I am sure others have this question in their mind when they see people buying NFT for millions of dollars.
Question: Are people who buy and sell NFT for millions in it together?
Purpose: To make “headlines”.
To broaden the NFT market.
To convince naive people “you can do it too!”
To convince naive people “NFT is worth Millions”
Who benefits:
NFT trading platform
My take:
The world is a confusing place to live in for a small fry like me.
I am kinda sick of seeing NFT related stuff on news.
Yet you posted this propagating further awareness, discussion and debate which is exactly what they want everyone to do to remain relevant…
Ok, that is a very good point… didn’t think that far and I agree with you that this post is not the wisest move if I want to deter people from knowing about it.
I just wish people know more about this but in a negatively light instead of it being something useful.
I created this posted partly out of my frustration, which I guess is not the best motivation either.
https://twitter.com/RAC/status/1490330491379060736
I don't get why people would sign away 30 years of their life, to buy some shitty building that's a pita to maintain.
What may be perfectly legitimate to one person, is a complete scam to another. There's a lot of sides to any issue.
It seems you read news articles which bait you into thinking people easily make millions of dollars from NFT's. The news is in itself, a scam preying upon our flaws with it's clickbait.
A house is more useful than a picture of an ape.
This. A home is a real, physical thing. You can't shelter/live in monkey pictures.
Sure, the house itself can be useful.
My comment was more in regards to the cultural norm of signing a contract for 30 years of debt. On some level, you are playing into a much more sophisticated scam, in which consumers justify the validity of their decision making because they saw number go up.
It’s just a shitty application of cool, powerful technology.
Has been foisted by scam artists.
Those apes, etc, are stupid money grabs.
Beeple, Bosslogic, etc, make good use.
I think if you look at what it is, a record of transaction, it has some potential. But that potential is definitely not realised in trading apes. I think the real world use cases will be for large corporates and government for large transactions (i.e. real estate titles) or for trading patents.
Much like ETH smart contracts, etc. It is essentially digitally replacing many functions that lawyers perform.
What's wrong with a line in a database for a record of transaction? We've gotten quite good at those.
We need a place where there is actually a problem with keeping records of transaction. Tracking ownership of real estate titles has been hard at points in the past but is now very easy. Most of the processes we have now is not about the transaction itself but the regulatory framework - collecting taxes, keeping public records, maintaining privacy and legal implications.
Should anyone be able to download the whole blockchain history with real estate titles? Who gets to transact on it? Who ensures foreign ownership laws are upheld? What happens if someone dies, who transfers it to an estate? The record of these processes aren't hard, the actual process itself it.
Because you can't edit a blockchain record without consensus of the blockchain, whereas you can edit this in a DB.
This isn't exclusive to public blockchains either, i.e. you can do this without traded tokens. This would allow any business or organisations to set up rules as to who can access blockchain records
Should anyone be able to download the whole blockchain history with real estate titles? Who gets to transact on it? Who ensures foreign ownership laws are upheld?
This is a concern with data stored in a DB more than on a blockchain. The company/org that owns the blockchain would have these capabilities.
There is a reason why most of Australian finance and tech companies are investing in blockchain tech, which isn't equivalent to investing in cryptocurrencies btw
Because you can't edit a blockchain record without consensus of the blockchain, whereas you can edit this in a DB.
That’s my point, you need to be able to edit it. A court case might decide change of ownership applied retrospectively on a land title. The blockchain would show transactions that legally never existed.
It kind of defeats the purpose if the db is the source of truth, what is the blockchain doing for anyone?
@freefall101: There is no DB for blockchain infrastructure. Blockchain is mostly not editable also, at least in my experience, instead you would need a new record and reference the existing record. This inherently builds in security, because unlike a traditional DB, the record cannot be edited.
Blockchain is mostly not editable also
Bitcoin is immutable. Only new Tx, no edits and no deletes.
That’s my point, you need to be able to edit it. A court case might decide change of ownership applied retrospectively on a land title. The blockchain would show transactions that legally never existed.
No. The Bitcoin ledger is immutable. The only way to transfer ownership is to Tx the asset and have it recorded with date, time and address.
The Court can issue an order to the holder to Tx the asset to another party.
