5 ms·

What does Nike see here? They aren't a bunch of dummies, as they pretty much invented modern marketing with a few other huge brands, so clearly someone up top s

What does Nike see here? They aren't a bunch of dummies, as they pretty much invented modern marketing with a few other huge brands, so clearly someone up top sees something going on here with NFTs??

thebean11 5y ago
Top shots made a lot of money and basketball is a very big deal for Nike.
hellomyguys 5y ago
Nike will sell their clothing and shoes for games, metaverse experience, etc as NFTs. Doesn't seem that crazy.
surge 5y ago
Someone must have heard Kevin Rose postulating a possible use for NFT's on Tim Ferris's podcast. Basically one could reserve a spot Limited Edition sneakers as an NFT, then if they resold the NFT (hence the sneakers on the open market), the smart contract could give Nike a cut or fee as part of the token exchange, so they'd get a cut of third party markets and capture part of the real market value.
- spyspy 5y ago
  That's brilliant actually. Basically a futures contract with Nike earning the principle and then commission on every secondary sale without ever even delivering a real product.
  - bpicolo 5y ago
    Though it does assume that people care about transfer of the token instead of the physical good.
    - surge 5y ago
      I should be clear, the token is the reservation to get the sneaker. Not the sneakers itself.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- majou 5y ago
  This is the first time I'm hearing of a transfer-royalty. It looks like foundation.app's contracts give 10% to the original artist each time which is neat. Shame about the energy use.
  - SavantIdiot 5y ago
    Interestingly, this has been a problem in the art world for over half a century, especially as famous pieces change hands among the uber wealthy, and no-name artists' work is catapulted to mega-millions. Very often the artist is not compensated after the work is sold again in between individuals. This would be a great way to make sure the artist doesn't die poor while their work trades hands multiple times for 100's of millions.
  - nonameiguess 5y ago
    This sounds like bullshit. It's basically saying nobody ever gets to own anything. They only own a limited right to use that they can transfer, but in doing so they need to pay the original owner. We already have a means of artists and companies and what not profiting from secondary market activity. The next time they issue stock or sell a new painting, the price is higher than the last time. They don't need a cut every time everything they ever make resells. This just reduces the ability of anyone else down the line to profit and entrenches the power and wealth of original owners.
    - surge 5y ago
      In the case of the shoes, you'd be free to resale the shoes, its the reservation getting resold, kind of like ticket scalping. But your point still stands, it could be abused to where you own nothing.
jimbob45 5y ago
Even the most bearish of crypto-haters will likely admit that you can at least cover the costs of such an acquisition before the NFT fad passes. It would be irresponsible of them not to take the free flyer when it's offered to them.
anm89 5y ago
It makes sense with sneaker stuff. Sneakers are the physical good that most resembles nfts imo. You blow thousands of dollars esentially totally for the "clout". The physical use is secondary. NFTs are conceptually nonsense in most cases but if you just want to cash out by selling extra little add ons and you already have a willing market it kind of makes sense.
phillipcarter 5y ago
I don't think anyone knows. But I would say that a big, established company is completely orthogonal to making sound decisions about things. I've been baffled at how hype-driven c-suite types can be, and NFTs/etc. are a pretty great opiate for the c-suite these days. My guess is: they have a lot of money lying around, like most companies these days. Gotta spend it on something (other than employees, of course).
majou 5y ago
Nike getting into NFTs makes sense, people already see the shoes as financial investments. I just hope they bake in carbon offsets, it's my only real gripe with blockchains and NFTs; the ponzis and snakeoil will sort themselves out.
mym1990 5y ago
I think it is more or less a hedge. If NFTs fizzle out, Nike doesn't lose much. If NFTs do become a staple of society/the virtual world, they become one of the early adopters and gain massive advantages in advertising and understanding of the space.
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
> What does Nike see here? They aren't a bunch of dummies [...] clearly someone up top sees something going on here with NFTs? Assuming they don't: Buzzwords basically pay for themselves by driving up share prices and on top they generate free advertisement (as in this case). Couldn't an argument be made that these aspects are more than enough reason for Nike to pull something like this, even if they don't believe at any moment that there is any worth in something like NFTs. Things and technologies can generate money (or be useful for somebody) even if they are bull**.
- alwayseasy 5y ago
  Your argument implies Nike would be parting ways with it's M&A strategy of buying businesses that have real tie-ins with their core. The stock is down since the announcement and underperforms the DJI.
conradev 5y ago
I am confused at how people don’t see it Sneakers are physical NFTs – StockX, the largest market for trading sneakers, did $1.8b in GMV last year. OpenSea, the largest market for trading NFTs, did $3.4b. Sneakers and NFTs are both worth way more than their input materials to the point that outsiders don’t get it It starts as a hobby, and if people are good enough at it, it can turn into a job etc
- anm89 5y ago
  I don't agree that your premises add up to your conclusion. The fact that both are worth more than their inputs and have big markets doesnt necesarily mean that they pair together. Basically all manufactured goods meet this description. I agree there probably is a way to join them but you have to define what that is before arguing there is a value proposition.
bostonsre 5y ago
I wonder if they could embed an NFT that is exposed via bluetooth or similar inside of shoes. A user could have a virtual shoe closet and authenticating that a given user actually has the given shoe that they are selling on some new marketplace would be easy. Tying NFTs to real world goods that actually are scarce seems to make a lot more sense than trading limited edition virtual pictures.
- SundialAI 5y ago
  I love this thinking. We are powering similar through the camera using VisionAI. It’s hard to verify unique ownership with mass produced products, and it doesn’t mean they couldn’t ship knock offs, but it adds a layer of connection from buyer => authentication. Biased obviously, but I think this physical/digital connection is an advance that will improve NFT utility.

