7 ms·

No that is more about money laundering

lancesells 2y ago
It's more about people with a lot of money hoping to sell it for a greater return, while maybe also having shit taste in art. In five years it'll be at an auction and sell to some other person with too much money in hopes of making a profit on it later on.
- neaden 2y ago
  The guy who bought it, Justin Sun, ate it. So unless it's going to get really meta (and stinky) he's not going to resell it.
  - blitzar 2y ago
    That would be a piece of art.
  - lancesells 2y ago
    Net worth $1.6B. So eating a $6M banana is a PR stunt. Edit: Also doesn't mean it can't be resold as that banana gets replaced x number of days.
  - detaro 2y ago
    The thing being bought by him was not a specific physical banana, so he can resell what was sold just fine if he wants to.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Nah, it has to do with money laundering, tax evasion, and easy international money transmission. There are tons of interesting tricks you can pull once you have your hands on a small object "worth" hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars whose very illiquid + inefficiently priced sales also affects an entire market of similar objects.
niceice 2y ago
How does that work exactly?
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Have you ever tried to move $10MM between jurisdictions before? It's much easier when you can put it in a box that looks like, weighs as much as, and actually is a piece of cloth inside of a box, and then open the box up wherever you want it. (To be clear, the banana piece specifically is probably a bad artwork to use for financial engineering purposes, but for the art market as a whole these dynamics add a lot to the prices near the top end)
  - trgn 2y ago
    that isn't money laundering though. I wonder that too fwiw, what's the exact mechanism with this banana NFT-purchase by which elicit money (from who (?)) is now being laundered as legal income (of who (?)). How does the process work?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Again, I have no clue whether this banana falls into this category, but generically and hyper-simplified: you have dirty money in a high-scrutiny jurisdiction, you buy a piece of art for $10MM, you move that piece of art to a more permissive jurisdiction and sell it for $8MM. That buyer gets a good deal and you just mostly cleaned $10MM for 20% in one transaction, which you can then layer into its now-local (permissive) economy for further cleaning before pulling it back out, apparently legitimately, to whatever jurisdiction you want. You've avoided an international (currency) transaction of $10MM which would be flagged by pretty much every authority with oversight. Just two high-value domestic art sales, which happen all the time.
      - hiatus 2y ago
numpad0 2y ago
let's buy that argument for discussion's sake, that doesn't contradict with the notion that networking is important.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I wasn't trying to contradict that
Aunche 2y ago
Whenever an absurdly priced work of art makes it to the news, laypeople immediately jump to the explanation of money laundering, but any artist, art purchaser, or even money launderer would know that this is ridiculous. You'd be an idiot to launder their money in the most publicized auction in the year. If you wanted to launder money, it would most likely be through low-profile private sales.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I agree that any individual piece is not guaranteed to be laundering, but the market as a whole is definitely pushed upwards by more factors than people's desire for historical artifacts or decoration. In any case, in the true upper end of the market, most of these auctions are publicized but the buyers are behind many layers of indirection.
- neaden 2y ago
  In this specific case we know who bought it Justin Sun. He's a Hong Kong based cyrptocurrency investor who ate it. So it seems like in this case it was more about getting some press, and probably a bit of distraction against some of the allegations against him.
  - orochimaaru 2y ago
    Nope he didn’t eat it. He got a digital token with instructions on how to tape his own banana to the wall. Before someone thinks I’m not serious - I am. That was out in the news today.
    - BobbyTables2 2y ago
      Yeah, not sure what is worse. - that buyer didn’t get a real banana. Should have a lifetime supply for that price! or - Robert Ryman was exhibited in the Orangerie Museum and compared to Monet (in the equivalent sense). The bulk of Ryman’s art is a plain white canvas. Not a single dot. Not even a frame. Textured drywall painted with bargain white paint is far more interesting… My drywall contractor should be a billionaire…

It's more about people with a lot of money hoping to sell it for a greater return, while maybe also having shit taste in art. In five years it'll be at an auction and sell to some other person with too much money in hopes of making a profit on it later on.

neaden 2y ago
The guy who bought it, Justin Sun, ate it. So unless it's going to get really meta (and stinky) he's not going to resell it.
- blitzar 2y ago
  That would be a piece of art.
- lancesells 2y ago
  Net worth $1.6B. So eating a $6M banana is a PR stunt. Edit: Also doesn't mean it can't be resold as that banana gets replaced x number of days.
- detaro 2y ago
  The thing being bought by him was not a specific physical banana, so he can resell what was sold just fine if he wants to.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Nah, it has to do with money laundering, tax evasion, and easy international money transmission. There are tons of interesting tricks you can pull once you have your hands on a small object "worth" hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars whose very illiquid + inefficiently priced sales also affects an entire market of similar objects.

niceice 2y ago

How does that work exactly?

llamaimperative 2y ago
Have you ever tried to move $10MM between jurisdictions before? It's much easier when you can put it in a box that looks like, weighs as much as, and actually is a piece of cloth inside of a box, and then open the box up wherever you want it. (To be clear, the banana piece specifically is probably a bad artwork to use for financial engineering purposes, but for the art market as a whole these dynamics add a lot to the prices near the top end)
- trgn 2y ago
  that isn't money laundering though. I wonder that too fwiw, what's the exact mechanism with this banana NFT-purchase by which elicit money (from who (?)) is now being laundered as legal income (of who (?)). How does the process work?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Again, I have no clue whether this banana falls into this category, but generically and hyper-simplified: you have dirty money in a high-scrutiny jurisdiction, you buy a piece of art for $10MM, you move that piece of art to a more permissive jurisdiction and sell it for $8MM. That buyer gets a good deal and you just mostly cleaned $10MM for 20% in one transaction, which you can then layer into its now-local (permissive) economy for further cleaning before pulling it back out, apparently legitimately, to whatever jurisdiction you want. You've avoided an international (currency) transaction of $10MM which would be flagged by pretty much every authority with oversight. Just two high-value domestic art sales, which happen all the time.
    - hiatus 2y ago

numpad0 2y ago

let's buy that argument for discussion's sake, that doesn't contradict with the notion that networking is important.

llamaimperative 2y ago
I wasn't trying to contradict that

Aunche 2y ago

Whenever an absurdly priced work of art makes it to the news, laypeople immediately jump to the explanation of money laundering, but any artist, art purchaser, or even money launderer would know that this is ridiculous. You'd be an idiot to launder their money in the most publicized auction in the year. If you wanted to launder money, it would most likely be through low-profile private sales.

llamaimperative 2y ago
I agree that any individual piece is not guaranteed to be laundering, but the market as a whole is definitely pushed upwards by more factors than people's desire for historical artifacts or decoration. In any case, in the true upper end of the market, most of these auctions are publicized but the buyers are behind many layers of indirection.
neaden 2y ago
In this specific case we know who bought it Justin Sun. He's a Hong Kong based cyrptocurrency investor who ate it. So it seems like in this case it was more about getting some press, and probably a bit of distraction against some of the allegations against him.
- orochimaaru 2y ago
  Nope he didn’t eat it. He got a digital token with instructions on how to tape his own banana to the wall. Before someone thinks I’m not serious - I am. That was out in the news today.
  - BobbyTables2 2y ago
    Yeah, not sure what is worse. - that buyer didn’t get a real banana. Should have a lifetime supply for that price! or - Robert Ryman was exhibited in the Orangerie Museum and compared to Monet (in the equivalent sense). The bulk of Ryman’s art is a plain white canvas. Not a single dot. Not even a frame. Textured drywall painted with bargain white paint is far more interesting… My drywall contractor should be a billionaire…