17 ms·

Well, congratulations to those NFT scammers, it finally paid off. They got their Whale. The entire game of pumping up NFTs to try and pass them off as a useful

Well, congratulations to those NFT scammers, it finally paid off. They got their Whale. The entire game of pumping up NFTs to try and pass them off as a useful tool that'll see widespread adoption has finally paid out. This is a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, but this creates a fantastic permission structure for unsophisticated investors to throw away their life savings on a set of worthless e-certificates. Time for me to start minting NFTs to represent ownership of plots of land on Alpha-Centauri.

garbagetime 5y ago
Would you mind explaining your comment a bit more? NFT "scammers" have made a lot of money recently, and this purchase doesn't at first glance seem such a great moment.
- Traster 5y ago
  NFTs are worhtless. They don't solve a problem, in fact they create a problem. They're like any other form of verified ownership except that you can't do all the things you want to do, like allowing established 3rd parties to protect the integrity of the market. So how do you make money from NFTs? You trick other people into thinking there's value in NFTs. That is literally the only use- trick someone into paying you for something that's worthless. Now they have a new string to their bow - if Visa say NFTs are legitimate, then they must be valuable right! Better hand my savings over to that scammer for that amazing mediocre peice of digital art. Never mind the fact that $150k is nothing to Visa.
seibelj 5y ago
Bitcoin crossed 50k (again), US senators are debating cryptocurrency regulation as part of historical legislation, and major global companies like Visa are making moves in the space. Is it possible the HN decade-long dismissal of crypto and blockchain has been totally wrong? Or is HN just a tiny minority of people who are simply smarter and wiser than the US government, Fortune 100 corporations, and hundreds of millions of people who own crypto?
- disruptthelaw 5y ago
  I’m genuinely agnostic on your question, either of those possibilities strike me as roughly equally plausible.
  - disruptthelaw 5y ago
    Also, many of those debating and getting their toes wet in crypto are not necessarily predicting it will work, they’re just hedging their bets in case it does. For example I’ve got about 3% of my Investible wealth in crypto. If it tanks to zero I wouldn’t consider myself “wrong”. Crypto skepticism is still a fairly mainstream position, it’s not unique to HN.
    - licebmi__at__ 5y ago
      I’m convinced that crypto will crash and burn, yet I put some money on it because I’m also skeptical of market efficiency and do believe there’s a lot of money to be made in “bad” ideas. I don’t know how mainstream my position is, but I do know a few people who share it.
- knodi 5y ago
  Or the Fortune 100 corporations want to profit of the millions of people who own crypto and want to own crypto.
- hkt 5y ago
  Does this question presuppose that the US govt, fortune 100 etc, are institutions that can reach a level of intelligence and insight that roaming individuals can't? That's some faith in collective action, if so.
rattlesnakedave 5y ago
Not only is this a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, this is a small sum of money for an NFT collector to throw away. To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination.
- manigandham 5y ago
  We already have (digital) ownership that can be publically verified.
  - thebean11 5y ago
    And traded permissionlessly? I don't think so..
    - manigandham 5y ago
      What's that actually mean in this context?
      - thebean11 5y ago
        It means there's not a 3rd party that can prevent the transaction, reverse the transaction, or initiate a new transaction without the current owner's permission. For example, Steam games can be traded user to user on the platform, but it's all at the whims of Valve. At any moment Valve could shut down, freeze your account, disable trading etc.
  - mikro2nd 5y ago
    Absent a trusted third-party? Please show us.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Just like the cloud still runs on physical computers, NFT’s require a trusted 3rd party. For example crypto art can be uploaded that’s a direct copy of someone else’s artwork. Copyright doesn’t care about the NFT at that point you don’t own the image.
jacobedawson 5y ago
This comment applies if you think that art itself is a scam, or that art needs to have "use" outside of perceived financial, social & aesthetic value. HN does tend to be especially bitter towards Crypto, something that I think will fade with time as it blends into culture without seeming like some "charlatan intruder from elsewhere". I tend to think the rise of NFT markets represents an inflection point that will only be obvious when we connect the dots looking backwards. Plenty of people reviled Duchamp. P.s. Please let me know where I can purchase an Alpha-Centauri real-estate NFT
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pxue 5y ago
how is a NFT any more arbitrary than a hallmark card? both are "artistic" to a certain degree, completely useless after the purchase and initial exchange.
- mathgorges 5y ago