@freefall101: it seems like you don't understand the reason why decentralised public ledgers (or blockchains) were built in the first place… a database controlled by a single entity or collection of concentrated entities are able to arbitrarily enforce rules of ownership on people, whether it be ownership of financial assets or cultural assets (NFT's).
for instance… If you run a service which people use or even existentially rely on you can control those people with the threat of shutting down their livelyhood. a centralised DB is a weak point in which a government can seize that and shut it down and it would only take a room full of politicians to decide that this must happen - sometimes even fewer.
Imagine if you had savings in your bank account but the economy was beginning to waver… if that room full of politicians decided that a good way to get the economy going is if it forced people to spend their savings on new TV's and other consumer goods… what if they decided that the best way to force this is to emergency legislate that any savings not spent after a certain date would be wiped clear from bank accounts? and they would be able to do that as they could just seize the DB's maintained by the banks.
This example seems extreme and i admit, very unlikely in this country… but you look at a place like china and you will see total social coercion because the state has control or access to control every centralised DB and system.
Thats why we must have databases that can't "just be changed".
@mitchalbrown: The easier way to explain Bitcoin vs DB is Lehman Brothers "cooking the books".
The Lehman Brothers scandal of 2008
In 2008, the world discovered the Lehman Brothers, a global financial services firm, hid more than $50 billion in loans. The key players were Lehman executives and auditors, Ernst & Young. After acquiring mortgage lenders between 2003 and 2004, they began disguising the loans as sales.
https://www.medius.com/blog/cooking-the-books-accounting-sca…
Cooking the books with Bitcoin is impossible.
@freefall101
I see absolutely no advantage or use for lage corps or gov transactions or for trading patents. This problem has long since been solved and doesn't require NFT's or blockchain to achieve non-repudiation, whats more it can be done far easier and cheaper without said technologies.
Doesn't matter what you or I think though. Here's a real use that is currently being used today. Lots of Aussie banks, insurance companies and super providers have moved a lot of their public disclosure statements to blockchain as a result of the royal commission. There currently isn't a better auditable way to, prove clients have been given the latest pds. It's a much better solution than providing APIs to a thousand providers, or having issuers have to upload each one individually into their systems.
@ginormousgiraffe: most have done nothing of the sort, many tried and reversed that stance. Most blockchain projects have failed, not because it doesn't work, but because it doesn't offer anything not already available. You don't need blockchain to provide auditability and yes their are many better ways to do it already in existence, databases with non repudiation and signed transaction logs have existed for decades.
You mean Beeple, the guy who said art NFTs are a complete bubble and will crash? And also sold an art NFT for $70m (and kept the copyright, lol).
The issue is that it's a solution looking for a problem. Digital art might be it (particularly proving ownership), but it doesn't actually protect ownership in any more that DRM "solved" streaming problems for movie companies.
From a very entertaining movie. Or think about NFT this way, your wife/partner been screwing ( excepts you ) around with everyone that you know/dont know. But you're kinda alright with it, because you have the digital married certificate LUL.
Yeah mate, I have 40 jpegs of the Mona Lisa. Shit's worthless now
I'd like to see it crash in the hope that it will make the dust settle.
Only then legit use cases (which I think will be more boring but more useful) will arise and that industry can move on.
Corey Doctorow skewers NFTs quite nicely:
https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/08/tina-v-tapas/#spoilsports…
But it's nonsense. A handful of grifters are going to make fabulous amounts of money and retire to the Cayman Islands, nearly everyone else will lose their shirts.
It's the biggest scam since the gfc.
Screenshot.
Is it a scam or just a way to separate stupid people from their cash?
I think they are the same thing considering that all of the humanity is stupid.
LOL is that statement from a stupid person ? Should I listen to that person ?
I like NFTs because they have a good chance at smearing the whole crypto scene and maybe getting some sensibility back into play.
YOLO moon or bust you coward.
A scam and the worst in almost every possible way. Hard to overstate how bad they are.
A handful of genuine artists have been pulled into it too, and it will stain their reputation in future, when the grift becomes clearer. I’m sorry they fell for it, but they had plenty of warnings.
If you were an artist how could you not jump on the train? These people are making more money in a year than they would have made in their whole life.
The artists making money are very small in number. Most of the big transactions are scam stuff like apes.
If you said to most artists, would you sell your art to this Russian gangster who makes his cash from trafficking Eastern European sex workers, so he can launder his money, they would say no.
If you asked them if they would sell their art via Amway multi-level-marketing, where people are pressured to hassle their friends and family to sign up to give a cut to the buyer, most would also say no.
