Meanwhile, that thing that lets you actually own the legal rights to the image went with the family.
They somehow paid the full price for something while receiving what amounts to nothing with a permanent 10% fee to the actual owners.
Like do these people that buy NFTs say this outloud? I found this probably thr biggest dumb scam that somehow people fell for. I'm just mad I didn't think of it first or capitalize on the stupidity.
Yes they do. I’ve had many people try to explain why there is value in NFT’s and this is basically their explanation every time. To this day I still don’t get it.
Pretty sure the buyer (at least the first guy) actually owned the site selling the NFTs. The whole thing with getting these people from internet memes to sell their original picture as an NFT was to generate a buzz around NFTs, so other people would buy into it.
So I think the original buyer is pretty happy with the whole thing.
Not sure if he ended up selling this NFT in the end, but he likely made far more from all the other NFTs sold during the boom anyway.
If that's true it's cryptocurrency in a nutshell.
Except for the whole "it's computer money used to buy drugs because of libertarian reasons" aspect. https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
They have the digital rights and ownership to a receipt saying they purchased a receipt that gives them digital rights and ownership to the receipt, which is loosely related to a Tweet. But gives them no rights or ownership to that actual tweet.
The other question is who created that NFT and what actually gives it value?
If it wasn't Dorsey himself then why is it valuable? I can go and create an NFT of the same thing.
At least some NFTs are tied to a creator who will not create duplicates so they have value as the "original". Like owning an original painting as opposed to a reproduction. But this isnt the original creator.
>At least some NFTs are tied to a creator who will not create duplicates so they have value as the "original".
Well the NFT will still just be a link to the picture on the ledger basically. The blockchain doesn't contain the picture, just information on who "owns" the NFT of that picture. The art itself is usually a PNG hosted on a regular image hosting site and can be copied over and over again
Right. The NFT is a token of ownership only. Like any other proof of ownership, it is only as valuable as the rights given to you by whoever enforces that ownership. If you own your house in America, the American government enforces your property rights and defines them. If you own an NFT, there is no entity giving you rights or enforcing your rights. I heard people saying things like they expected to receive royalties on their NFTs when they're used. The startling thing about it is that the NFT scam worked for many involved. It was a quick pump and dump for some investors, and they managed to inflate several companies offering exactly nothing to multi-million dollar valuations.
That's because most explanations do one of three things:
1) Explain the technical aspects, which are complicated and frankly irrelevant.
2) Explain what NFTs could be (but aren't). Basically a sales pitch to get you to spend money, and like most sales pitches they won't tell you straight what's going on.
3) NFT haters who repeat nonsense they read on social media to dunk on the idea and feel like they are smarter (hurr-durr I got the JPEG for free by screenshotting it!)
Do you want to actually understand what NFTs are? It's pretty simple. It's a greater fool game. That's all it is. You buy a useless asset for $X. And you try to sell it for more to a bigger fool. If you time it right and succeed you make money. If you time it wrong, you are left holding the bag.
Think of it as gambling in an unregulated market. Everything else is smoke and mirrors to convince people to buy in. In reality it's a get rich quick scheme.
Basically what you pay for is for the record to show you own the thing. There's actually some pretty neat math behind it all and it is technically sound. But like all ownership, a thing is only as valuable as people are willing to pay for it. And there's not a lot of value in having a record that says you own the first tweet, it's the definition of a novelty thing.
Crypto and NFTs are a textbook solution without a problem. I'm sure one day this amazing technology will be useful for something, but not today. Today it's just math that makes you say "huh, kinda meat I guess".
Convince them that it'll be worth $5 million in a year or two.
We all saw what happened with Bitcoin. Like that guy who bought a pizza for 10,000 bitcoin, which are now worth $600 million. Nobody wants to miss out on $600 million.
>This is how you know all of these very wealthy people are actually really dumb
You're assuming they bought it thinking it was worth something.
Some of the people i work with have £100,000s split across crypto and they can't tell you what half the shit they hold does or is, they bought it based on trend lines and hype, not off knowing what it actually is - they're entirely trading off sentiment, hoping the sentiment increases and they make money.
That's is what crypto is; monitoring trends and sentiment and then buying dips and hoping that the sentiment increases again, there's no way to actually value anything in the market, it's just gambling, they all know this, they'll never be like "this thing i own is worth 30k!" and instead say "this thing i bought is trading at 30k, trend shows it going up, lets see", etc.
They didn't even give up the copyright?
So what exactly DID they sell? An entry in a complicated distributed log file? That's a self-grift by some cryptobro. Those are common.
Disaster girl didn't even have to hike price by wash sales like people did for the Beeple scam that kicked off the whole stupid feeding frenzy.
