What Do You Think of The New NFT Hype?

amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 15:56

Crypto currencies are now worth over 1trillion dollars, and they are creeping towards gold's market cap ($10Trillion). Bitcoin has survived the test of time and I don't think it will ever die. I still do not understand the hype behind it, and can't justify investing money into such an asset. But I accept, it is no different than gold or over hyped stocks - People invest in it because, they believe others will buy it for higher prices later.

Now, Digital Art ownerships are sold as NFTs for millions of dollars. Recently a JPEG image was sold for $69million USD.
What is the use of that purchase? I could only see Nothing.
Now, all crypto currency people are jumping on that and I am watching it with complete confusion. I have only few question.

  1. Is this all because of the pandemic and the currency printing ($1.9T)? What will happens when the economies stabilise?
  2. Where is this money coming from? Did people have 1Trillion dollars in the bank?
  3. Blockchain mining is becoming expensive and the gas prices are only going to go up. Why no body is thinking about it?
  4. Why other coins could not beat Bitcoin?
  5. Why are you investing or not investing in Block chain tokens?

People are investing in millions and they are richer than me. So, they are not stupid. I just feel like I am missing something obvious.

Financial Cryptocurrency

Comments

  • CaptainMaverick on 17/03/2021 - 16:11
    +1

    Never mind the costs of gas - I'm very concerned about the carbon impact on the planet from blockchain like Bit Coin, which by design forces 'miners' to keep using increasingly power-hungry farms of GPUs sucking up energy for the sake of using up power for the bit coin to then have value. It's ridiculous and I can't see it lasting for decades given our climate issues, without something else to take its place that is green instead of damaging to our Earth.

    • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 16:23

      It is not a big deal as people are expected to run their rigs powered by some green energy source very soon.

      But, the number of miners has to increase to stop single country from having the dominance. And also, they will have to upgrade their gears as new computers or innovations come out. And you can’t mine new coins in few decades. So you will have to depend on gas price. So, the transaction prices are only going to go up.

      • cfuse on 18/03/2021 - 08:23

        It is not a big deal as people are expected to run their rigs powered by some green energy source very soon.

        I've already heard talk of building processing into home solar installations so that excesses get turned into mining.

        Mining in winter is just another name for heating. I've read a story about people using rigs to heat a hen house and greenhouses. Perhaps the problem is less about power consumption than it is appropriate heat use? PC components are very efficient when it comes to being heaters.

        the number of miners has to increase to stop single country from having the dominance.

        1. The market is going to lose confidence in a coin that isn't appropriately backed, no different to a fiat currency with the same problem.
        2. The easiest way of dealing with the problem is to accept crypto at a government level. The day you can pay your tax bill with Doge is the day that the market incentive to solve these problems is set to 100%.
        3. Compute power being a literal arms race will ensure that all the usual world powers will stake their claims and the crypto cold war will ensure that no one power gains true dominance.

        And you can’t mine new coins in few decades.

        We started with bitcoin and now we have thousands of cryptos. Nobody's going to back off on that mining goldrush unless by specific design (which is its own product class).

        Hypothetically, assuming nothing changes in decades there will still be decades of new cryptos, and NFTs are a perfect example of that (as they are literally nothingcoins and people have gone completely mental over them). Fashion and hype are going to ensure that there's mining for the foreseeable future.

    • EightImmortals on 17/03/2021 - 18:16

      Saw a chart the other comparing it to social media and other types of power consumption and it was fairly small. Will try to find the chart.

    • whooah1979 on 17/03/2021 - 18:21

      A secure network requires resources. The more resources it uses the more secure it becomes. With improved security comes investors which drive the price up. The price going up means more investment in resources to secure the network.

    • cfuse on 18/03/2021 - 07:59

      What's wrong with making a nuclear reactor part of your mining rig?

    • Gekov on 18/03/2021 - 10:51
      -1

      " I'm very concerned about the carbon impact on the planet from blockchain like Bit Coin"

      BUT, BUT, BUT … Earth's plant plant life is overjoyed at the extra colourless, odourless trace gas (0.04%), plant food CO2 in the atmopshere!

