8 ms·

The video is definitely not any kind of journalistic take-down. Here's a quote to frame the creator's view of anyone working on crypto. I love this paragraph b

The video is definitely not any kind of journalistic take-down. Here's a quote to frame the creator's view of anyone working on crypto. I love this paragraph because it outlines just how disconnected from reality people actually building cryptocurrencies really are. They don't understand _anything_ about the ecosystems they're trying to disrupt. They only know that these are things that can be conceptualized as valuable and assume that because they understand one very complicated thing -- programming with cryptography -- that all other complicated things must be lesser in complexity and naturally lower in the hierarchy of reality. Nails easily driven by the hammer that they have created. There is a lot of garbage in crypto to be sure. But what a dead-end POV.

miracle2k 5y ago
The arrogance of Dan in this video is only exceeded by the number of provably incorrect claims. It's up to par with the crypto-critical community, which has painted itself into a corner where only the most outrageous claims about the evils of the feared dystopian future suffice. A deep dive into the scammy world of those NFT Discord groups is a fantastic idea, it's a shame what became of the video.
- eropple 5y ago
  Shame that what became of it? That he underlined that most of the NFT craze is illusory wash trading intended to feed on the anxieties of what is hard to describe as anything other than "the precariat"? What do you object to? What "provably incorrect claims" did he roll out? Back this up, yeah?
muglug 5y ago
Do you have anything in the way of a rebuttal to the hundreds of factual claims in the video?
- dmitriid 5y ago
  In true crypto fashion the answer to this is probably "just go to crypto Twitter and hundreds of Discord channels, and see for yourself"
- andrewxhill 5y ago
  You know that feeling when you see comment threads online and you are just like... _it's not worth it_. I think many of the good/honest/intellectually curious people inside crypto are ghosting through HN these days with that feeling. So it's mostly become void of any interesting discussions on the topic. If you are genuinely interested, let's narrow it down. Which of his claims are the strongest/most distressing to you? Maybe some of those folks will stop ghosting and get into real conversation.
  - muglug 5y ago
    I think the strongest claim (one I've also arrived at independently) is that NFTs (aka digital collectibles on the blockchain) are mainly popular because they provide a thing for people who already own cryptocurrencies to spend their digital cash on, without feeling like they're "cashing out" (which has negative connotations in crypto). Instead NFTs are seen as an investment vehicle — they will appreciate in price over time, just look at BAYC. One of the other claims is that cryptocurrency largely favours existing pools of wealth and capital. Anecdotally this matches my experience — the people I know who have done really well from crypto investments are those who were already incredibly well-off in the early 2010s, and were looking for interesting places to invest. The last claim (that I've also heard first-hand) is it's really easy to raise VC money if your startup centres around "decentralisation", which means a ton of entrepreneurs have a strong vested interest in believing that all this stuff is the future. The big irony there is a lot of the companies in this space (e.g. Coinbase) are de facto advertising themselves as the centralised hub for decentralised systems, creating big points of failure that contradict the entire ethos of the blockchain.
    - andrewxhill 5y ago
      Okay, I'll write back with three comments in case people want to sink their teeth into these responses distinctly :D Your first argument: NFTs are primarily successful because crypto-holding individuals see them as a place to invest without cashing out. On trend with all my answers, I think this is true to an extent too. But what it misses is a vibrant ecosystem of experimentation that is happening with NFTs below the easily visible surface. The ecosystem is driven by creative people and consumed by people that truly believe these are worthwhile experiments to undertake. Just a few diverse examples: - Loot provided NFTs that is simply your inventory in a yet-to-be-made game. The creator essentially said, here, this is an open, ownable, and composable building block. Now, the owners are stakeholders in the development and success of those games. Of course the people that bought these were already holding ETH, but many of those people think something cool is happening here. Otherwise, nothing will get built. https://hackmd.io/@XR/lootwars https://hackmd.io/@XR/lootwars - Sam Harris's plans to use the membership/association behind the rise of Pfps to create a community that gives away its wealth and then virtue signals that in ways to encourage others to do the same https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_YeUyztgJhWgLZ9YJh6eVKZlL9Ky_c_cBNHlsTZG2E/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_YeUyztgJhWgLZ9YJh6eVKZ... - CryptoVoxels sell parcels of land as NFTs. Taken together, they generate a metaverse of spaces that the owners fill out with their imagination. https://www.cryptovoxels.com/ https://www.cryptovoxels.com/ These people are passionate about something new and different, they are building. I personally even find the memberships and DAOs driving many of the popular Pfps (e.g. Doodles, Creature World, Coolman's Universe) to be a bit contrary to your main argument. Many of them have highly active communities that you only get to be part of by owning the NFT. So for many, it's not really a place to park or spend their ETH. The economy of those closed communities is pretty fascinating. Recall, the NFT creators (core team) get a cut every time an NFT is sold. But it's not like the 5% is going to some artist's pocket, they are building teams of devs etc to world build. It's worth taking to pen and paper and figuring out the economic game being played between the core teams that build the community and the collectors/traders that want to be part of it. They are revenue generating creative organizations... let's see where they go.

