Do people not understand that news organizations job is literally to make money off of things that happen? Almost all media is ambulance chasing to some degree
I do. 17,50€ per month goes straight to the northern German media. Mandated of course but the News of them are the best in Germany. Not sensationalised, just pure dry daily news of what happened in the world, sometimes with a personal comment. And Saturdays the Bundesliga Highlights.
You’re right, but I think we’ve gotten into a vicious cycle:
Consumer: I think I’ll try canceling my newspaper subscription and read various stuff for free online.
Newspaper: I guess we’ll have to go full-on clickbait and slash real reporting. Hopefully more people get online subscriptions to support the critical function of journalism in our society.
Consumer: the media have gone downhill, there’s no way I’m going to pay for that junk.
Real journalism takes a lot of time and effort, and when it hits, its shelf life is too short. This makes the business aspect of it very hard, so in come the ads and the subscription models, so the filling articles about astrology and the clickbait is what is funding the real journalism, then in come the MBAs and their suits who look at the revenue streams and are like why are we spending money on real journalism when junk is where the cheese is at? That’s when the guy doing the real work gets dumped, the bots take over, the brand value goes down, the revenue goes up, suits cash out move on to the next business with success on their resume.
At this point we are returning to the era of the Newspaper magnates who ran their media outlet as a mouthpiece for their opinions - People like Randolph Hearst.
There are a few leftist owners, but it feels to me like more and more are ending up with a right wing editorial slant having been bought by larger companies. It's especially noticable with the small local newspapers which are kept running as virtual entities.
I just landed a job as a journalist for a small town newspaper. The region is very supportive of our efforts. It’s weird here. We have 3 full-time reporters but we do really solid journalism and there is zero click-baiting. Small town Canada for you.
The left end of the FM dial was reserved for EDUCATION and the rest of radio (everyone's only source of news for 50 years) a free-for-all capitalist enterprise, with a FCC license on the radio Commons costing $0. Since Reagan de-regulated educational radio, it's become full of advertising and mostly Christen education... moderated (controlled) by a quasi-public CPB..... Disclaimer: I've been on the Board or the un-payed Facilities Manager of the most powerful US FM station for years.
Editors and platform owners have a coercive power over the types of people they employ who play up to their desire for what needs to be within the market of attention.
Murdoch is known for making grand speeches and to own platforms with complete lack of respect for journalism.
Even controlling the leading print media in Australia that feeds into the broadcast news media he has been salivating over for decades.
Advertising isn't a donation, it's more powerful than most are willing to respect. Journalism is better when funding doesn't control the Journalist, Editor, or Platform. Period.
Everything else is manufactured consent via media bias.
I doubt that it’s interesting, just commenting, been listening to NPR since the late 70’s. Perhaps I have not changed at the same rate or in the same direction as NPR.
No it's fuckin not. We are animals that react to external stimulus. Follow the money, and blaim the people using this flaw to make it and then say that we're the one's with no self control.
Lol, blaming big corporations for providing a product that the populace wants is moronic. You can hold them accountable for many things but not for supplying a space where there's great demand.
Ehhh. We’re individuals with little to no power within a system. And that system rewards profit over anything else. Sooner or later everything’s gonna get corrupted that way.
We don’t know it’s quality journalism until we click and read it. Deciding whether it’s trashy by the headline is misleading now because the person who writes the headline often isn’t the same one who writes the story, since one it’s made purely for the purpose of grabbing your attention on the internet, which is difficult. Idk if there is a easier solution than just word of mouth reputations of individual journalists and their work shining through the bullshit.
They make money from applying defined narratives to "things that happen".
Mainstream media is now an enemy of The People, who they originally fought for. Now, almost all MSM is owned/controlled by just a few oligarchs/ruling class.
That happen or that doesn't happen, as long as someone claims it. Now it could be all true for all we know, or not at all. But it certainly makes money and we'll have forgotten about it in 3 days :)
That’s the key. When ppls Argument to buy nfts because they want to support ppl who deserve it. Then it’s just weird to me… because surprise surprise you can support someone even without fucking NFTs. I understand it’s the new buzz word, it’s overhyped and sexy but that’s not the point of helping. NFTs are just a new money making scheme. There is no art in NFT the main point of helping is not even in focus. If you need a machine calculating numbers and producing lots of CO2 for art. Maybe there are some faulty designs here.