  I would contend that a Hallmark card has usefulness after being exchanged. I can’t hang an NFT in my house. And doing so with Hallmark cards has tangible benefits to my well being. (the joy of seeing a thoughtful card with personal meaning, conversation starter if company is over, etc) Perhaps something will be invented to reproduce that experience for NFTs, but I haven’t seen it yet. edit: Format and speeling
  - carnitine 5y ago
    I think someone ordering a print of an expensive NFT they can prove they own is quite realistic.
    - lgvld 5y ago
      yeah that’s already a business actually: https://solidnft.com/ https://solidnft.com/ I met the founder a few weeks ago. He told me that some of his clients spend a few thousands for a 3x3 meters mural representing a NFT.
  - dannyw 5y ago
    It's the digital world now. I've been purchasing and equipping hats in TF2 for a decade. I bought a $300 digital item in 2012; plenty of people called me crazy but hey I see value in exclusivity.
  - krrishd 5y ago
    I wouldn't personally buy an NFT for those purposes, but tons of NFT owners buy them to be able to use them as profile pictures. Yes, you can put any arbitrary JPEG as your pfp including an NFT owned by someone else, but it'd feel the same as wearing replicas of branded clothing (and people mostly just don't). That might not seem as meaningful as hanging them in your house, but I've watched it become that meaningful for a ton of people (as "irrational" as I think both NFTs and Hallmark cards are).
space_rock 5y ago
The scammers are skilled at washtrading the prices high and getting attention on social media. Lots of standard salesman/con artist tricks to get people to fomo buy in
- DSingularity 5y ago
  But that’s basically all of crypto. The trick is to get out early /s.
  - asah 5y ago
    "all of crypto" has a soft landing as gold bugs and others diversify trillions into crypto. NFTs have a soft landing if/as crypto whales diversify into NFTs. Traditionally, collectibles are a much smaller market than commodities and currencies because their uniqueness reduces their liquidity. The "huge" art market ($50B) is dwarfed by precious metals ($10+T).
    - analognoise 5y ago
      When the US and China both get around to banning crypto (China already started), it's going to be a hard landing.
dageshi 5y ago
It's interesting to me, I've never bought a single crypto thing of any type but I look at the speed it's developing and popularity and it reminds me of the internet circa early 2000's when things were moving fast. The internet nowadays is a bit stale by comparison, crypto seems to be where the action and energy is.
- prestigious 5y ago
  Absolutely it is. I turned $2000 into $200,000 in NFTs this summer and its just the beginning. It definitely has a Web 2.0 feel
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    I think it says a lot that the only thing you could mention about the technology was that you made money selling it. In what way did you make the world a better place? Oh shit, sorry, I forgot: tech is about money, fuck the world.
- mgh2 5y ago
  The internet was really useful back in the days though, even for skeptics. Crypto is still an idea searching for a problem (not discounting the possibility that it won't find one though). At this point, it seems like pure promotion, marketing & propaganda fueled by social media, a negative externality of the internet itself. Simple equation: trash in, trash out. But sure, "a man's trash can be another's treasure". Note: Visa's strategy is a no brainer as a business move. 150k is nothing on their marketing budget to gain exposure & PR targeting generation Z and millennials (future customers). Even if it fails, this acquisition has value as a stance because their customers (young adopters and old investors) want to be "supported", at least ideologically. Ex: "Progressive", "We were on your side, remember?" I suggest reading their marketing whitepaper: https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/regional/na/us/Solutions/documents/visa-nft-whitepaper.pdf https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/regional/na/us/Solutio...
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    That was the internet in the beginning as well. For the average person in 1996/98/20 computers and the internet did not offer anything. Today cryto provides the only way to perform a money transaction outside of the censored markets. An example, onlyfans, poor hub decided to ditch a type of content to please visa/mastercard. Cryto would allow society to ignore forced morals on money transactions. If what onlyfans provide is legal visa should not be allowed to shut them down on moral terms. It may not be useful to you. The internet wasn't useful to most in 1995. It might be more useful in a few years where the masses have joined and the network effect is in place. I remember when computers were seen as not useful in the 80s.. a toy that could do very little. Things change quickly.
Bayart 5y ago
Might as well mint that comment and call it Old Man Yelling At Clouds #840544564.

garbagetime 5y ago

Would you mind explaining your comment a bit more? NFT "scammers" have made a lot of money recently, and this purchase doesn't at first glance seem such a great moment.