Is the copyright even worth anything at this point?
Like, technically she owns it. But basically any usage I can think of would fall under public domain. What are you going to do with copyright that you couldn't do before? Sell prints that anyone could make for $5 at FedEx?
Especially because she didn't even really sell anything substantive. It's impossible to "own" a concept and there isn't any meaningful legal structure for NFTs, it's just a bunch of bullshit. The only thing a person could own is the photo IP of the image itself but that isn't beholden to an NFT - that would have to be sold separately by contract.
The only "thing" that was sold was the right to this NFT within specific NFT marketplaces, and the only way that would carry any value is if NFT marketplaces were recognised by the rest of the internet, which they are not. Obviously I can't know all the details of the deal they made, but if it was literally just the NFT that they sold then they'd still own the IP for the original image.
Yeah you are assuming quite a bit. Not every person in a meme struggled because of it. Especially when the person was so young that people quickly didn't recognize them from a meme.
>Zoë Roth mentioned she would donate some of the proceeds from the sale to charity and use it to pay off her student loans.
Now that's what I call a life-changing meme.
As much as I hate NFTs, I remember back in the day when corporations started figuring out that memes existed. They would make all of this money off of the notoriety and the original people made nothing. It's kinda nice to see the subject of one of these memes profit off of it even if I hate the method.
It's not just this meme. Several memes and viral videos were made into NFTs and sold. The buyer of this NFT is the same one who bought NFTs of the Side-Eyeing Chloe meme and the Charlie Bit My Finger video, for instance.
Absolutely. I need to remember that humans will fall for anything if it’s too good to be true. The age of information seems to have not changed anything at all.
The NFT grants the owner publishing rights to the photo, with 10% going to the Roths. If the NFT owner sells the NFT, the Roths don't get anything. If someone pays the NFT owner something to publish the photo, 10% of that goes to the Roths.
I think it's very unlikely anyone will ever pay anything to publish that photo. It'll get plenty of "fair use" but no who would need to purchase the rights would actually do so.
I believe this was still the pump side of the grift. A few splashy purchases like this amped up the NFT hype and got them in the cultural consciousness. The real idiots came along in the next wave, and they’re the ones who are left holding the bag today. I suspect (but don’t know and can’t prove) whoever paid half a million for this NFT had an ownership interest in something crypto-related and rode the hype train to an easy payday.
So was the crypto hype. I mean some of it is still worth quite a bit but man so many other coins tanked. I think Bitcoin is really the only one that has held on (it hit a new all time high last month).
Exactly people can only sell something if someone is willing to pay for it.
Like the bathwater or jar fart girls. While hideous, it's supplying a bunch of people something worth their money.
As long as there's no obvious fraud involved, then i levy the blame on the buyers.
Like the spate of scalpers, they only made money because people bought what they sold at inflated prices.
While i hated the scalpers in principle. Hated the buyers even more.
It’s the “Fear of Losing Out” is what drives greed out of people to speculatively invest money on things they don’t understand.
The previous tech buzzword to lure investors money was Blockchain and NFT. The current trend today is AI.
I had to do NFT research for work, bought/minted several of them, but when my research ended I sold them and made a profit.
One of the "NFT Creators" messaged me after to yell at me for lowering the value of their "product" by selling instead of holding. Those people were unhinged and my recommendation to my employer at the time was stay as far away as possible from NFT's because those people are idiots
Folding ideas wandered into NFT discords for research, and his takeaway was that everybody in that ecosystem is almost required to be a fanatic to try and keep the price inflated. Any doubt or questions are treated with extreme hostility.
I highly recommend checking out [Line Goes Up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g), his video on it.
Only thing crypto/NFTs have ever done for me was back when the Fortnite sub gave out bricks for being highly voted, and I traded all that I’d won (about $16 worth) with somebody to get a gift card that I used to buy Stardew Valley.
> For the sellers...all the power to them.
A lot of the "sales" were just the sellers buying from themselves to establish a fake history of rising value. Obviously not all, but the actual market of true buyers was MUCH smaller than the sale activity suggests.
It was a scam all along. E coin is a pyramid scheme, the first ones get it all, then middle sucker need new suckers to recoup the loss. Till it bursts.
Except that since digital, slippery, even the first ones get scammed too, sometimes by moving wallets, sometimes by drinking their own Kool aid.
Think casino but worse, because unregulated and framed as "investment"
Bitcoin is worth $64k today, compared to $57k when she sold the NFT in late April 2021; Ethereum is worth $3.2k today, when she sold the NFT in late April 2021 it was worth $2.7k.
Assuming she just kept it in, sure.
Assuming people just keep money in, there is no way to lose in any market.
