3 ms·

Buyers of Bored Ape NFTs sue after digital apes turn out to be bad investment

6 points by myth_drannon 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago
Their loss should just be thought as the cost they paid for a lesson in economics - and their lawsuit be dismissed!
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Notably, there was deception involved. The auction house claimed that the apes were bought by a collector, they were really bought by FTX!
  - ksaj 3y ago
    I'm curious where you got the idea there was deceit on the auction house's part. Especially of the 'notable' sort. https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/ape-in/101-bored-ape-yacht-club https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/ape-in/101-bore... They were sold through Sotheby's by Yuga - the very people who made BAYC. Whether they were bought by a collector or FTX is irrelevant. That's a moot point that changes nothing about the auction or the transaction. How the buyers presents themselves at an auction is whatever it is, and not a concern of Sotheby's or anyone else. Why would it be deceitful, let alone notable on Sotheby's part?
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      If Aoutheby’s hadn’t said anything about who the buyer was it would be no problem, But they did say it was a collector which was a lie.
      - ksaj 3y ago
        They said traditional collectors had started looking at collecting NFT's as collectable art. It was known at the time this was the first time they came up for auction, so the idea that collectors were already collecting them is a liberal twisting of the words. Seeing something viable for collecting is not the same as saying this lot came from a collector. Besides, collectors (namely celebrities who also bought in on the exact same hype) did start collecting them. It's a lost investment for all of them, because it was a stupid idea to think of it as an art collection right from the start. In the end Sotheby's doesn't decide what is valuable art - the bidders themselves do. And you know their initial valuation wasn't so far off the mark, because lots of NFT purchases outside that lot were right there in the same pocket, and the hype that it was going to go through the roof was absolutely everywhere. It makes sense to also note that people who bought NFT's that were based on physical objects (rare record albums, for example) are mostly all failing and flailing as well. The only people truly succeeding with NFT's are the ones that saw it as an ideal way to launder money. It worked very well for them.
ksaj 3y ago
I'm such a small-time investor, a total amateur, and when NFT's became a thing, I was gobsmacked that anyone would think that this, unlike every other fad of its ilk, wouldn't just fade away into obscurity in a year or three, with absolutely nobody else showing interest in them anymore. I compared them to Beanie Babies, except they couldn't accidentally get swallowed by the dog (there is nothing to swallow!), and even their stupidly high trading price wasn't nearly as foolhardy. The flame-throwing trolls who were so sure they were right on this one that they couldn't stop preaching the word online, cheering any apparent gains daily, and jeering at the unbelievers, are the ones suing over the "obvious-in-hindsight" lack of value now. Even the cartoonist that had his stolen. Does anybody even care about that today? Wouldn't they just laugh because the story sounds so utterly ridiculous? I'm hoping they're all at least a little embarrassed. Take the money you have left, and invest it in something real, and doesn't have all the hallmarks of an Internet meme.

6 points by myth_drannon 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

Their loss should just be thought as the cost they paid for a lesson in economics - and their lawsuit be dismissed!

PaulHoule 3y ago
Notably, there was deception involved. The auction house claimed that the apes were bought by a collector, they were really bought by FTX!
- ksaj 3y ago
  I'm curious where you got the idea there was deceit on the auction house's part. Especially of the 'notable' sort. https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/ape-in/101-bored-ape-yacht-club https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/ape-in/101-bore... They were sold through Sotheby's by Yuga - the very people who made BAYC. Whether they were bought by a collector or FTX is irrelevant. That's a moot point that changes nothing about the auction or the transaction. How the buyers presents themselves at an auction is whatever it is, and not a concern of Sotheby's or anyone else. Why would it be deceitful, let alone notable on Sotheby's part?
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    If Aoutheby’s hadn’t said anything about who the buyer was it would be no problem, But they did say it was a collector which was a lie.
    - ksaj 3y ago
      They said traditional collectors had started looking at collecting NFT's as collectable art. It was known at the time this was the first time they came up for auction, so the idea that collectors were already collecting them is a liberal twisting of the words. Seeing something viable for collecting is not the same as saying this lot came from a collector. Besides, collectors (namely celebrities who also bought in on the exact same hype) did start collecting them. It's a lost investment for all of them, because it was a stupid idea to think of it as an art collection right from the start. In the end Sotheby's doesn't decide what is valuable art - the bidders themselves do. And you know their initial valuation wasn't so far off the mark, because lots of NFT purchases outside that lot were right there in the same pocket, and the hype that it was going to go through the roof was absolutely everywhere. It makes sense to also note that people who bought NFT's that were based on physical objects (rare record albums, for example) are mostly all failing and flailing as well. The only people truly succeeding with NFT's are the ones that saw it as an ideal way to launder money. It worked very well for them.

ksaj 3y ago

I'm such a small-time investor, a total amateur, and when NFT's became a thing, I was gobsmacked that anyone would think that this, unlike every other fad of its ilk, wouldn't just fade away into obscurity in a year or three, with absolutely nobody else showing interest in them anymore. I compared them to Beanie Babies, except they couldn't accidentally get swallowed by the dog (there is nothing to swallow!), and even their stupidly high trading price wasn't nearly as foolhardy. The flame-throwing trolls who were so sure they were right on this one that they couldn't stop preaching the word online, cheering any apparent gains daily, and jeering at the unbelievers, are the ones suing over the "obvious-in-hindsight" lack of value now. Even the cartoonist that had his stolen. Does anybody even care about that today? Wouldn't they just laugh because the story sounds so utterly ridiculous? I'm hoping they're all at least a little embarrassed. Take the money you have left, and invest it in something real, and doesn't have all the hallmarks of an Internet meme.