      Our atmosphere is currently suffering from CO2 starvation.

      We must never allow the CO2 level to drop below 350ppm again…
      150ppm is the extinction level where plant life dies off
      .. and should in fact be aiming to increase it by as much as is humanly possible.
      700+ppm would be ideal and highly beneficial for all life on Earth…

      NEW SCIENTIST The great greening: The coming of our new lush Earth
      From the Arctic to the deserts, plants are thriving in our changing climate.
      THANK YOU, CO2!
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029380-900-the-grea…

      CSIRO: Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2 https://csiropedia.csiro.au/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2…

      • CaptainMaverick on 18/03/2021 - 15:01
        -1

        From those articles:

        “On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.

        “Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects.”

        They were also from 2013 - 8 years ago. Do you have any more recent evidence that says these positive effects of elevated CO2 are anywhere close to worth the likely devastating other effects that our carbon emissions are having on the environment including the shrinking of arctic ice…

        I mean, taking some hard drugs can give your body more energy, but that extra energy you feel isn't worth the long term damage they do.

        • Gekov on 18/03/2021 - 15:21
          -1

          " the likely devastating other effects that our carbon emissions are having on the environment including the shrinking of arctic ice…"

          Total speculation based on failed climate models, nothing else.

          "the shrinking Arctic" is due to cherrypicked data which, for obvious reasons, omits the 1940's Arctic heatwave where Arctic ice levels were lower.

          Recent reports of a melting polar ice cap are dismissed by Lindzen as an example of the media taking advantage of the public's "scientific illiteracy."
          "The thing you have to remember about the Arctic is that it is an extremely variable part of the world," Lindzen said. "Although there is melting going [on] now, there has been a lot of melting that went on in the [19]30s and then there was freezing. So, by isolating a section … they are essentially taking people's ignorance of the past," Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

          FLASHBACK 1940: Arctic melting rapidly. Greenland glaciers “nearing a catastrophe“ http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/40934044

          FLASHBACK 1922, “Sailing as far north as 81º29’ in ICE-FREE WATER”!!!! “At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared”

          FLASHBACK 1974 MASSIVE Arctic ice expansion JUST BEFORE fake warmist “death spiral”
          http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110778517

          1979 was the peak year for Arctic sea ice. That is why warmists always use it as a start date. This graph is from the second IPCC report. Had they started their analysis in 1974, there would be nothing scary to report.
          http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/the-darkening-…

        • Gekov on 18/03/2021 - 15:38
          -1

          1979 Was A Peak Year For Arctic Ice.
          FLASHBACK 1974 Support For The Theory of a Cooling World, Weather satellites sweeping across the northern hemisphere have come up with a surprise: the permanent snow and ice cap has increased sharply, Associated Press reported.
          https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/110778517

          Cherrypicked data after that has created a fake "Arctic death spiral!"

  • itsHughesy on 17/03/2021 - 16:14
    +4

    I just don't get NFT's, I've zero interest in paying a large sum of money for a digital item. Might as well buy an expensive sword in World of Warcraft or something.

    • mbck on 17/03/2021 - 16:21

      You can have many of that sword in wow. But you can only have one of that digital art due to block chain tech.

      One is rare (only one) the other is literal useless

      • cloudy on 17/03/2021 - 21:18
        +2

        My 3yr old son can draw rare pictures everyday. No one can replicate it, literally. I'll sell it for a few million if you wish.

    • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 16:26
      +1

      it is like owning the original picasso painting vs a counterfeit. once You verify the authenticity of your painting in an auction and you will make millions.
      So, people are buying these stupid gifs assuming they will be worth a lot of money in few decades.

      • itsHughesy on 17/03/2021 - 16:28
        +4

        Well, it's not like owning an original picasso painting, because if you own that you can hang it on your wall etc. Maybe I'm just getting old and out of touch with technology, but the idea of people spending so much on "digital" items is insane to me. Completely insane, regardless if it's 1/1.

        • mbck on 17/03/2021 - 16:49

          Yeah I get that. It's like Spotify and having my own songs kn my phone. Or kindle and actual books.