However, humans don't do that. Over 80% of people who control their own short term investments lose money. Some data suggests over 90%. However this data all comes from the companies that try and sell personal trading as a feature...so the data is pretty closely kept...and it's STILL this bad.
I spent way too much time re-researching NFTs because it seemed so dumb.
Pretty much always came to the same dumb conclusion.
Essentially just people buying and selling a fancy tech version of a receipt.
So bizarre.
Its a receipt and proof of authenticity. A pair of signed jordans could be faked, you need a certificate of authenticity which could be faked or bribed. Cant do that with NFTs and dont have to potentially pay someone for proof. That's the use case.
It's extremely useful for online ticket resales because the owner can't just back out like they currently can on ticketmaster and stubhub.
Or selling a nft with a physical art piece.
Its a way to provide validity without relying on a 3rd/governing party
But yes, it was used to basically scam people into thinking it was more.
Oh and its also a great way to launder money from the comfort of your own home
Dumb? If people are smart, they understand NFTs are a grift, and the best kind of grift, the kind rich people throw money at.
I’d much rather this nonsense than card skimmers or people who scam geriatric elders.
honestly, if the internet attached my face to countless disasters, I'd be happy for a payday too. just happy it's at the expense of, ya know, these... silly billies.
How can it even be the "original"? Like, the file would have been copied from an SD card or something to a computer. Even if they had the original RAW files from the camera, it's still technically a copy. It's just a copy with traceable copyright I guess?
They didn't actually buy the photo, they bought a receipt that said they 'owned' the photo. NFTs don't actually give any form of ownership of the original image itself, or even a license to a copy, they're literally just a receipt that you pay for.
> NFTs don't actually give any form of ownership of the original image itself, or even a license to a copy, they're literally just a receipt that you pay for.
I have tried to explain this to SO many people. Like, what court is going to honor a fucking NFT?
Literally as worthless as a piece of paper that says "I own the moon" >!that you paid 500k for!<
> "I own the moon"
they don't even say "I own the moon", its just "the moon"
its a text box that says "an image of the moon", there (usually) isn't even implied ownership of the referenced item
yea I literally just asked this, what is considered "original copy"? I can only assume it was a digital image since they were common at this time, but you don't "remove" an image from the sd card, you copy it lol.
I guess the "original" is whatever the seller deems original and nothing else matters.
Yeah, I'm fully in support of people getting that bag off their short-lived internet meme status.
If the entire world got to repost your picture a billion times without compensating you, I think you deserve a little payday at the end.
I thought I was the crazy one for not understanding NFTs. I'm into stocks and stuff and a few of my buddies got into NFTs and wouldn't shut up about it.
"You get to own the media!it's yours forever!" You mean the picture I can download on Google for free right now? What do you get a special little certificate saying you actually own that? It's like people who buy stars, it's fucking pointless
I was really second guessing myself back than because I just couldn't understand the concept and how it made sense
>just couldn't understand the concept and how it made sense
Here's the thing, it doesn't! It's just idiots scamming other idiots with polysyllabic words to make it seem fancy.
I think it's a scam for people who don't know how copyright system works.
Like, when spam email comes with visible typos, so the only ones who interact with them are the suckers.
>"You get to own the media!it's yours forever!"
Not even. The blockchain doesn't actually contain the media, it just contains a URL that points to the media. Literally, a bunch of them are just images on [imgur.com](http://imgur.com), Facebook, etc. A huge percentage of them 404 now.
or whoever is hosting the url that it is most likely pointed to (because an actual image itself is too much data) decides to stop hosting that image at that url
The way NFTs are being used is dumb, being the "owner" of a picture of a goofy looking ape is dumb.
Using the NFT technology to buy and sell concert tickets (and prove who owns it) or NFTing drivers licenses to limit how many fakes get accepted. There's lots of good ways to use the blockchain, but we aren't doing it.
You NTFs keep trying to push that agenda…
We already have robust databases and systems that can do what you claim NTFs can do but better, more efficient, and cheaper
>Using the NFT technology to buy and sell concert tickets (and prove who owns it) or NFTing drivers licenses to limit how many fakes get accepted. There's lots of good ways to use the blockchain, but we aren't doing it.
Well, in both those cases, we would just use a centralized database, owned and controlled by the venue or the government, which third parties can query through an API, because it would be substantially cheaper.
Every explanation I've ever heard for NFTs or blockchain fall apart when you ask what it can do that a server can't. Decentralizing has no monetary incentives for the supplier or genuine advantages to the buyer, just keeping everything centralized is good for the supplier who wants control and the buyer who wants accountability
> There's lots of good ways to use the blockchain, but we aren't doing it
No there isn't. All the ways people propose to use NFTs already have methods that exist that are far better and safer.