Traster 5y ago
NFTs are worhtless. They don't solve a problem, in fact they create a problem. They're like any other form of verified ownership except that you can't do all the things you want to do, like allowing established 3rd parties to protect the integrity of the market. So how do you make money from NFTs? You trick other people into thinking there's value in NFTs. That is literally the only use- trick someone into paying you for something that's worthless. Now they have a new string to their bow - if Visa say NFTs are legitimate, then they must be valuable right! Better hand my savings over to that scammer for that amazing mediocre peice of digital art. Never mind the fact that $150k is nothing to Visa.

seibelj 5y ago

Bitcoin crossed 50k (again), US senators are debating cryptocurrency regulation as part of historical legislation, and major global companies like Visa are making moves in the space. Is it possible the HN decade-long dismissal of crypto and blockchain has been totally wrong? Or is HN just a tiny minority of people who are simply smarter and wiser than the US government, Fortune 100 corporations, and hundreds of millions of people who own crypto?

disruptthelaw 5y ago
I’m genuinely agnostic on your question, either of those possibilities strike me as roughly equally plausible.
- disruptthelaw 5y ago
  Also, many of those debating and getting their toes wet in crypto are not necessarily predicting it will work, they’re just hedging their bets in case it does. For example I’ve got about 3% of my Investible wealth in crypto. If it tanks to zero I wouldn’t consider myself “wrong”. Crypto skepticism is still a fairly mainstream position, it’s not unique to HN.
  - licebmi__at__ 5y ago
    I’m convinced that crypto will crash and burn, yet I put some money on it because I’m also skeptical of market efficiency and do believe there’s a lot of money to be made in “bad” ideas. I don’t know how mainstream my position is, but I do know a few people who share it.
knodi 5y ago
Or the Fortune 100 corporations want to profit of the millions of people who own crypto and want to own crypto.
hkt 5y ago
Does this question presuppose that the US govt, fortune 100 etc, are institutions that can reach a level of intelligence and insight that roaming individuals can't? That's some faith in collective action, if so.

rattlesnakedave 5y ago

Not only is this a small sum of money for Visa to throw away, this is a small sum of money for an NFT collector to throw away. To me most criticism of NFTs is reminiscent of criticisms of modern art. Very few understand the scope of what "non fungible token" means. There are PLENTY of use-cases for a publicly verifiable token issued by a 3rd party and owned by you, other than art, if you just use a little imagination.

manigandham 5y ago
We already have (digital) ownership that can be publically verified.
- thebean11 5y ago
  And traded permissionlessly? I don't think so..
  - manigandham 5y ago
    What's that actually mean in this context?
    - thebean11 5y ago
      It means there's not a 3rd party that can prevent the transaction, reverse the transaction, or initiate a new transaction without the current owner's permission. For example, Steam games can be traded user to user on the platform, but it's all at the whims of Valve. At any moment Valve could shut down, freeze your account, disable trading etc.
- mikro2nd 5y ago
  Absent a trusted third-party? Please show us.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Just like the cloud still runs on physical computers, NFT’s require a trusted 3rd party. For example crypto art can be uploaded that’s a direct copy of someone else’s artwork. Copyright doesn’t care about the NFT at that point you don’t own the image.

jacobedawson 5y ago

This comment applies if you think that art itself is a scam, or that art needs to have "use" outside of perceived financial, social & aesthetic value. HN does tend to be especially bitter towards Crypto, something that I think will fade with time as it blends into culture without seeming like some "charlatan intruder from elsewhere". I tend to think the rise of NFT markets represents an inflection point that will only be obvious when we connect the dots looking backwards. Plenty of people reviled Duchamp. P.s. Please let me know where I can purchase an Alpha-Centauri real-estate NFT

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pxue 5y ago

how is a NFT any more arbitrary than a hallmark card? both are "artistic" to a certain degree, completely useless after the purchase and initial exchange.