          Each to their own I suppose. I suppose part of why that specific one is expensive, is because it's the first of its kind.

        • whooah1979 on 17/03/2021 - 17:10

          Hang it on The Wall. The question is The Wall big enough?

          https://images.app.goo.gl/cSAWWZ6dcmAJb9p4A

        • Zephyrus on 17/03/2021 - 17:41
          +2

          I can hang a reproduction on my wall too. It's a functionally identical item to the original but is worth far less.

        • md333 on 18/03/2021 - 13:15

          Paying millions of dollars for Picasso paintings is not really sane either. Can't apply logic to art.

      • dirtybigbjelke on 18/03/2021 - 09:48

        It's not really even a certificate of Authenticity. They point to a link that can be gone tomorrow or even the content of that link can be changed at a moments notice.

  • NatoTomato on 17/03/2021 - 16:14
    +1
    1. Currency printing doesn't just automatically have an effect on peoples spending habits like that…
    2. Assuming you're talking about Cryptocurrency here, and not the person who bought the piece of art. Yes. I assume there's 1.7 trillion dollars sitting in various exchanges, bank accounts of exchanges, and crypto wallets. This also assumes that coins like USDT are 100% backed, which a lot of people (including me) are skeptical. Also note that there would be a lot of lost bitcoin and other crypto out there.
    3. People are thinking about it. A lot of articles out there on the cost of mining to our environment, especially when Elon Musk started shilling it.
    4. Other coins can beat Bitcoin, but none have as big of a brand name yet. Seeming as cryptocurrency use is just as a speculative investment, so the practical use doesn't matter, that's why Bitcoin is the most demanded right now.
    5. I can't be bothered answering this question.

    You should be able to find more thought out answers to the questions using a little known site called www.google.com.

    • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 16:31

      I like the 4th answer. :)
      Do you find any answers agains Crypto or NFTs these days? It is like google is promoting these investments. if you open Youtube, It is Chamath Palihapitiya promoting Telsla, NFTs and Bitcoin. He is a smart guy. That’s why I am very confused and thought of having a friendly chat.

  • [Deactivated] on 17/03/2021 - 16:15

    Isn't it artists trying to make it happen so they get a fee every time their work is exchanged?

    • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 16:17

      yes if you set up the token with royalty. The smart contract has been written with that option. Very smart. :)

  • Cluster on 17/03/2021 - 16:17
    +1

    The thing with NFTs is there is only one copy, and you can prove it's yours… as long as you keep your private key private. If it leaks out then you lose that US$70M piece of artwork. Also someone paid US$70M for what is essentially just an image. In the future no one may care how nice the image is and pay nothing.

    This technology could prove to be useful for things like concert tickets, legal documents, and such. But you have to safeguard your private key. Lose that and you lose ownership of everything tied to it.

    • dirtybigbjelke on 18/03/2021 - 09:49

      Not even, The NFT is no guarantee of anything, There's only one NFT but the link to the artwork is tenuous at best.

  • TerrifiedBargainer on 17/03/2021 - 17:10
    +3

    I think this is dumb.

    It doesn't convey any rights at all. It isn't recognised under modern copyright law and anyone can use your image without paying for it.

    You are only paying for a 1:1 copy of it on a blockchain. You aren't buying the image at all.

  • zoombie on 17/03/2021 - 17:17

    I think you kind of miss the point (or maybe I don't get it). NFT is a type of technology that enable you to trace the ownership of the asset. You can apply NFT to other assets, it doesn't have to be art.
    What's being sold is not the technology but the art/image behind it and the way its being created.

    Art have a history of moving from one genre to another. Old masters (Da Vinci) to impressionism to modernism. I guess it is now changing to digital art, those who have bought the NFTs are really buying into this transition to digital art.

  • brendanm on 17/03/2021 - 17:20
    +1

    Imagine having so much money you can spend $69 million on that. It must be the rich persons version of buying the small Lego kits when they go on sale for $5 on Amazon.