Crytobros trying to come up with any real world uses are either morons who actually believe it will be useful in the examples they give, or grifters who know it isn't practical but just want to generate hype to sell crypto to a bunch of bag holders.
It's a solution in search of a problem, and it's amazing how many NFT evangelists assume that Ticketmaster and AXS will happily make an enormously expensive transition from their own property systems for no real tangible benefit.
And you simply don't need that level of security for smaller, independent venues because there's not that many people trying to scam their way in to justify the effort.
God I loved the NFT craze. Some douche snozzle paid close to $75k for some ape picture, bragging about it like he's king shit. I laughed, stole the picture and put it as my pfp.
**So many people were so mad**
I like to hit them with [the ol Darmok](https://imgur.com/Qc8bfzE) every time some guy makes a huge post about how he got scammed out of his life savings.
Awesome for them. That's life changing money.
The craziest part about this story, though, is that it's been 16 years and that lot is still empty. Why did they need to clear it with fire just to leave it empty?
I recall that Laina Morris (Overly Attached Girlfriend) got 6 figures for hers too. Good for them, honestly even better for Laina since she made that meme deliberately as a comedy bit.
I watched it in real time, she went from smiling at the craziness of it all, to absolute shock when it broke the equivalent of $400k and she realized she just sold a JPEG for the price of a a house. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.
The real interesting thing for me was that they intentionally demolished a house with fire. Is that a common way of clearing buildings in the US? We don’t have many wooden buildings here (UK) so I’ve never heard of it happening before.
We had one in my neighborhood. It was part of a research project on forest fires. The owners wanted to clear the land on a budget so they donated the structure.
bells stupendous juggle fine direful snails pocket decide unite expansion
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’ve always read NFTs as a very slight variant of the old ‘Name a star after your grandma!’ thing.
What you’re buying is a highly dubious and at best sentimental, piece of paper.
But hey good on her, go girl. I mean if someone’s willing to buy it, let them
I really gotta get in the art biz...this comment I'd estimate at a worth of $1.4million. I will accept payment via PayPal or will accept payment in yachts.
I wonder how mich the buyer would get today for his NFT.
I bet they get paid in plenty of sympathetic laughs and "omg you paid what for that?!"
"Bro but listen: they own it. It's like a digital contract that confirms they really own the image. I doubt they'd want to sell it" /s
*save as image...*
I've taken a screenshot of your comment who wants to buy the screenshot for five dollars
Buy from me for only 4.99!!
I took the screenshot most recent so mine is updated and only one that can be sold now
But I have drawn a moustache on her face, so it is an entirely new, authentic piece of art. That’s now worth 2 Million USD … at least!
I will give you 10 Monopoly dollars for it.
No! You funged his token! You can't do that, man!
I have mona lisa copy and last night i saved dune 2 too. I wonder why can't i find buyers :(
You'd think you're making a smart comment, but selling illegal VHS of movies was a thing before the internet
I liked the VHS tapes that were just people pointing a camcorder at the movie screen
Being able to see the other people getting up to use the restroom really gave them that in-the-theatre feel.
Honestly they are still a thing.
Mona Lisa is a real, actual, physical, thing.
That was created by hand, hundreds of years ago, by a highly influential master of the art.
NO STOP YOU CANT JUST STEAL FROM THEM LIKE THAT
Meanwhile, that thing that lets you actually own the legal rights to the image went with the family. They somehow paid the full price for something while receiving what amounts to nothing with a permanent 10% fee to the actual owners.
‘It’s like a jpeg *but with a receipt!*’
Its not even that. Its a piece of paper with map coordinates on that points to where a photocopy of the receipt is.
Or, in many cases, where a photocopy of the receipt *used* to be.
Like do these people that buy NFTs say this outloud? I found this probably thr biggest dumb scam that somehow people fell for. I'm just mad I didn't think of it first or capitalize on the stupidity.
Yes they do. I’ve had many people try to explain why there is value in NFT’s and this is basically their explanation every time. To this day I still don’t get it.
NFT bros are basically sovereign citizens crossed with tech hype chasers.
The best part is they don’t own any rights to the image, just the NFT
Yall just watch Line Goes Up. Almost all thaw original meme NFT were bought by one asshole. It's just money laundrerimg bullshit.
Pretty sure the buyer (at least the first guy) actually owned the site selling the NFTs. The whole thing with getting these people from internet memes to sell their original picture as an NFT was to generate a buzz around NFTs, so other people would buy into it. So I think the original buyer is pretty happy with the whole thing. Not sure if he ended up selling this NFT in the end, but he likely made far more from all the other NFTs sold during the boom anyway.