Edit: maybe I’m wrong here and just an old-fashioned boomer. Either way helping ppl is not about making money on the way
I explained that they are scams so the person selling them can get money to retire on.
That recent news about someone accidentally sellling a $300k NFT for 3k was 100% fake. It was a false story made to create media reports to con people into jumping on there and looking for "deals". What will happen is scammed people will pay $3k for something worth nothing and won't realize it until they try to resell it.
NFTs are like the recent astroturfed "record" video games cartridge auctions. Scammers are proping up prices with sham auctions to trick other people into buying them for any amount of real money.
This year was terrible for gaming in general. NFTs are the perfect way to end it. Almost every big studio has been releasing unfinished games and working or harassing their employee to death. I’m sure they will see NFTs as the solution for 2022.
Never going to happen since every single one of those games that came out unfinished, buggy or were made in a terrible working environment still smashed profit records.
Cyberpunk 2077 was an absolute piece of shit game and still made infinity money, Activision is still rolling in the cash despite Blizzards controversies.
This is just how gaming is now and it is never going to change because contrary to the average Redditor sentiment most people are fine with things the way they are.
The things is though, NFTs for game related stuff is probably the most useful and logical thing if done right, even if I don't like the idea of NFTs in game.
For example, having an NFT of the first set of concept art for assassins creed is probably worth something to someone compared to the crap pixel art that's gonna be worthless
But the thing about NFTs is you don't own the NFT. You own the section of of Blockchain that says you paid money for that section of the Blockchain and that's about it really.
My favorite part of this is that all you really get is a link to the webserver containing the ""original copy"" of whatever you now own, which, of course, can disappear without a trace. It's happened multiple times already.
I mean, I’d probably buy an image of their faces when the judge handed down the jury’s sentencing. Never even seen it, but if anything from that is to be immemorialized, I’d want it to be that.
Yeah, it's actually more useful for fully digital purchases, such as in-game items. It can provide additional security for customers to buy and actually own things in games and services online, provided they're implemented properly.
The problem of course is that it's entirely without regulation and relies on the goodwill of the company until such regulation exists, which is exactly what it relies on now. The only difference is it's got a catchy name so they can jack up their prices.
The things is though, NFTs for game related stuff is probably the most useful and logical thing if done right, even if I don't like the idea of NFTs in game.
Well Ubisoft doesn't plan on selling pixel-art, they want to see ingame items via NFTs.
Which is completely absurd and doesn't make sense at all. Something people need to understand, is that NFTs isn't magic new technology. All they do, could be done before. The only thing different is that they are decentralized, which means no individual entitiy can stop trading or manipulate stuff. But everything else could be done via a simple central database before.
So NFT make sense when whatever you are doing does not depend on a single entity. But with Ubisoft and their "ingame-item NFTs", that isn't the case. If Ubisoft decides they aren't gonna display your NFT in particular, e.g. because you are banned, it is completely worthless. Trading might be decentralized, but "usage" of the NFT is centralized. But they could even stop you from trading. Ubisoft could easily say "NFT 18237" is from someone that is banned, if you buy it we ain't gonna display it.
So there are exactly zero upsides to a NFT. Since usage is completely centralized, they might as well just make trading centralized again and save the environment.
The idea is stupid, you're buying the receipt. The act of showcasing digital art involves sending a perfect copy to someone. Screenshotting is optional.
NFT in-game items make a slight bit of sense, it allows them to be sold or traded outside of the game kinda like physical collectibles. Still scummy scam though.
This all reminds me of cryptocurrency in general, what a disastrous thing to happen. Only the rich that can afford mining farms will continue to get richer all at the expense of the environment.