  • pegaxs on 17/03/2021 - 18:05
    +1

    worth over 1trillion dollars

    Yeah.. nah. They are not "worth" $1 trillion. If they implode tomorrow, there are no assets to back up for these crypto currencies. They are vapourware. They only have "value" as long as people keep pouring money into them. They are, at best, a Ponzi scheme.

    And yeah, not really going to pay $1 (let alone $69 million) for something someone can just cut/copy and paste…

    • plmko on 17/03/2021 - 18:31
      -2

      You have zero understanding of cryptography. That much I've understood by your comment. But it's OK to not understand now, it's not for the mainstream yet.

    • whooah1979 on 17/03/2021 - 18:48

      someone can just cut/copy and paste…

      Do you mean piracy?

      • Kangal on 17/03/2021 - 20:56

        I think they make it so it is impossible to copy and paste the file. However, you still can take a screenshot and have a lower-quality reproduction of it. The digital "rights" get to be yours permanently (or until you sell), so that's neat. However, these are NOT copyright and really has no legal backing at the moment. This can change, but it would take a few years to implement.

        In many sense, its just bullpiss / ripoff, as you don't really get any UTILITY out of it. But the same thing can be said about $100 Million art paintings which can give you the same sense of "inspiration" if viewed on a poster or reproduction.

        • justincarter on 18/03/2021 - 08:16

          NFTs can be implemented in a way that the underlying file assets are completely publically accessible (anyone can copy it), or in a way that the underlying file host can disappear from the internet even if it's implemented on IPFS (your "asset" is gone if you don't have your own backup, and/or you can't on-sell the NFT if the next person can't use/access it), which IMO utterly destroys their worth.

          Interesting Twitter thread here:
          https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1372163423446917122?s=19

    • brendanm on 17/03/2021 - 20:41

      If they implode tomorrow, there are no assets to back up for these crypto currencies

      This is the same as the Australian dollar.

      • whooah1979 on 17/03/2021 - 20:53
        -2

        Many nocoiners don't understand that digital assets are correlated with the SPX. There would be a river of blood on Wall Street if the digital assets drop to -99.99% tomorrow.

  • bargain huntress on 17/03/2021 - 18:24

    is this something an artist can do to make money?

    • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 18:47
      +1

      Yes. But you need to be famous or your art has to be really good. Otherwise it is hard to draw attention in that flooded market. The guy who sold it for $69mil USD is well known the digital art industry as Beeple (he creates very controversial pictures). It is not just art. Any digital copy rightable Item can be attached to NFT. A YouTuber named Logan Paul created few "Pokemon like" cards and then sold it in one of those sites for $5mil USD.

      • bargain huntress on 17/03/2021 - 20:35

        ok thanks
        is there anywhere in particular to learn about it other than google?

        • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 20:47
          +1

          Not really. There are some good tutorials on YouTube. If you are new to this, then the hardest part will be setting up your Wallet and buying some Ethereum. (It will cost you around $60 worth Eth to put your art on the block chain). Good luck.

  • mr_asstight on 17/03/2021 - 18:26
    -2

    Gay and unnecessary

    • Kangal on 17/03/2021 - 20:56
      +1

      Profile pic checks out

  • cloudy on 17/03/2021 - 21:32

    I was listening to a podcast of a CEO who spent his company's cash on bitcoin explain why he did it. Basically, with the money printing going on only assets like fixed assets like bitcoin holds its value, everything else is worthless.

    His plans for his (his companies shareholders to be precise) 500mill bucks of bitcoin is to hold on forever, if he ever needs cash to pay expenses just borrow money against the asset to pay expenses.

    This, I think, sums up the ordinary thinking amongst the rich and poor who buy bitcoin or other crypto. It's limited, unlike cash. No one else can make another bitcoin. Therefore in a world where governments print cash, you want to own it, he claims inflation is rampant, in a few months time your cash is worth 50%(some ridiculous number) less than today. Even if it serves no meaningful purpose its worth buying.

    Personally, I'd buy tulips, at least they look prettier than a digit on a digital wallet.