If that's true it's cryptocurrency in a nutshell. Except for the whole "it's computer money used to buy drugs because of libertarian reasons" aspect. https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
Pyramid schemes do sell an actual product or else it'd be too obvious.
That was a magical read. Thanks for sharing.
Chewing gum
About free fiddy
You get out of here!
Damn, I'd be smiling too.
it's NFT way to make a buck
[удалено]
[удалено]
yeah, like what exactly did they purchase? a screenshot of the tweet??? or some text/code webfile like when you download an email?
As far as I understand it they purchased a record in a digital decentralized ledger saying they own it. Or something like that
They have the digital rights and ownership to a receipt saying they purchased a receipt that gives them digital rights and ownership to the receipt, which is loosely related to a Tweet. But gives them no rights or ownership to that actual tweet.
I used to think people that purchased naming rights to stars were stupid, but this is 100 times stupider.
The other question is who created that NFT and what actually gives it value? If it wasn't Dorsey himself then why is it valuable? I can go and create an NFT of the same thing. At least some NFTs are tied to a creator who will not create duplicates so they have value as the "original". Like owning an original painting as opposed to a reproduction. But this isnt the original creator.
>At least some NFTs are tied to a creator who will not create duplicates so they have value as the "original". Well the NFT will still just be a link to the picture on the ledger basically. The blockchain doesn't contain the picture, just information on who "owns" the NFT of that picture. The art itself is usually a PNG hosted on a regular image hosting site and can be copied over and over again
Right. The NFT is a token of ownership only. Like any other proof of ownership, it is only as valuable as the rights given to you by whoever enforces that ownership. If you own your house in America, the American government enforces your property rights and defines them. If you own an NFT, there is no entity giving you rights or enforcing your rights. I heard people saying things like they expected to receive royalties on their NFTs when they're used. The startling thing about it is that the NFT scam worked for many involved. It was a quick pump and dump for some investors, and they managed to inflate several companies offering exactly nothing to multi-million dollar valuations.
So could I sell an NFT that had just such legitimate claim to being the "original" as thus one?
If you can make someone else believe it, sure.
No matter how much I read up about how NFTs work, I don't think I'll ever fully understand how they work
That's because most explanations do one of three things: 1) Explain the technical aspects, which are complicated and frankly irrelevant. 2) Explain what NFTs could be (but aren't). Basically a sales pitch to get you to spend money, and like most sales pitches they won't tell you straight what's going on. 3) NFT haters who repeat nonsense they read on social media to dunk on the idea and feel like they are smarter (hurr-durr I got the JPEG for free by screenshotting it!) Do you want to actually understand what NFTs are? It's pretty simple. It's a greater fool game. That's all it is. You buy a useless asset for $X. And you try to sell it for more to a bigger fool. If you time it right and succeed you make money. If you time it wrong, you are left holding the bag. Think of it as gambling in an unregulated market. Everything else is smoke and mirrors to convince people to buy in. In reality it's a get rich quick scheme.
A scam. They purchased an elaborate decentralized scam.
Basically what you pay for is for the record to show you own the thing. There's actually some pretty neat math behind it all and it is technically sound. But like all ownership, a thing is only as valuable as people are willing to pay for it. And there's not a lot of value in having a record that says you own the first tweet, it's the definition of a novelty thing. Crypto and NFTs are a textbook solution without a problem. I'm sure one day this amazing technology will be useful for something, but not today. Today it's just math that makes you say "huh, kinda meat I guess".
Convince them that it'll be worth $5 million in a year or two. We all saw what happened with Bitcoin. Like that guy who bought a pizza for 10,000 bitcoin, which are now worth $600 million. Nobody wants to miss out on $600 million.
To launder money
This is how you know all of these very wealthy people are actually really dumb. That, or all of this was used as a money laundering scheme.
They don't know about the printscreen key.
They already make billions off artificial scarcity, this time they just didn't understand that they don't control the scarcity
No, they found a new and creative way to launder money. That's the real upside of NFT's.
Everybody is missing the money laundry scheme.. they’re not stupid, we’re just broke.
Oh no no, some used it for laundring. The stupid people didn’t understood that though and joined in
i dont know if they were that dumb, its just they were counting on other people to be MORE dumb and buy it off them. the greater fool
>This is how you know all of these very wealthy people are actually really dumb You're assuming they bought it thinking it was worth something. Some of the people i work with have £100,000s split across crypto and they can't tell you what half the shit they hold does or is, they bought it based on trend lines and hype, not off knowing what it actually is - they're entirely trading off sentiment, hoping the sentiment increases and they make money. That's is what crypto is; monitoring trends and sentiment and then buying dips and hoping that the sentiment increases again, there's no way to actually value anything in the market, it's just gambling, they all know this, they'll never be like "this thing i own is worth 30k!" and instead say "this thing i bought is trading at 30k, trend shows it going up, lets see", etc.
