're literally aiming at saving thousands of lives and the comments are all focused on how bad NFTs are. Give me a break, talk about missing the point.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > The environmental harm of a single ethereum transaction is very low. Lower than a fundraising dinner. Please take your nitpicking elsewhere. Source? I'm curious to see exactly how the environmental harm of a fundraising dinner is quantified. edit: When I google "ethereum transaction energy cost" the Google featured snippet says 50kwH for a single transaction. I find it hard to believe that it would take 50kWH to cook a single dinner. If you're referring to multiple dinners, then you would have to subtract the cost to eat in general as eating is a human necessity - hence me asking your source since I'm genuinely curious.
  - sp332 5y ago
    With the NFT minting, several bids, sale, and transfer of ownership, it's an average of 340 kWh for a successful NFT, according to https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cost-of-cryptoart-2221d3eb2053 https://memoakten.medium.com/the-unreasonable-ecological-cos... which has sources and methodology etc. That seems pretty high even for a fundraising dinner, and at least that includes food.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Think about all the energy costs involved in everyone driving to the dinner, the air conditioning or heating for the venue, etc. It would depend on the number of guests which is more costly to the environment. For a dinner where you aim to raise 2.5 million, I think the dinner is going to have a bigger impact. But again, I want to reiterate that focusing on the environmental impact here is totally missing the point. It's like saying the outside of the hospital is painted a jarring color.
    - 5y ago
version_five 5y ago
Plus it gives credibility to what is effectively a scam. People will be able to point to this and say "look, they're being used to do good" and others will take that as social proof that there is actually something legit to an NFT (and the rest of the various "crypto" scams going on).
throwaway_isms 5y ago
Does government backed fiat harm the environment? Do the militaries of the nations protecting their government backed fiat have a net positive or negative impact on the environment? Does the infrastructure required by central banks, retail banking have a net positive or negative impact on the environment? I am not arguing blockchain in various implementations do not harm the environment, only that there are many external costs and collateral damage by the current systems which is often ignored. What is a "normal donation drive" after all? Is it a bunch of celebrities and musicians jumping on private airplanes? Is it a $10,000 per plate filet mignon dinner indirectly supporting bigAG and bigAG animal farming? What external costs have you contributed to just to make a post, are there plastics in your device, was coal burned somewhere or fossil fuel burned to supply parts to your device or charge your device? Certainly this NFT is not saving lives, the entity behind it was saving lives before the NFT, and certainly they would have continued to save lives without the NFT, but if the NFT generates $2.5M and they can save 1 life with every ~$1,200, then there is a number. Maybe someone who really believes in the argument that saving 1,000 lives is good but not at the expense of the environment which will result in killing us all can step up and pay this entity double ($5M) not to do it, sure its a number reserved for the 1% but its also a number that means nothing to the 1%.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Look, you'll be hard pressed finding someone who hates the government more than me; even I can tell you that yes, the government wastes a lot of resources and pollutes the environment - but both government and central banking are much more efficient in managing money. You can't solve a political problem with technology. PoW is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. BTC is slow and wastes a lot of energy, just to maintain consensus. I'd rather see a system with decentralised nodes I can trust (imagine tons of trustworthy corporations running these instead of the duopoly of Mastercard / Visa) which can process transactions without worrying about consensus and without wasting energy. Looking forward to PoS, which could bring us closer to that reality. Even with BTC (or a crypto with PoS) the problems with the governments won't disappear, I'm sure they'll find a way to keep ruining our lives and extracting money from us, even with cryptocurrencies.