miracle2k 5y ago

The arrogance of Dan in this video is only exceeded by the number of provably incorrect claims. It's up to par with the crypto-critical community, which has painted itself into a corner where only the most outrageous claims about the evils of the feared dystopian future suffice. A deep dive into the scammy world of those NFT Discord groups is a fantastic idea, it's a shame what became of the video.

eropple 5y ago
Shame that what became of it? That he underlined that most of the NFT craze is illusory wash trading intended to feed on the anxieties of what is hard to describe as anything other than "the precariat"? What do you object to? What "provably incorrect claims" did he roll out? Back this up, yeah?

muglug 5y ago

Do you have anything in the way of a rebuttal to the hundreds of factual claims in the video?

dmitriid 5y ago
In true crypto fashion the answer to this is probably "just go to crypto Twitter and hundreds of Discord channels, and see for yourself"
andrewxhill 5y ago
You know that feeling when you see comment threads online and you are just like... _it's not worth it_. I think many of the good/honest/intellectually curious people inside crypto are ghosting through HN these days with that feeling. So it's mostly become void of any interesting discussions on the topic. If you are genuinely interested, let's narrow it down. Which of his claims are the strongest/most distressing to you? Maybe some of those folks will stop ghosting and get into real conversation.
- muglug 5y ago
  I think the strongest claim (one I've also arrived at independently) is that NFTs (aka digital collectibles on the blockchain) are mainly popular because they provide a thing for people who already own cryptocurrencies to spend their digital cash on, without feeling like they're "cashing out" (which has negative connotations in crypto). Instead NFTs are seen as an investment vehicle — they will appreciate in price over time, just look at BAYC. One of the other claims is that cryptocurrency largely favours existing pools of wealth and capital. Anecdotally this matches my experience — the people I know who have done really well from crypto investments are those who were already incredibly well-off in the early 2010s, and were looking for interesting places to invest. The last claim (that I've also heard first-hand) is it's really easy to raise VC money if your startup centres around "decentralisation", which means a ton of entrepreneurs have a strong vested interest in believing that all this stuff is the future. The big irony there is a lot of the companies in this space (e.g. Coinbase) are de facto advertising themselves as the centralised hub for decentralised systems, creating big points of failure that contradict the entire ethos of the blockchain.
  - andrewxhill 5y ago
    Okay, I'll write back with three comments in case people want to sink their teeth into these responses distinctly :D Your first argument: NFTs are primarily successful because crypto-holding individuals see them as a place to invest without cashing out. On trend with all my answers, I think this is true to an extent too. But what it misses is a vibrant ecosystem of experimentation that is happening with NFTs below the easily visible surface. The ecosystem is driven by creative people and consumed by people that truly believe these are worthwhile experiments to undertake. Just a few diverse examples: - Loot provided NFTs that is simply your inventory in a yet-to-be-made game. The creator essentially said, here, this is an open, ownable, and composable building block. Now, the owners are stakeholders in the development and success of those games. Of course the people that bought these were already holding ETH, but many of those people think something cool is happening here. Otherwise, nothing will get built. https://hackmd.io/@XR/lootwars https://hackmd.io/@XR/lootwars - Sam Harris's plans to use the membership/association behind the rise of Pfps to create a community that gives away its wealth and then virtue signals that in ways to encourage others to do the same https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_YeUyztgJhWgLZ9YJh6eVKZlL9Ky_c_cBNHlsTZG2E/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u_YeUyztgJhWgLZ9YJh6eVKZ... - CryptoVoxels sell parcels of land as NFTs. Taken together, they generate a metaverse of spaces that the owners fill out with their imagination. https://www.cryptovoxels.com/ https://www.cryptovoxels.com/ These people are passionate about something new and different, they are building. I personally even find the memberships and DAOs driving many of the popular Pfps (e.g. Doodles, Creature World, Coolman's Universe) to be a bit contrary to your main argument. Many of them have highly active communities that you only get to be part of by owning the NFT. So for many, it's not really a place to park or spend their ETH. The economy of those closed communities is pretty fascinating. Recall, the NFT creators (core team) get a cut every time an NFT is sold. But it's not like the 5% is going to some artist's pocket, they are building teams of devs etc to world build. It's worth taking to pen and paper and figuring out the economic game being played between the core teams that build the community and the collectors/traders that want to be part of it. They are revenue generating creative organizations... let's see where they go.