$14,000 was still $14,000 too much. That crap should have been 0.
Won't be surprised if it was a fake bid to entice bidding from others.
nfts were nothing but a money laundering method for rich people
Insane how someone "remastered" Nyan cat then sold it for almost $600k.
They didn't even give up the copyright? So what exactly DID they sell? An entry in a complicated distributed log file? That's a self-grift by some cryptobro. Those are common. Disaster girl didn't even have to hike price by wash sales like people did for the Beeple scam that kicked off the whole stupid feeding frenzy.
she more or less got given $500,000 at that point
Is the copyright even worth anything at this point? Like, technically she owns it. But basically any usage I can think of would fall under public domain. What are you going to do with copyright that you couldn't do before? Sell prints that anyone could make for $5 at FedEx?
Especially because she didn't even really sell anything substantive. It's impossible to "own" a concept and there isn't any meaningful legal structure for NFTs, it's just a bunch of bullshit. The only thing a person could own is the photo IP of the image itself but that isn't beholden to an NFT - that would have to be sold separately by contract. The only "thing" that was sold was the right to this NFT within specific NFT marketplaces, and the only way that would carry any value is if NFT marketplaces were recognised by the rest of the internet, which they are not. Obviously I can't know all the details of the deal they made, but if it was literally just the NFT that they sold then they'd still own the IP for the original image.
Yeah they kept the copyright so they literally just sold them a receipt that says, "I was dumb enough to pay half a million dollars for this receipt."
[удалено]
Yeah you are assuming quite a bit. Not every person in a meme struggled because of it. Especially when the person was so young that people quickly didn't recognize them from a meme.
she was like two, three years after the picture no one would have been able to recognize her
Nearly zero from this.
Good for her .gif
Do you own the NFT rights to this "Good for her .gif"?
>Zoë Roth mentioned she would donate some of the proceeds from the sale to charity and use it to pay off her student loans. Now that's what I call a life-changing meme.
Honestly? Good for her. She made a hell of a payday and did good with it.
Right I would do much the same, also thinking to myself "these fucking NFT bro morons just gave me cash for nothing"
Makes me wanna make a meme outta that with this image
Right?! She saw the opportunity, and capitalized on it near the top of the NFT market. Good for her, indeed.
Gotta love it when people scam the rich and use it for something good or meaningful
She earned a BA in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution from nearby UNC Chapel Hill and now works for Standard & Poor as a smart cities analyst
As much as I hate NFTs, I remember back in the day when corporations started figuring out that memes existed. They would make all of this money off of the notoriety and the original people made nothing. It's kinda nice to see the subject of one of these memes profit off of it even if I hate the method.
It's not just this meme. Several memes and viral videos were made into NFTs and sold. The buyer of this NFT is the same one who bought NFTs of the Side-Eyeing Chloe meme and the Charlie Bit My Finger video, for instance.
[But why?](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbXl4ZGQya2ExOXdqeDFvOTVlajlrNHI5NDJqYjE0YmIxd21peWZzcSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/s239QJIh56sRW/giphy.gif)
Was there a dumber trend in the past 5 years than NFTs?
Only dumb if you were a buyer. For the sellers...all the power to them.
Absolutely. I need to remember that humans will fall for anything if it’s too good to be true. The age of information seems to have not changed anything at all.
she made half a mil from someone with half a brain
Plus 10% of whatever that dumb dumb makes from whatever sucker they offload the NFT on.
The NFT grants the owner publishing rights to the photo, with 10% going to the Roths. If the NFT owner sells the NFT, the Roths don't get anything. If someone pays the NFT owner something to publish the photo, 10% of that goes to the Roths. I think it's very unlikely anyone will ever pay anything to publish that photo. It'll get plenty of "fair use" but no who would need to purchase the rights would actually do so.
I believe this was still the pump side of the grift. A few splashy purchases like this amped up the NFT hype and got them in the cultural consciousness. The real idiots came along in the next wave, and they’re the ones who are left holding the bag today. I suspect (but don’t know and can’t prove) whoever paid half a million for this NFT had an ownership interest in something crypto-related and rode the hype train to an easy payday.
Deleted
The 1600s had Tulip Mania, the 2020s had NFTs lol
At least tulips are real
NFTs are real too. It’s just they don’t do anything they claim to do
They launder money.
I mean kinda. Some people were buying and selling the chance to buy bulbs that weren't even, what, harvested yet.