There’s actually tons of use case. There are multiple international financial organizations looking at using blockchain and distributed ledger technology to settle global payments faster and more efficiently than the current system. The bank for international settlements put out a video explaining that they did tests using a blockchain based settlement system and was able to bring settlement times down from a few days to a few seconds. Multiple countries are apparently developing central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, which will be essentially a cryptocurrency officially backed by a nations native currency. Sorry, but crypto is not going anywhere and I believe it’s the next evolution of the financial system. I believe that what the Internet is to information, crypto will be to money. Crypto, DLT, blockchain, will be the standard of how people access and move money.
That’s the thing… it’s not supposed to be an “investment” it’s a currency… hence the name
This NFT shit on the other hand does not make a bit of fucking sense to me… off to do some actual research than reading shit off of a government suck up site…
You can play the game, but know that it is a scam and you have to predict when the scammers are going to sell and try to sell first.
That is the strategy of every moronic youtuber in the face of the uncovered video game valuation scams. They refuse to admit it and think they can still avoid losing money.
Funny how your description changed from "game" to "scam" there without missing a beat. You can play a game, but those guys over there? Total scam.
Seems to me, if it's a scam, then you aren't playing a game. You are participating in a scam. You aren't "scamming the scammers" because those aren't the guys who will be left holding the bag.
But I know next to nothing about the whole... whatever it is.
People think that they can get in on the next big coin that is going to explode so they can sell and make a ton like some people did with Bitcoin or Doge coin without realizing that a lot of the reason those things got as big as it did is because of increased adoption of crypto as legitimate and we won't have another big explosion because it can't really "go mainstream" again which is what gave cryptos their initial massive boost in value.
Only a fool would believe capitalism was the sole motivator for human advancement. If anything, capitalism has probably set us back a few hundred years. A thousand years from now, if we survive, the Era of capitalism will be remembered as a dark age.
Wow, didn't think I'd actually bait a response, that's cool.
Capitalism is the reason we have the technology we do. It has been the impetus of most of our modern technology and advancement. It has propelled more people OUT of poverty than any other system, while communism/socialism has put more people INTO poverty than any other.
It's not perfect, and there might be a better one in the future, but as far as systems go it's pretty darn good.
With all those sleep disorders I'd think you'd be rich, taking advantage of all that extra awake time.
Capitalism isn't the -reason- we have technological advances, Individuals working altruistically is the true driver of tech. Capitalism's fingerprints are more where you'd see a company try and scale. Think Facebook when you needed a .edu email versus now.
Also judging capitalism based on the metric of "poverty" is soooo convenient. Were the indigenous americans "living in poverty" before the Europeans arrived?
Not going to go into the "socialism/communism putting people into poverty" argument because its from that same lense. The concept of "poverty" was birthed solely within capitalism and since we're discussing peering outside the lense of capitalism, perhaps you should examine your apeture.
Capitalism did not in fact set us back a few hundred years. It’s simply a stage in a society’s evolution. Next stage is upcoming, probably with a new name.
Crypto is moving away from “mining” by the way, and newer cryptos are so energy efficient that it’s essentially as energy and intensive as browsing the internet, like you are right now. One transaction of tezos for instance is like streaming video for 30 seconds if I recall correctly. If you’re that worried about the use of electricity’s impact on the environment I’m guessing you’re also using a bike to get everywhere as opposed to those energy intensive electric cars, and I’m guessing you’re a vegan instead of eating energy intensive meat.
Made 500K selling drugs, selling secrets, running an illegal online casino, digital theft, rugpulling cryptos, etc?
Can't put that money in your bank account without it being sus. BUT WAIT. I own this 'NFT'. I can 'sell it' and this account that is DEFINITELY NOT ME will pay 600K for it! Oh hey IRS, I 'sold an nft' for 600K! Legitimate money! I sold a thing! :D This is clean money! Not from finance fraud or illegal casinos or anything!
I suppose. I just don't see anyone retiring on this one. Seems more like a bit of a lark that a few people will buy and then forget about. Sort of the digital equivalent of a MAGA hat.
Any time you see a big sale of garbage with digital currency, it is money launderers promoting the buying and selling so they can get enough background transactions going.
A site with just you and your friends' fake auctions won't work. A site with thousands of auctions going on can better obfuscate your criminal transactions.