If you asked most artists if they would sell hundreds of copies of their work, then run off with the money without delivering, most would say no.
But because the NFT grift is deliberately built in a complex way, the crappy scam is currently less visible.
Most artists just want to make art, and would love it if NFTs were a real way to get paid that didn’t hurt the environment, naive buyers and their own integrity.
The artists issuing NFTs are being used to confer legitimacy on the scam, they just haven’t realised yet that their integrity is being stolen, and for many less famous artists, they are making no money because it costs so much to mint an NFT isn the first place.
When a ‘real’ artist releases an NFT, it makes it easier for all the other scam NFTs to sucker people.
morals?
How can you feel good selling an image for say $10k, when the buyer then holds something worthless? Said artist isnt going to be looked on very favourably in the future.
If you're happy to make money that way, great - but don't for a second think you're any better than a scammer.
Digital money laundering.
online red rooaster
Big time scam fuelling the other huge scam crypto, this video explains it well
"Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs"
https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g
Who here can explain what an NFT is in technical terms?
Sure, if you agree to follow up with your reasoning why it isn’t a scam.
The NFT is an entry on a blockchain, typically ethereum, that encodes a piece of data that is cryptographically unique (non-fungible, even). While that piece of data could potentially be something digital like an image or program, NFTs as they are minted usually only include a URL that points to an image stored on a website, or other digital file.
The blockchain ledger allows for a record of transactions where parties can trade that piece of data, recording any transactions and providing a source of the latest ‘owner’ that cannot be repudiated, without the transactions relying on traditional ownership contracts.
The upshot being that everyone who agrees to respect the cryptographic ledger, will agree which account is holding the piece of information (bookmark).
Importantly, on its own, it confers neither the digital item’s provenance or authenticity, provides no guarantee that the file it is pointing to won’t be changed to a turd emoji, or bestows any intellectual property rights.
If you need help understanding how public ledger encryption works too, i can take a shot, but you probably should have looked into it before you invested all your money.
One of the most entertaining parts of the NFT grift is when the lightbulb comes on for ordinary people and they realise the $1m transaction was to own a bookmark pointing to a file on a web server THAT THE BUYER DOES NOT OWN IN ANY WAY.
The idea that people are genuinely paying big dollars for this is garbage. 100% of buyers are speculating that there will be a greater fool, or that they can launder money.
I guess there is a tiny minority of rubes who might actually spend real cash on an NFT. Happy for you to reply to this message and explain why you did. I’d be interested.
The idea that people are genuinely paying big dollars for this is garbage. 100% of buyers are speculating that there will be a greater fool, or that they can launder money.
Correct.
People aren't spending 50k on a picture of a monkey drawn by a 12 year old because they want it or they think it looks nice . They're paying for it because they think they can then sell it for MORE to someone other goober.
they realise the $1m transaction was to own a bookmark pointing to a file on a web serve
Wasn't there a story about a group of people buying an NFT version of a book and then wanting to claim copyright because they thought that it meant they owned the book?
Absolutely bonkers.
Hey, just want to preface this with the fact I do not own NFTs, but that I am a software engineer, so I am intrigued by the space.
Your points are right until you mention the web server and that the buyer doe not own it in any way. It is hosted on IPFS which is decentralised and nobody owns it, thats the point. Nobody can just change the pointer or the image hosted. That is also the point.
Just wanted to clear that up.
@tonaye-aye: IPFS is a nice idea, but where is your file actually hosted in IPFS?
It works kind of like bittorrent. Random 'peers' may have your file or even just parts of your file if they have requested it recently and it is still sitting in their cache.
So who is interested in requesting your random NFT art other than you? Probably nobody
So you need to host your files yourself, or they will eventually disappear forever lol
@trapper: Yeah that's the funny thing, if all peers drop off, potentially the file is removed forever!
IPFS orgs give an incentive to provide this service, just like miners in bitcoins network receive an incentive for keeping the network up. But without this incentive, or if people lose interest in the project it can fall apart - but probably won't…at least for now lol.
@tonaye-aye: It's not that all the peers need to drop off though. The peers just need to not request your file for a few days, and why would they?
Your file only exists in their cache for a short time after it was last requested by them, it will get cleared out to make space for more recent requests.