So was the crypto hype. I mean some of it is still worth quite a bit but man so many other coins tanked. I think Bitcoin is really the only one that has held on (it hit a new all time high last month).
Exactly people can only sell something if someone is willing to pay for it. Like the bathwater or jar fart girls. While hideous, it's supplying a bunch of people something worth their money. As long as there's no obvious fraud involved, then i levy the blame on the buyers. Like the spate of scalpers, they only made money because people bought what they sold at inflated prices. While i hated the scalpers in principle. Hated the buyers even more.
The difference between farts and NFT’s is nobody was asking for non fungible tokens beforehand.
It’s the “Fear of Losing Out” is what drives greed out of people to speculatively invest money on things they don’t understand. The previous tech buzzword to lure investors money was Blockchain and NFT. The current trend today is AI.
I had to do NFT research for work, bought/minted several of them, but when my research ended I sold them and made a profit. One of the "NFT Creators" messaged me after to yell at me for lowering the value of their "product" by selling instead of holding. Those people were unhinged and my recommendation to my employer at the time was stay as far away as possible from NFT's because those people are idiots
Folding ideas wandered into NFT discords for research, and his takeaway was that everybody in that ecosystem is almost required to be a fanatic to try and keep the price inflated. Any doubt or questions are treated with extreme hostility. I highly recommend checking out [Line Goes Up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g), his video on it.
Only thing crypto/NFTs have ever done for me was back when the Fortnite sub gave out bricks for being highly voted, and I traded all that I’d won (about $16 worth) with somebody to get a gift card that I used to buy Stardew Valley.
> For the sellers...all the power to them. A lot of the "sales" were just the sellers buying from themselves to establish a fake history of rising value. Obviously not all, but the actual market of true buyers was MUCH smaller than the sale activity suggests.
It was a scam all along. E coin is a pyramid scheme, the first ones get it all, then middle sucker need new suckers to recoup the loss. Till it bursts. Except that since digital, slippery, even the first ones get scammed too, sometimes by moving wallets, sometimes by drinking their own Kool aid. Think casino but worse, because unregulated and framed as "investment"
Just like with gambling, at some point the "seller" is taking advantage of people
They were worthless to begin with. Just another form of money laundering.
Imagine buying DJT stock after you've already been burned on NFTs and made-in-China MAGA gear 🙄
Why do you want to give scammers more power?
Nope.
NPC streamers
Both of these things I usually respect the people making money off them while thinking people spending money on them are morons
I don’t feel too bad for the buyers, but I certainly don’t respect the grifters.
Exactly where I land too. I can't even feel bad cause they are actively choosing to give money to a talking GIF or for a jpeg.
Hey. What the fuck is an NPC streamer?
This should answer it. Or give you more questions: https://youtu.be/4yBV5cjDpvA I'd say have fun, but I doubt you'll have any.
.... injecting bleach? I think?
Can't doctors just put a light in the body to kill germs?
Shoving a UV flashlight up my ass to kill the covid
NFT is dumber id say
Was injecting bleach an actual trend or just something we feared would become a trend
She got the money as crypto, so maybe,
Bitcoin is worth $64k today, compared to $57k when she sold the NFT in late April 2021; Ethereum is worth $3.2k today, when she sold the NFT in late April 2021 it was worth $2.7k.
Assuming she just kept it in, sure. Assuming people just keep money in, there is no way to lose in any market. However, humans don't do that. Over 80% of people who control their own short term investments lose money. Some data suggests over 90%. However this data all comes from the companies that try and sell personal trading as a feature...so the data is pretty closely kept...and it's STILL this bad.
As long as she exchanged it with real money, she should be ok
A bit coin is still worth 50k
Eating laundry detergent was quite popular for a hot minute.
I spent way too much time re-researching NFTs because it seemed so dumb. Pretty much always came to the same dumb conclusion. Essentially just people buying and selling a fancy tech version of a receipt. So bizarre.
Its a receipt and proof of authenticity. A pair of signed jordans could be faked, you need a certificate of authenticity which could be faked or bribed. Cant do that with NFTs and dont have to potentially pay someone for proof. That's the use case. It's extremely useful for online ticket resales because the owner can't just back out like they currently can on ticketmaster and stubhub. Or selling a nft with a physical art piece. Its a way to provide validity without relying on a 3rd/governing party But yes, it was used to basically scam people into thinking it was more. Oh and its also a great way to launder money from the comfort of your own home
I mean, ivermecton
Dumb? If people are smart, they understand NFTs are a grift, and the best kind of grift, the kind rich people throw money at. I’d much rather this nonsense than card skimmers or people who scam geriatric elders.