What does Nike see here? They aren't a bunch of dummies, as they pretty much invented modern marketing with a few other huge brands, so clearly someone up top sees something going on here with NFTs??

thebean11 5y ago

Top shots made a lot of money and basketball is a very big deal for Nike.

hellomyguys 5y ago

Nike will sell their clothing and shoes for games, metaverse experience, etc as NFTs. Doesn't seem that crazy.

surge 5y ago

Someone must have heard Kevin Rose postulating a possible use for NFT's on Tim Ferris's podcast. Basically one could reserve a spot Limited Edition sneakers as an NFT, then if they resold the NFT (hence the sneakers on the open market), the smart contract could give Nike a cut or fee as part of the token exchange, so they'd get a cut of third party markets and capture part of the real market value.

spyspy 5y ago
That's brilliant actually. Basically a futures contract with Nike earning the principle and then commission on every secondary sale without ever even delivering a real product.
- bpicolo 5y ago
  Though it does assume that people care about transfer of the token instead of the physical good.
  - surge 5y ago
    I should be clear, the token is the reservation to get the sneaker. Not the sneakers itself.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
majou 5y ago
This is the first time I'm hearing of a transfer-royalty. It looks like foundation.app's contracts give 10% to the original artist each time which is neat. Shame about the energy use.
- SavantIdiot 5y ago
  Interestingly, this has been a problem in the art world for over half a century, especially as famous pieces change hands among the uber wealthy, and no-name artists' work is catapulted to mega-millions. Very often the artist is not compensated after the work is sold again in between individuals. This would be a great way to make sure the artist doesn't die poor while their work trades hands multiple times for 100's of millions.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This sounds like bullshit. It's basically saying nobody ever gets to own anything. They only own a limited right to use that they can transfer, but in doing so they need to pay the original owner. We already have a means of artists and companies and what not profiting from secondary market activity. The next time they issue stock or sell a new painting, the price is higher than the last time. They don't need a cut every time everything they ever make resells. This just reduces the ability of anyone else down the line to profit and entrenches the power and wealth of original owners.
  - surge 5y ago
    In the case of the shoes, you'd be free to resale the shoes, its the reservation getting resold, kind of like ticket scalping. But your point still stands, it could be abused to where you own nothing.

jimbob45 5y ago

Even the most bearish of crypto-haters will likely admit that you can at least cover the costs of such an acquisition before the NFT fad passes. It would be irresponsible of them not to take the free flyer when it's offered to them.

anm89 5y ago

It makes sense with sneaker stuff. Sneakers are the physical good that most resembles nfts imo. You blow thousands of dollars esentially totally for the "clout". The physical use is secondary. NFTs are conceptually nonsense in most cases but if you just want to cash out by selling extra little add ons and you already have a willing market it kind of makes sense.

phillipcarter 5y ago

I don't think anyone knows. But I would say that a big, established company is completely orthogonal to making sound decisions about things. I've been baffled at how hype-driven c-suite types can be, and NFTs/etc. are a pretty great opiate for the c-suite these days. My guess is: they have a lot of money lying around, like most companies these days. Gotta spend it on something (other than employees, of course).

majou 5y ago

Nike getting into NFTs makes sense, people already see the shoes as financial investments. I just hope they bake in carbon offsets, it's my only real gripe with blockchains and NFTs; the ponzis and snakeoil will sort themselves out.

mym1990 5y ago

I think it is more or less a hedge. If NFTs fizzle out, Nike doesn't lose much. If NFTs do become a staple of society/the virtual world, they become one of the early adopters and gain massive advantages in advertising and understanding of the space.

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago

> What does Nike see here? They aren't a bunch of dummies [...] clearly someone up top sees something going on here with NFTs? Assuming they don't: Buzzwords basically pay for themselves by driving up share prices and on top they generate free advertisement (as in this case). Couldn't an argument be made that these aspects are more than enough reason for Nike to pull something like this, even if they don't believe at any moment that there is any worth in something like NFTs. Things and technologies can generate money (or be useful for somebody) even if they are bull**.

alwayseasy 5y ago
Your argument implies Nike would be parting ways with it's M&A strategy of buying businesses that have real tie-ins with their core. The stock is down since the announcement and underperforms the DJI.

conradev 5y ago

I am confused at how people don’t see it Sneakers are physical NFTs – StockX, the largest market for trading sneakers, did $1.8b in GMV last year. OpenSea, the largest market for trading NFTs, did $3.4b. Sneakers and NFTs are both worth way more than their input materials to the point that outsiders don’t get it It starts as a hobby, and if people are good enough at it, it can turn into a job etc

anm89 5y ago
I don't agree that your premises add up to your conclusion. The fact that both are worth more than their inputs and have big markets doesnt necesarily mean that they pair together. Basically all manufactured goods meet this description. I agree there probably is a way to join them but you have to define what that is before arguing there is a value proposition.

bostonsre 5y ago

I wonder if they could embed an NFT that is exposed via bluetooth or similar inside of shoes. A user could have a virtual shoe closet and authenticating that a given user actually has the given shoe that they are selling on some new marketplace would be easy. Tying NFTs to real world goods that actually are scarce seems to make a lot more sense than trading limited edition virtual pictures.

SundialAI 5y ago
I love this thinking. We are powering similar through the camera using VisionAI. It’s hard to verify unique ownership with mass produced products, and it doesn’t mean they couldn’t ship knock offs, but it adds a layer of connection from buyer => authentication. Biased obviously, but I think this physical/digital connection is an advance that will improve NFT utility.