@rektrading: Arweave and the issues it attempts to solve, is such a fascinating idea
For those who want to delve deeper
https://modern.finance/episode/arweave-store-data-forever-wi…
@rektrading: Interesting, lets see how it adds up - compare with say, iCloud pricing.
$4.50 per month for 200GB of reusable iCloud storage, or $2167 for 200GB of 'permanent' (write once) Arweave storage.
So would take 40 years to break even with iCloud, assuming iCloud pricing doesn't improve at all over the entire 40 years.
With larger amounts it's even worse. 2TB on iCloud is only $15pm, with Arweave I'm looking at $21,674 for 2TB -> 120 years until break even.
@trapper: I wouldn't think twice about forking out $1000s to store a Cryptopunks or BAYC.
BTW AWS isn't permanent. Their server goes down now and again.
https://awsmaniac.com/aws-outages/
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-…
Amazon AWS had a power failure, their backup generators failed, which killed their EBS serversl, which took all of our data with it. Then it took them four days to figure this out and tell us about it.
Reminder: The cloud is just a computer in Reston with a bad power supply.
https://twitter.com/PragmaticAndy/status/1168916144121634818…
@rektrading: 'permanent' meaning write once.
With Arweave you're paying a premium for cloud storage that can only ever be used once for one thing ever.
@rektrading: Don't worry there is no chance of losing your cryptopunk, anyone and everyone can make a copy :)
@trapper: I think you are missing the point. It's not about copying the NFTs art, anyone can just copy and screenshot. It's about the exclusivity. Like owning a Rolex or buying diamonds - you join an exclusive 'club' and want to flaunt it. In the same way people can buy fake designer goods or fake diamonds, but everyone knows it's not the same as showing off the real thing - if that floats your boat.
It's a dumb point mind you, I think it is a bubble that will burst and trash NFT projects pollute the landscape and stop cool projects from gaining steam. The tech (in my opinion) is cool and interesting, so don't disrespect the tech behind it, that's what I am defending haha. Not some dumb apes or other poopoo pictures.
@tonaye-aye: I think we’re mixing up two things. IPFS provides a hash that says “this file, with this hash, is identical to this other file with the same hash”.
A lot like how software is distributed with an MD5 checksum.
Storing the actual data in IPFS looks a lot like storing files in a torrent - only as good as the last seeder.
Airweave may fix this, but it seems very costly.
@mskeggs: Ahh I gotcha, I re-read your comments and initially thought you were suggesting someone could come along and just alter your image. Which obviously is possible…just thought you were implying it was common/easy.
@tonaye-aye: An NFT is not a Rolex, fake or real though. It's a link to a Rolex that isn't even yours.
Any number of identical links can be put into any number of new NFT's.
You only claim to fame would be that you had the earliest link to a Rolex (that isn't your Rolex) in a particular block chain.
And as pointed out above, that link may one day no longer even work. The whole thing is ridiculous.
@trapper: Again, you are missing the point. I'm going to continue to play devils advocate here. People who own an NFT own it to be a member, they do not care about the link to whatever goofy profile picture.
I agree the whole thing is ridiculous, it doesn't make sense. I used the rolex/diamond example to just illustrate that it is stupid. People buy things to show off and flaunt - it's a dumb human condition. That is the point. You are thinking about the ownership to the image/graphic/asset too much, they want ownership of something exclusive that is immutable on the blockchain to prove they are part of a 'club'.
A better example would be VIP sections at a night club/event. You go to the same event, listen to the same music/see the same performance, but people opt to flaunt their wealth and flex. It is dumb, don't get me wrong - but it has nothing to do with the asset itself, just what it represents.
Your explanation was a good one.
My opinion on NFT is that they're a non-divisible digital asset that exists on a crypto blockchain/s and that records the date and time of the Tx for that asset.
EIP-721 as a protocol is not a scam. What users choose to do with the protocol is their business.
It's one of those speculative things. It's worth what people are willing to pay. Will they continue to remain valuable? While it has potential, most speculative items that hold no real world value become for the most part worthless.
it's the 'what people are willing to pay' part that is the issue. People should only part their money with things that will provide them value, ie stocks have underlying income or assets that purport their value. Real artworks have a history and can physically be owned and shown in gallery/wall at home
Sure, maybe an NFT can be displayed on a screen at your home, and in time they, like real art may have a value - but right now the value most speculators see is what they can shill some other poor shmuck for in the future - unfortunately too much of a scam. Plus most of them are simply electronically generated variations of a monkey - do you really want to own that?