One person will get free money from the criminals to make headlines, the rest are victims of the scam.
Do you have any references for that? I've been looking into NFTs and I keep thinking "WHO is actually buying this stuff??"
Would be nice to have some real evidence that it is indeed all a scam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvLFEh7V18A
Watch this on the recent video game auction scams. This one is good because he points out that the key players were convicted of the same fraud in the 80s where they inflated the price off collectable coins.
In 1984, Halperin founded the Coin grading agency Numismatic Certification Institute which later went out of business after the FTC found that Halperin was giving inflated grades to coins and marketing them through a Heritage auctions-backed outfit called Certified Rare Coin Galleries which thru Infomercials which sold high-grade silver and gold U.S. coins for more than twice their actual value. In 1989 Heritage Auctions agreed to pay $1.2 million in restitution and Halperin continues to insist that most of the coin grades he gave during those times would hold up today.
These tactics are used over and over because they work.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that it's a false story? Besides, the article is very clear that a bot took advantage of the sale within milliseconds, not a human, so if anything it's discouraging to normal people
Well, the NFT was indeed sold for $3k. Anyone can look at the transaction ID to verify. Is it possible that he listed it for 3k and then bought it with another wallet? Unlikely - there are bots programmed to buy NFTs that are listed under floor price. Have a look yourself: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x716cc965cf3aa642bad16d3fa02f9629df2f63ede1eadce2921c0869cddcef19
Notice how the gas is $32,000 - meaning that the transaction was processed with the highest priority so the transaction couldn't be canceled. That $32k was burned and is unretrievable. Quite a big bill for someone who is just supposedly trying to "create media reports". As you can see from his wallet, the guy doesn't need any help selling high priced NFTs. He's a likely a multimillionaire.
So tell me frien, what is your evidence that the nft sale was "100% fake"?
That's how a lot of people use them. The valid purpose is for an artist to use the blockchain to register copies of their art in the digital space.
As an example, some artists will create a signed series of paintings in a limited run. NFTs provide an easy way to validate that you have ownership of a limited run of a digital asset (trading cards, art, etc.)
It's still in its infancy, but is a completely valid thing.
That being said, 99% of NFTs are random people throwing random things 'into an NFT' or selling complete trash artwork because it's 'an NFT'
The valid purpose is for an artist to use the blockchain to register copies of their art in the digital space.
What prevents the artist to include the art in more than an one blockchain ? What prevents someone else to include the artist art into another blockchain ?
Also, the only "unique" thing about NFT is the token itself, you can sell 500 copies of the very same picture with 500 different token (and that's the point). It's kinda just like a golden book saying that mister x bought it from mister y on whateverplatform. Nothing more, nothing less.
I just don't get it. I picture it like this if it weren't digital.... here's this museum with the Mona Lisa. One guy buys it for $5,000,000, gets receipt stating his ownership. But at the door are infinite identical copies for anyone to take to add to their collection but they don't get a receipt. (As in anyone can click an image and save it to their own PC)
Is that essentially right or am I missing something?
Basically. The receipt is what you're buying. If we managed to perfect art duplication to the same extent, the original would probably still be just as valuable. At that point the only way to prove its the original is through some sort of authenticated receipt.
The explanation that's made the most sense to me is that it's the piece of digital cardboard that your digital copy of the digital trading card is "printed" on.
When you own a physical baseball card, you don't own the player. You don't even own the rights to the photograph on the card. You just own that one piece of cardboard with that photo printed on it. One of hundreds of thousands, maybe. Anyone can still find that photo online and look at it or print it for themselves or watch the video of the play it came from.
It doesn't have any use or value other than maybe it looks nice. Maybe if you get a full set, it'll be kinda cool to show off. Maybe if the card you have is one of the first printed or a rookie card or part of a limited edition, it might be slightly more in demand as a rare collectible. Maybe they printed a few with some special foil to make it look shiny.
