Like a pisshead meeting an escalator at 2:00 am. Edit: I feel like I should say that I try not to post comments that are low-content or basically noise...but the topic is NFTs.
Like a pisshead meeting an escalator at 2:00 am.
Edit: I feel like I should say that I try not to post comments that are low-content or basically noise...but the topic is NFTs.
I could see it being the "Mr. Watson--come here--I want to see you" of the digital world. I'm sure a recording of that phone call, 146 years later, would be valuable. But would even that be worth...
I could see it being the "Mr. Watson--come here--I want to see you" of the digital world. I'm sure a recording of that phone call, 146 years later, would be valuable. But would even that be worth $2.9 million? Or a link to the recording of that?
Well, we'll see in 146 years. I wish them luck with that investment.
The money from that first transaction was donated to 16k poor households in Rwanda and Malawi. It seems he unintentionally made pretty good use of that money? I can think of somewhat better...
The money from that first transaction was donated to 16k poor households in Rwanda and Malawi. It seems he unintentionally made pretty good use of that money? I can think of somewhat better charities, but GiveDirectly is a solid choice.
And from the article, it seems he intended to give more to charity? I don't know if I believe that, but if that's true, it's unfortunate that he didn't find a buyer. We should hope for more rich people playing stupid games, as long as the results go to charity.
Once the procedurally generated images became popular (bored apes etc. etc.) nobody ever seemed to talk about buying NFTs of tweets or memes anymore. So I guess this isn't too surprising: every...
Once the procedurally generated images became popular (bored apes etc. etc.) nobody ever seemed to talk about buying NFTs of tweets or memes anymore. So I guess this isn't too surprising: every new development in NFTs might just dispel the hype of the previous Big Thing, revealing them as fads with no long term value.
People often say that fiat money only has value because people believe it does, but it's a lot harder to make people believe in the value of things today, when there's so much advertising everywhere trying to convince everyone of the value of something or other.
Kinda hard to feel sorry for a guy who has 2.9 million dollars to drop on the concept of a single tweet. And disappointed that this guardian article reads more like a press release for the guy to...
Kinda hard to feel sorry for a guy who has 2.9 million dollars to drop on the concept of a single tweet.
And disappointed that this guardian article reads more like a press release for the guy to hype it up more than the pointing and laughing it should be.
The UK has incredibly broad libel laws, often abused by the wealthy/powerful to silence journalists (even international ones not based in the UK), so I imagine that's probably why The Guardian was...
The UK has incredibly broad libel laws, often abused by the wealthy/powerful to silence journalists (even international ones not based in the UK), so I imagine that's probably why The Guardian was sticking to presenting just the facts here.
That's the free market I guess.
I don't know of any response beyond a pithy line like that, but $6,800 apparently is the current value of the tweet.
NFT mysticism meets the real world, I suppose.
Like a pisshead meeting an escalator at 2:00 am.
Edit: I feel like I should say that I try not to post comments that are low-content or basically noise...but the topic is NFTs.
This is "the Mona Lisa of the digital world"?
I could see it being the "Mr. Watson--come here--I want to see you" of the digital world. I'm sure a recording of that phone call, 146 years later, would be valuable. But would even that be worth $2.9 million? Or a link to the recording of that?
Well, we'll see in 146 years. I wish them luck with that investment.
The money from that first transaction was donated to 16k poor households in Rwanda and Malawi. It seems he unintentionally made pretty good use of that money? I can think of somewhat better charities, but GiveDirectly is a solid choice.
And from the article, it seems he intended to give more to charity? I don't know if I believe that, but if that's true, it's unfortunate that he didn't find a buyer. We should hope for more rich people playing stupid games, as long as the results go to charity.
Once the procedurally generated images became popular (bored apes etc. etc.) nobody ever seemed to talk about buying NFTs of tweets or memes anymore. So I guess this isn't too surprising: every new development in NFTs might just dispel the hype of the previous Big Thing, revealing them as fads with no long term value.
People often say that fiat money only has value because people believe it does, but it's a lot harder to make people believe in the value of things today, when there's so much advertising everywhere trying to convince everyone of the value of something or other.
Kinda hard to feel sorry for a guy who has 2.9 million dollars to drop on the concept of a single tweet.
And disappointed that this guardian article reads more like a press release for the guy to hype it up more than the pointing and laughing it should be.
The UK has incredibly broad libel laws, often abused by the wealthy/powerful to silence journalists (even international ones not based in the UK), so I imagine that's probably why The Guardian was sticking to presenting just the facts here.