5 ms·
It's fairly unreasonable since NFT values are really not tied to anything, and in tokens that may or may not be valued at what they are supposedly valued due to
by capitainenemo 3y ago
It's fairly unreasonable since NFT values are really not tied to anything, and in tokens that may or may not be valued at what they are supposedly valued due to manipulation of the small markets (similar to penny stock pump and dump).
So those values can be more about money laundering or poor signaling than any indication of real worth.
- Joeboy 3y agoWhat would be a good comparison? Meta spending $36+bn on the Metaverse[0]? What are examples of websites that provide clearly better value for money than Wikipedia? [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-lost-30-billion-on-metaverse-rivals-spent-far-less-2022-10?op=1&r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-lost-30-billion-on-meta...
- capitainenemo 3y agoThat would be a better one yes. It was just a bad comparison of fake valuation to real. But I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Wikipedia is offering good value for money, just that some people might be justifying that to excessively compensate themselves for an operation that requires very little to run and depends almost entirely on unpaid volunteers. "well, our service is a boon to mankind, therefore it warrants skimming a bit off the top" And that could be a problem in the long run.