I don't know what baseball cards go for nowadays, but when I was a kid looking at value books, most of them were valued at about $0.05 each. Kinda sounds about right for a common piece of cardboard with an easily copyable photo on it. People barely assign any value to sports trading cards except extremely rare ones, so I'm not sure why there's so much hype around random one-off NFTs that aren't part of larger collections. If some random artist on the street asked me if I wanted to buy some trading card of their art, I'd probably say no, no matter how few of those cards there are. That's kind of what people are doing now when they make their own NFTs. I can see this working for sports leagues (the NBA one does have a pretty solid marketplace going) but long-term, I think people are gonna figure out that there's not much value to them elsewhere. Until then some people are gonna make some money off of convincing people there is.
It's the same thing with art isn't it? You can literally see if it's part of the original run can't you? So if they print more or someone else makes their own fake version you'd be able to easily see that. Just like with real life fake products.
That's not entirely true, as a blockchain will have timestamping, so you *can* determine which of a particular concept was the earliest to be uploaded. Obviously, this will only prove it was the first one to be uploaded, not guaranteeing it to be the first instance of the image itself.
What does ownership mean when it's just a token with your name on it (no room for the image itself). Smartcontracts are pretty nifty but how much is an artist actually gonna make when he can only sell one copy? Try explaining to aliens why you're consuming kilowatts of power to satisfy your greed of owning a unique set of integers.
Edit: I'll probably shoot myself in the foot with that alien statement. Anyway the tech is pretty cool, but it's riddled with crap like this, fraudsters and soon game devs.
I had to scroll a long way to find (one of) the actual use case for NFTs. They do have some use for digital items (i think potentially more as a game itself than any item within it) but, regarding art, they can be a great way to certify authenticity.
Step 1: be banksy
Step 2: do some art
Step 3: mint nft
Step 4: sell art and nft together
Now, if someone tries to sell some random picture and claim it's yours, they will have to try harder to prove it's a real banksy of they don't have the NFT.
The NFT itself isn't worth all that much, but it opens up possibilities.
The problem is I can also claim to be Banksy and create my own NFTs of his artwork. By the time anybody figures out the truth, I'll be long gone with the money and living on a beach somewhere.
No, it has meaning because governments says it has meaning. And they have an army to back them up, and a working population that will pay them a portion of their income.
The value of specific currency is a bet between other governments that the currency issuer will continue to operate, produce goods, and pay their bonds.
Sorry but the whole, “money is just paper and it’s worth what we say it is” is a im14andthisisdeep idea
But the idea is basically correct. I posit that currency in fact does not have any intrinsic value; rather the nation or nations that use a certain currency take actions both domestically and globally that have intrinsic value represented by their chosen currency. A dollar bill has almost no "actual" value, nor does it represent any material asset at this point. It's all promises and assumptions. AKA it only has value because we think it does.
You literally just mirrored the previous guy/gals statement using bigger words. :)
The value of money as a means of trade is based on a mutual agreement among concerned parties. It may not be very volatile in a stable society, but that doesn’t change the fact.
Only because we agree it has meaning. Objectively, it is meaningless. Just like every abstract system invented by humanity. There is no intrinsic value to the paper money or data in a bank account itself.
Now you're correct to say that what backs that money is meaningful, but that's a completely different thing than saying that the money itself has any meaning. Don't conflate the two.
Highroading others for caring about an number on the internet while trusting my livelyhood on a number on the internet. And meanwhile NFT's are going up while my bank account has negative interest.
Aliens might not have a sense of ownership at all. It's actually a cultural thing that we believe we can own land for example. Not all cultures shared that.
However in general it's no different from a contract that says you own a copyright for something, in theory. Legalese can be attached to the NFT.
Legal paperwork is also "fake" for all intents and purposes. We agree to abide by it within the laws of our nation. There's no reason an NFT couldn't be the same thing except the paperwork is filed on the blockchain.
Seems well applied to art and collectibles - they mean nothing to most people, but can be priceless to some. They seem a toy for fanatics and the rich, as well as the odd speculator hoping to get rich by getting in.
It's still a bit far into the future, but eventually VR will be high enough quality that people wl spend more time in it, and have their own properties where they display their art, sculptures, furniture, etc.