I don't think NFTs are a scam, I think of them as more like a digital license for limited run digital art. What is a scam is the reliance on energy intensive cryptocurrencies/blockchains. Verifiable licensed copies of digital art is a good thing, but crypto/blockchain is a bad thing. What we call "NFT" today will evolve into something environmentally friendly soon enough. And it's 2021, we should be collecting and selling digital art. When you bought an authorised limited print of a modern famous painting it holds resale value, same as a Pokemon card or baseball card. It's still just a print from a digital scan of the original, they could have easily printed a million copies if they wanted instead of limiting it to a print run of 1,000. NFT is the exact same thing except instead of buying a print you are buying a copy of the digital file itself. You could always have made your own scan (photograph) of a famous painting and made your own print, but it wouldn't be worth anything to collectors of art. Authorised prints are worth real money though, if the painting is a nice one that people would like to own.
I think this is where the harm lies.
With a traditional limited edition print, you trusted the artist to sell 1000, or however many, and often they had a numbered certificate of authenticity.
An NFT provides a verifiable receipt book - you can see how many certificates were issued and who bought and sold them.
It doesn’t prevent the artist doing another run of the print, and it only gives any intellectual property rights if there is an accompanying contract to issue them, which relies on local law, not some blockchain magic.
Considering it costs a lot to mint NFTs, and the authenticity features could be trivially provided with a digital signing for free, the question becomes, what does the “NFT” deliver.
So far, it offers access to a pool of money launderers and scammers seeking to inflate the cost of digital collectibles sold that way, but who would reject buying the art without the NFT overhead - because the value is 100% in the scam, not the art.
This is all you need to know about the future value of current NFTs.
I would say part of the problem also lies in that being it is a decentralised ecosystem, there is no singular way in which to entrench one "version" of an NFT as being the true one. In a traditional institutionalised disagreement, you could take someone to court or show in the existing "system" how you own an asset (keys to the car, title to the house, etc etc) and it could be enforced by the governing system (army, laws, police etc).
In a decentralised system, there is no enforcement or agreement upon which system to take as being the "most true". An artist can sell the same NFT on any of the multiple thousands of blockchains that they would all be as legitimate as each other.
The only way I see NFTs having any sort of utility, would be to actually introduce utility. Think "Second Life" where only users with particular NFTs in their account could use a particular graphic or 3d model in their game. This would introduce value and legitimacy, the software business would essentially decide which NFTs are legitimate in their game/software and hence would provide value/utility to the users. The problem is that this reintroduces the same problem that NFTs were trying(?) to solve, which was decentralisation. You can't have a singular entity deciding which chain is legitimate in a decentralised system…
Will be interesting to watch it play out but until there is a utility for these things, their value should be reflected in its price, which is zero.
Except most people buy art prints because they look good on a wall and make it possible to display art in your home without dumping an exorbitant amount of money on an original, not as an investment. Right click + saving a high res image off the net and printing it off on my laser printer isn't going to be the the same as a professionally produced art print.
Are people who buy and sell NFT for millions in it together?
Same as anything really. Take Elon and Crypto for example. He'll buy millions of Doge, make a tweet about it, watch his portfolio go up 25% and then sell.
Convince a bunch of rich influencers to purchase bored apes and flex, watch the popularity of them take off amongst us plebs, the rich influencers can then sell them for big profit.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
The difficult part of this is that no one can prove that they are doing this unless they openly share that they are actually doing it.
But I agree with you in that I am also convinced they are doing this. It is just too easy to manipulate the system with their influence.
Because it happens on the public ledger, you can follow transactions by address, so some unsophisticated NFT scammers leave a trail of crypto transfers that show they were related parties.
Same as anything really. Take Elon and Crypto for example. He'll buy millions of Doge, make a tweet about it, watch his portfolio go up 25% and then sell.
That's quite the assumption to conclude. Musk recently sold more Tesla shares for cash, than the combined market value of every Dogecoin in existence.
Yes. Clearly the conclusion must be that the best use of his time, is to spend it immorally influencing twitter readers for minor financial gain.
Yes. Clearly the conclusion must be that the best use of his time, is to spend it immorally influencing twitter readers for
minor financial gainlolz.
Ftfy
Well Tesla accepts DOGE as payment, therefore he still has a stake in what he is influencing.
