From the article: Previously: Court orders Snowden to pay U.S. government $5.2 million from book sales
From the article:
The profits won’t go to America’s most famous exiled whistleblower, however. Instead, the sale is meant to benefit the Freedom of the Press Foundation, where Snowden is the president. Its board includes actor John Cusack, whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and the writer Glenn Greenwald.
This case is very interesting, because in many of the NFT sales it begs the question: did it really need to be a blockchain NFT? Was there really no entity that either is or could be the central,...
This case is very interesting, because in many of the NFT sales it begs the question: did it really need to be a blockchain NFT? Was there really no entity that either is or could be the central, trusted unit (cough NBA cough)? Or is it just riding the coattails of hot magical technical buzzwords?
In this case, yes! No Snowden org will be able to sell memorabilia on ebay, or give out patreon rewards, or start SnowdenTradingCards.com, because the US government has it out for him, and any such operation would be at serious threat to be shut down. In this case, people who trust the Ethereum blockchain can ensure that it is Snowden that is selling this token, and it will be Snowden's ETH wallet that will gain the Ethereum.
I mean.. none of those things are a reason to use a blockchain. Someone telling you an ETH wallet belongs to Snowdon doesn't mean it does any more than someone telling you a paypal address or bank...
I mean.. none of those things are a reason to use a blockchain. Someone telling you an ETH wallet belongs to Snowdon doesn't mean it does any more than someone telling you a paypal address or bank account does. Someone telling you Snowdon is selling a token doesn't mean they are either.
Additionally to that, NFT's "Smart" contracts aren't even worth the paper they're not printed on. A friend of mine is a contract lawyer and finds it hilarious how many people are throwing so much money into such poorly transacted deals. If I was spending $5.4m on something I'd want some seriously waterbloodytight paperwork - on actual paper, signed and witnessed and properly arranged via expensive lawyers - guaranteeing authenticity, provenance, ownership and so on - not an url, however immutable the url might be.. (because the target of the url is 100% fungible even if the address isn't!)
The only thing dumber than NFTs are the people buying them.
Apparently it was purchased through a DAO. So it seems this pointer to some artwork was effectively purchased via crowdfunding. If someone else wanted to buy the pointer from them, they could sell...
PleasrDAO distributes the ownership of the DAO in the form of tokens. That gives every member a fraction of its assets—the two NFTs and any funds in the treasury. Each member participates in the DAO’s governance through a group chat.
So it seems this pointer to some artwork was effectively purchased via crowdfunding. If someone else wanted to buy the pointer from them, they could sell it and split the proceeds somehow.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation seems to be located in San Francisco, so I don't think it matters how they're paid? I would guess that legally, it has some protection because the Foundation...
The Freedom of the Press Foundation seems to be located in San Francisco, so I don't think it matters how they're paid? I would guess that legally, it has some protection because the Foundation isn't Snowden, but rather a separate organization.
Having control of a Foundation seems useful, but they would probably need to worry about getting audited, so it would make sense to be careful about how they spend.
It's also not clear whether Snowden actually has the money from his book proceeds. There's a court order, but he's in Russia so it might be hard to enforce?
From the article:
Previously: Court orders Snowden to pay U.S. government $5.2 million from book sales
This case is very interesting, because in many of the NFT sales it begs the question: did it really need to be a blockchain NFT? Was there really no entity that either is or could be the central, trusted unit (cough NBA cough)? Or is it just riding the coattails of hot magical technical buzzwords?
In this case, yes! No Snowden org will be able to sell memorabilia on ebay, or give out patreon rewards, or start SnowdenTradingCards.com, because the US government has it out for him, and any such operation would be at serious threat to be shut down. In this case, people who trust the Ethereum blockchain can ensure that it is Snowden that is selling this token, and it will be Snowden's ETH wallet that will gain the Ethereum.
I mean.. none of those things are a reason to use a blockchain. Someone telling you an ETH wallet belongs to Snowdon doesn't mean it does any more than someone telling you a paypal address or bank account does. Someone telling you Snowdon is selling a token doesn't mean they are either.
Additionally to that, NFT's "Smart" contracts aren't even worth the paper they're not printed on. A friend of mine is a contract lawyer and finds it hilarious how many people are throwing so much money into such poorly transacted deals. If I was spending $5.4m on something I'd want some seriously waterbloodytight paperwork - on actual paper, signed and witnessed and properly arranged via expensive lawyers - guaranteeing authenticity, provenance, ownership and so on - not an url, however immutable the url might be.. (because the target of the url is 100% fungible even if the address isn't!)
The only thing dumber than NFTs are the people buying them.
I’m guessing that in this case it’s really just charity. They donated to Snowden’s organization because they believe in the cause.
Apparently it was purchased through a DAO.
So it seems this pointer to some artwork was effectively purchased via crowdfunding. If someone else wanted to buy the pointer from them, they could sell it and split the proceeds somehow.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation seems to be located in San Francisco, so I don't think it matters how they're paid? I would guess that legally, it has some protection because the Foundation isn't Snowden, but rather a separate organization.
Having control of a Foundation seems useful, but they would probably need to worry about getting audited, so it would make sense to be careful about how they spend.
It's also not clear whether Snowden actually has the money from his book proceeds. There's a court order, but he's in Russia so it might be hard to enforce?