mathgorges 5y ago
I would contend that a Hallmark card has usefulness after being exchanged. I can’t hang an NFT in my house. And doing so with Hallmark cards has tangible benefits to my well being. (the joy of seeing a thoughtful card with personal meaning, conversation starter if company is over, etc) Perhaps something will be invented to reproduce that experience for NFTs, but I haven’t seen it yet. edit: Format and speeling
- carnitine 5y ago
  I think someone ordering a print of an expensive NFT they can prove they own is quite realistic.
  - lgvld 5y ago
    yeah that’s already a business actually: https://solidnft.com/ https://solidnft.com/ I met the founder a few weeks ago. He told me that some of his clients spend a few thousands for a 3x3 meters mural representing a NFT.
- dannyw 5y ago
  It's the digital world now. I've been purchasing and equipping hats in TF2 for a decade. I bought a $300 digital item in 2012; plenty of people called me crazy but hey I see value in exclusivity.
- krrishd 5y ago
  I wouldn't personally buy an NFT for those purposes, but tons of NFT owners buy them to be able to use them as profile pictures. Yes, you can put any arbitrary JPEG as your pfp including an NFT owned by someone else, but it'd feel the same as wearing replicas of branded clothing (and people mostly just don't). That might not seem as meaningful as hanging them in your house, but I've watched it become that meaningful for a ton of people (as "irrational" as I think both NFTs and Hallmark cards are).

space_rock 5y ago

The scammers are skilled at washtrading the prices high and getting attention on social media. Lots of standard salesman/con artist tricks to get people to fomo buy in

DSingularity 5y ago
But that’s basically all of crypto. The trick is to get out early /s.
- asah 5y ago
  "all of crypto" has a soft landing as gold bugs and others diversify trillions into crypto. NFTs have a soft landing if/as crypto whales diversify into NFTs. Traditionally, collectibles are a much smaller market than commodities and currencies because their uniqueness reduces their liquidity. The "huge" art market ($50B) is dwarfed by precious metals ($10+T).
  - analognoise 5y ago
    When the US and China both get around to banning crypto (China already started), it's going to be a hard landing.

dageshi 5y ago

It's interesting to me, I've never bought a single crypto thing of any type but I look at the speed it's developing and popularity and it reminds me of the internet circa early 2000's when things were moving fast. The internet nowadays is a bit stale by comparison, crypto seems to be where the action and energy is.

prestigious 5y ago
Absolutely it is. I turned $2000 into $200,000 in NFTs this summer and its just the beginning. It definitely has a Web 2.0 feel
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I think it says a lot that the only thing you could mention about the technology was that you made money selling it. In what way did you make the world a better place? Oh shit, sorry, I forgot: tech is about money, fuck the world.
mgh2 5y ago
The internet was really useful back in the days though, even for skeptics. Crypto is still an idea searching for a problem (not discounting the possibility that it won't find one though). At this point, it seems like pure promotion, marketing & propaganda fueled by social media, a negative externality of the internet itself. Simple equation: trash in, trash out. But sure, "a man's trash can be another's treasure". Note: Visa's strategy is a no brainer as a business move. 150k is nothing on their marketing budget to gain exposure & PR targeting generation Z and millennials (future customers). Even if it fails, this acquisition has value as a stance because their customers (young adopters and old investors) want to be "supported", at least ideologically. Ex: "Progressive", "We were on your side, remember?" I suggest reading their marketing whitepaper: https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/regional/na/us/Solutions/documents/visa-nft-whitepaper.pdf https://usa.visa.com/content/dam/VCOM/regional/na/us/Solutio...
- ipaddr 5y ago
  That was the internet in the beginning as well. For the average person in 1996/98/20 computers and the internet did not offer anything. Today cryto provides the only way to perform a money transaction outside of the censored markets. An example, onlyfans, poor hub decided to ditch a type of content to please visa/mastercard. Cryto would allow society to ignore forced morals on money transactions. If what onlyfans provide is legal visa should not be allowed to shut them down on moral terms. It may not be useful to you. The internet wasn't useful to most in 1995. It might be more useful in a few years where the masses have joined and the network effect is in place. I remember when computers were seen as not useful in the 80s.. a toy that could do very little. Things change quickly.

Bayart 5y ago

Might as well mint that comment and call it Old Man Yelling At Clouds #840544564.