From what I've heard (not verified), the price is pegged to dollars and they calculate based on the floating spot price of Doge, for those who choose to use it as their means of payment.
Are you kidding? It's had a market cap of 120 billion dollars. He could literally make billions of dollars from a single tweet. He is probably cashing out doge profits and buying Tesla stock. It would explain the absurd share price.
It has a circulating supply of 132billion units. The "market cap" of every DOGE token at the current spot price of US16.6c, equates to around US$21.97 billion
http://www.openinsider.com/insider/Musk-Elon/1494730
Musk's actual sales of Tesla stock and equivalents, came to US$16.4 billion in cash.
It's easy to throw around such simple reasoning, to try and explain the rationale of what is an incredibly complex market, with far too many participants.
@idjces: Its current market cap is only 22 billion. I said it has been as high as 120 billion. I'm sure he could have made more than 16.4 billion by selling his doge. I don't really know if that's a conceivable figure but for a person of that amount of wealth I don't see why he couldn't.
And you're right. It is easy to throw around simple reasoning, when you see it happen. It's not as if he's only done it once either! Don't talk about pump and dump like it is a complex mechanism.
I'm sure he could have made more than 16.4 billion by selling his doge
Not a chance the market depth on doge would support that
Musk recently sold more Tesla shares for cash,
To pay his tax bills :)
His doge manipulations are just walking around/play money/because he can(and I'm sure a few of his close friends benefit nicely as well)
To pay his tax bills :)
Yep. But these sales can be proven as fact. An exchange that can be verified.
Everything else is just conjecture based on someone's narrow, malinformed understanding of the world.
You could easily argue any of these opinions are entirely illogical based on further information.
You could easily argue any of these opinions are entirely illogical based on further information.
Such as?
@Mr Haj: Pick a theory and there's an equivalent counter theory.
You theorize he manipulates markets as a means to extract value. What's his reasoning to want to do that, via that method?
He could have sold his stockholdings at any point over the last 10+ years to buy anything he desires. Strangely, he only ever sold stock in 2021. One of many potential reasons being, that this financial year he will have a giant debt due to the IRS.
What use would he have for these new funds? He could already fund himself perfectly adequately during the last 30 years of his career.
He appears to have little material desire to acquire more possessions.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/elon-musk-sold-last-remai…
“People will attack me and say, ‘oh, he’s got all these possessions. He’s got all these houses.’ OK, now I don’t have them any more,”
Whatever theory you or me come to, will be based on incomplete information
What's his reasoning to want to do that, via that method?
To make a quick buck. Not sure why you're talking about possessions. I didn't once imply that he was materialistic. All I said was that he makes tweets to profit from doge. Seems to me like you're holding the bag. You're awfully defensive of the man.
@Mr Haj: lol, i've never owned doge, nor an NFT picture.
Your explanation makes about as much logic to me, as the premise that people simply enjoy spending $1 million for a picture of a monkey with a hat.
It`s the simplest conclusion so it must hold truth.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Crypto, NFT, stock market, real estate. All of these asset classes are literally about the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
You may feel good about making a couple hundred on crypto, but the big guys are making billions. someone is losing there, and it isn't them.
people holding cash are the losers.
Fiat 💵 = 🚯 🔥
Say that to the person who bought BTC at ATH and has seen their $5k turn into $2k, or the dumb dumb who bought an NFT for $10k and can't sell it.
HoLDiNg CaSh Is FoR LoSeRs. So is getting scammed.
@[Deactivated]: what about the guy that bought facebook shares at all time highs last week and saw his money diminish by 25%…
@[Deactivated]: Bitcoin's all time high was just over 90k and now sitting at just over 60k. Not sure how you could lose 60% of value when the value has only dropped ~35%. It's becoming difficult to insult bitcoin as it is becoming more established and mainstream every year. Its performance speaks for itself.
I was talking about assets in general (i.e. stocks and real estate). You're right that the wealthy are making more from these assets than the poor. But the poor who are participating are still better off than the poor who are putting their savings in a bank.
I don't think that greater fool theory is a scam, but I so agree that some NFTs are scams (i.e. anyone that has sold to themselves to inflate the price).
@[Deactivated]: The first #bitcoin was mined in 2009.
People have had 13Y to buy Bitcoin. People that can't plan their entry deserves what they get.
https://twitter.com/itchio/status/1490141815294414856