    • amazonaddict on 17/03/2021 - 21:51
      -1

      World's total wealth is $380Trillion. I think US alone is printing $2T. That meants atleast $5T would have been printed to recover from the pandemic. That mean's It is only extra 0.5% inflation. Not sure where came up with the 50%.

      • Gekov on 18/03/2021 - 11:57

        "Not sure where came up with the 50%."

        Probably coz he was confining himself to US money printing compared to US total wealth rather than world total wealth.

        BTW US has printed far more than $2T this year alone..

    • whooah1979 on 18/03/2021 - 12:07

      Personally, I'd buy tulips, at least they look prettier than a digit on a digital wallet.

      Has anyone tried to bring tulips from overseas pass the ABF?

      • cloudy on 18/03/2021 - 22:18

        Most flowers sold here are imports during valentines days, or even most days I reckon.

  • johnno07 on 18/03/2021 - 08:38
    +1

    Rather than speculate on memes wouldn't you rather construct a diversified portfolio of investments?

    • whooah1979 on 18/03/2021 - 09:13

      Of course, as long as the portfolio can 2x in 12 months.

      • johnno07 on 18/03/2021 - 22:39

        100% annual return would be pretty impressive over any sort of long period of time.

  • dirtybigbjelke on 18/03/2021 - 09:46
    +1

    It's a scam. It doesn't give you any control over a unique piece of anything, it isn't tied to any DRM control even. I can merely screenshot Elon's tweet for free for example. Just a scam by holders of ETH to try and cash it out because otherwise it is a worthless crypto currency.

  • OzHunterNSW on 18/03/2021 - 14:39

    They are simply trying to beat Russia and China

  • pformag on 18/03/2021 - 15:51

    To be fair, the artist did take 5000 days to create the piece. I think if you or me just put 5000 random images together, it would be worth nothing.

  • LFO on 18/03/2021 - 16:57

    People are investing in millions and they are richer than me. So, they are not stupid. I just feel like I am missing something obvious.

    I don't know.

    But I cannot erase from my head the actual fact that in Holland, centuries ago, a tulip flower/plant (?) was sold in exchange of a house …

    Somehow then, it was worth it.
    Somehow now it is no longer worth it.

    Still wanting to know but my gut feeling is not too good …

  • Tiredman on 18/03/2021 - 23:38
    +1

    Got some Mooncats for free so can't complain. They make me happy.

    • amazonaddict on 19/03/2021 - 00:17

      How much for the gas?

      • StratBog on 20/03/2021 - 10:24

        It costs $200+ per pixel of gas. lol.

      • Tiredman on 21/03/2021 - 09:03

        No idea mate. Just gonna keep it as a small speculative thing.

  • metalslaw on 21/03/2021 - 08:14

    nft's are a neat new way to do money laundering… (well most of them are this, but ofc not all)

    • whooah1979 on 21/03/2021 - 09:09
      +1

      The best way to launder money is to use legacy banks. Always has been and always will be.

      https://www.icij.org/investigations/fincen-files/hsbc-moved-…

      Yet HSBC continued to handle the Ponzi network’s massive flow of dirty money into — and out of — its accounts at the bank.

      HSBC was profiting from an international criminal scheme even while on probation for having served murderous drug cartels and other criminals. HSBC had admitted to U.S. prosecutors in 2012 that it had helped dirty money flow through its branches around the world, including at least $881 million controlled by the notorious Sinaloa cartel and other Mexican drug gangs.

      In a controversial decision, prosecutors declined to seek an indictment of the bank but instead allowed it to pay a $1.92 billion settlement and serve five years of probation during which its efforts to prevent money laundering would be monitored by a court-appointed watchdog. The court named a former top New York state financial crimes prosecutor, Michael Cherkasky.

      https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/aussie-bank….

      Australian banks washed $500 million for violent South American cocaine cartels in a sophisticated money-laundering scheme, with the proceeds of crime moving through multiple countries before it was disrupted by Australian law enforcement.

      Between 2014 and 2017 more than $100 million in drug money was funnelled through Australian banks each year before it was routed to other destinations, including south-east Asia and the Middle East.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join