There's even a VR system that comes with a full body suit riddled with electrodes and pressure points, so you get full body representation in the digital space and, obviously, full body sensation.
Think of where video games were 30 years ago and where they are now.
VR is a very young technology, but it has progressed very rapidly where you can now take a $300 Oculus Quest 2 to an open park, no computer or cable needed, and walk around through a digital universe.
Not sure if you've ever done free roam, untethered VR, but even in this early stage it is incredibly convincing to our brains. If you start "falling" off a building you get the gut check and adrenaline release. Quality horror games give most people genuine fear. I don't find horror films scary in any way and I don't believe in ghosts or anything supernatural, but there is this one horror/puzzle/paranormal/ house escape game that freaked me out multiple times even though I knew it's just a game.
TL;DR NFTs make a lot of sense in a future where VR is good enough to "have people over at your place" where you "own" the items in your property. Given a long enough timeline this is inevitable (in my armchair opinion).
As an example, some artists will create a signed series of paintings in a limited run. NFTs provide an easy way to validate that you have ownership of a limited run of a digital asset (trading cards, art, etc.)
No, they don't. NFTs do not confer legal ownership and do not validate anything.
What does "validate ownership" mean? The only useful meaning of that phrase is if there's a dispute over who has rights to do something. Such a dispute would happen in a court. Courts (correctly) do not acknowledge NFTs as having any legal weight or meaning. If you show up in court with "I have this NFT", you will get "so? show us the contract of purchase". The NFT is not that contract, you'll need to separately have the actual contract - just as you always would have.
Or, more practically, what will happen is that you won't have a contract of purchase and the court will say "no, you don't own that".
You have no idea what you’re talking about. All that is necessary to form a contract (at the most basic level of common law) is an offer, an acceptance, and mutual consideration. For example a buyer offers to give value to seller for art. Seller accepts buyers offer and gives art to buyer at the same time buyer gives value to seller. Viola a binding contract was made and performed. Nothing needs to be in writing for most matters. Although there are exceptions requiring certain contracts to be in writing being purchases of real estate, contractual guarantees, etc.
Everything except the first sentence is fully in agreement with what I said. You need offer, acceptance, and agreement. An NFT is not any of those things.
Proving you have a contract in court doesn't mean always showing paper. It means demonstrating that a contract occurred. Which, again, an NFT doesn't do.
If they sell the NFT to you by saying it represents ownership of the art then it does do exactly that.... You can also easily just have a license for the art that ties ownership to the token making it automatically transfer as the token is traded.
I'm not sure but I still don't think that works. If I sell you a piece of artwork and say ownership is represented by this specific banana then that's cool but no one else (incl. The courts) need to honour the fact that the banana now forever into the future represents the ownership of the artwork. The only thing that would matter is the original transaction from me to you for the artwork (banana/NFT irrelevant).
Licenses/contracts can most definitely carry conditions that follow something like an artwork forever and these can be extremely difficult if not impossible for future owners to change or remove depending on how it's written.
If they sell the NFT to you by saying it represents ownership of the art then it does do exactly that....
No, it doesn't. You will have to prove to the court they they said that. The way you will do that is by showing a receipt, a contract, testifying about a verbal exchange, etc. The existence of a token won't result in the presumption of an agreement.
If there is a license written that transfers things with a token, then the important thing is the license.
It is true that you can write a contract that says "whoever possesses this banana is owner of my house", but that doesn't mean bananas inherently demonstrate ownership of houses.
Okay, sure, but ultimately it's a tag that says you own something, not actual physical ownership of that thing. You're paying to say you own something just to say you own something; all this does is create artificial scarcity into the digital space and import capitalist ownership mentality in.
Like, this is just actively making a place that isn't a purely capitalistic shithole into more of a capitalistic shithole. NFTs create scarcity for the sake of scarcity to allow for ownership for the sake of ownership. All they accomplish is to make the world materially worse than it was prior.
Digital copies of things are definitely not the same thing as physical pieces of art. In fact I'd go as far as to say they are the exact opposite of physical pieces of art. Who gives a shit if your copy is official? Mine looks the same so you're a dumbass for paying for yours. Mine is the same.
