3 ms·
What is interesting about this is that the whole thing continued to rumble along after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had
by SilverBirch 4y ago
What is interesting about this is that the whole thing continued to rumble along after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had bought the rights to the IP. At that point it's hard to see why anyone would continue pushing on, so it's difficult to see anyone involved at that point onwards as anything other than a grifter.
- profmonocle 4y ago> At that point it's hard to see why anyone would continue pushing on Sunk cost fallacy?
- blitzar 4y ago> after it was pointed out to them they had bought a manuscript thinking they had bought the rights to the IP Surely nobody actually believed that by buying a book you owned the IP to the work contained within. > at that point onwards as anything other than a grifter It was a grift from day 0. The next chapter in this story will be the selling of the book purchased for $3mil for maybe $100k.
- SilverBirch 4y agoYeah the more I think about it the more ridiculous it is. Even if these guys had 3 million to buy the thing, who bid against them to drive it up in the first place? It has to be self-dealing right. It does a lot to draw attention to how corrupt Christies must be.
- blitzar 4y agoI dont see how some crypto idiot bidding up something with a list price of 50-100k to 3mil is a sign of Christies being corrupt. If you state publicly you are going to pay whatever it takes then there will be plenty serious people in the room who will make sure you blow all your money on that one thing and make a fool of yourself.