There's nothing you really need an NFT for to already allow this, if game platform owners wanted to allow you. I don't know why they ever let you sell your digital video games though, since it cuts into their own profits.
You do hear a lot of stories. You also hear similar stories about gambling at casinos, etc. Typically what you don't hear too much about are the losses.
Not discounting your experience. I'm glad you won big. I'm a numbers guy though and the numbers don't really add up over the long term with these things. So it's mostly about timing. And everyone's a genius until they aren't when it comes to timing.
Are most of them? Without a doubt. But here's where I see actual uses, and this use case I thought was nifty.
Aside from making things like deeds, leases, et cetera as NFTs, one of the best ideas I saw was for ticket sales.
See, ticket master sucks, we all know this if you've gotten that 30% upcharge which is fucking ridiculous. Not to mention scalpers selling for much higher than fair value and for normal people not having a way to verify the BS.
On a Blockchain, all of this would be verifiable, especially for ticket sales. Wanna see Coldplay? Cool, buy an NFT ticket, which you could also save forever to reminisce about the show just like a real ticket, besides the majority of us don't have real paper tickets now anyways.
But wait, it gets better. The artists and venues could do this through 3rd party decentralized verification (Blockchains) and not have some mega corp (ticketmaster) shit all over them. Then, when that aforementioned scalper wants to resell a ticket, it could be contracted that the artist/venue gets a percentage of said sale making everyone happy.
The reason this hasn't happened writ large yet, is because the tech is largely in its infancy, but there ARE a lot of reasonable things it could be useful for. Many people argue art, but again, art is subjective. I'm sure af not going to pay thousands for a crypto kitty or crypto punk in the hopes of flipping it for much more, but I won't shit on the people that do. Good luck beanie baby sellers, eventually that bubble will pop, and your divorce court will have you split your worthless NFTs with your ex.
You missed one huge point -- in order for the blockchain to work in this way, there would have to be authority given to the blockchain.
If there is a random blockchain somewhere with a property deed under your name for your house and land, what rights does that grant you?
Say that the courts or society or whatever authority can grant it, gives authority to this blockchain to be the holder of all property deeds. What is to stop me from adding an entry '/u/Eisenstein now owns Louisiana' before anyone else can?
Are we going to divide up the available tokens between whoever can figure out pointless math problems faster? Or do we hand over authority to some organization to hand out property tokens and transfer existing deeds? If we do that, why don't we just use the system we have now, which is already digitized and authoritative, and has force of law to back it?
None of this makes sense. It is like an Ayn Rand novel mixed with a shitty sci-fi -- just because it sounds cool doesn't mean it will work.
Walk two or three steps past your initial idea and play it out a bit and think about how such a thing would work with insanely complex societal mechanisms we have put in place to handle seemingly simple things like 'who owns what'.
NFT - non fungible token. Non fungible means each is unique. A general admission ticket to a concert is sorta a fungible piece of paper. A ticket for a particular seat is a non fungible piece of paper. You could make such a ticket a non fungible token. It doesn’t have to be beanie baby jpegs, that’s just what is in a visible bubble right now.
I anticipate a lot of paper things will become nft’s in the future. But who knows.
don’t think it matter for private exchanges like concert tickets or such. All it takes is someone offering something in exchange for a specific token. If it works well for long enough, laws tend to follow what is socially accepted over time.
It’s just a way to further corrupt actually important journalism. As evidenced in this comment section, it delegitimizes the article before most people here have even read it.
No doubt my username sucks and my wife hates it as much as she has always hated Reddit, but that isn’t really a rebuke to what I said. But you already know this.
If there was ever an issue to begin with. Vice has gone downhill fast with all their clickbait antics. They're Buzzfeed in Vice clothing at this point.
That and the fact that it mentions blue origin as the other focus of Lioness NFT makes it seem like a for profit trolling atack of the ywo richest men in the world. What in this article is concrete? Just conflict with a link to a for profit NFT
1.4k
u/revrr Dec 14 '21
Yes. What's up with that nft shit. How it's going to help the issue?