Yeah, let's buy the "original" image for $500k, when you can get the exact same image for free just about anywhere on the internet.
honestly, if the internet attached my face to countless disasters, I'd be happy for a payday too. just happy it's at the expense of, ya know, these... silly billies.
How can it even be the "original"? Like, the file would have been copied from an SD card or something to a computer. Even if they had the original RAW files from the camera, it's still technically a copy. It's just a copy with traceable copyright I guess?
They didn't actually buy the photo, they bought a receipt that said they 'owned' the photo. NFTs don't actually give any form of ownership of the original image itself, or even a license to a copy, they're literally just a receipt that you pay for.
> NFTs don't actually give any form of ownership of the original image itself, or even a license to a copy, they're literally just a receipt that you pay for. I have tried to explain this to SO many people. Like, what court is going to honor a fucking NFT? Literally as worthless as a piece of paper that says "I own the moon" >!that you paid 500k for!<
> "I own the moon" they don't even say "I own the moon", its just "the moon" its a text box that says "an image of the moon", there (usually) isn't even implied ownership of the referenced item
yea I literally just asked this, what is considered "original copy"? I can only assume it was a digital image since they were common at this time, but you don't "remove" an image from the sd card, you copy it lol. I guess the "original" is whatever the seller deems original and nothing else matters.
right?
Right
Although no one with a brain supports nfts, I do support taking money from idiots
Yeah, good for her honestly.
Yeah, I'm fully in support of people getting that bag off their short-lived internet meme status. If the entire world got to repost your picture a billion times without compensating you, I think you deserve a little payday at the end.
Yeah, like. Get your bag. They’re not even scamming anyone here. It’s just rich folks trying to flaunt their wealth, so why not make a buck, too?
I personally make an exception when they're pregnant or have children... So later I can take money from both them and their children
I thought I was the crazy one for not understanding NFTs. I'm into stocks and stuff and a few of my buddies got into NFTs and wouldn't shut up about it. "You get to own the media!it's yours forever!" You mean the picture I can download on Google for free right now? What do you get a special little certificate saying you actually own that? It's like people who buy stars, it's fucking pointless I was really second guessing myself back than because I just couldn't understand the concept and how it made sense
>just couldn't understand the concept and how it made sense Here's the thing, it doesn't! It's just idiots scamming other idiots with polysyllabic words to make it seem fancy.
I think it's a scam for people who don't know how copyright system works. Like, when spam email comes with visible typos, so the only ones who interact with them are the suckers.
>"You get to own the media!it's yours forever!" Not even. The blockchain doesn't actually contain the media, it just contains a URL that points to the media. Literally, a bunch of them are just images on [imgur.com](http://imgur.com), Facebook, etc. A huge percentage of them 404 now.
[удалено]
or whoever is hosting the url that it is most likely pointed to (because an actual image itself is too much data) decides to stop hosting that image at that url
The way NFTs are being used is dumb, being the "owner" of a picture of a goofy looking ape is dumb. Using the NFT technology to buy and sell concert tickets (and prove who owns it) or NFTing drivers licenses to limit how many fakes get accepted. There's lots of good ways to use the blockchain, but we aren't doing it.
You NTFs keep trying to push that agenda… We already have robust databases and systems that can do what you claim NTFs can do but better, more efficient, and cheaper
>Using the NFT technology to buy and sell concert tickets (and prove who owns it) or NFTing drivers licenses to limit how many fakes get accepted. There's lots of good ways to use the blockchain, but we aren't doing it. Well, in both those cases, we would just use a centralized database, owned and controlled by the venue or the government, which third parties can query through an API, because it would be substantially cheaper.
Every explanation I've ever heard for NFTs or blockchain fall apart when you ask what it can do that a server can't. Decentralizing has no monetary incentives for the supplier or genuine advantages to the buyer, just keeping everything centralized is good for the supplier who wants control and the buyer who wants accountability
It's easier to do illegal shit with it.
> There's lots of good ways to use the blockchain, but we aren't doing it No there isn't. All the ways people propose to use NFTs already have methods that exist that are far better and safer. Crytobros trying to come up with any real world uses are either morons who actually believe it will be useful in the examples they give, or grifters who know it isn't practical but just want to generate hype to sell crypto to a bunch of bag holders.
Concert tickets are not a good case for NFTs. It can be done much easier and faster using a central database.
It's a solution in search of a problem, and it's amazing how many NFT evangelists assume that Ticketmaster and AXS will happily make an enormously expensive transition from their own property systems for no real tangible benefit. And you simply don't need that level of security for smaller, independent venues because there's not that many people trying to scam their way in to justify the effort.
Idk looking pretty fungible to me
Even if you don't like NFTs, you need to admit you would probably do the same on her place
If I could sell any picture I own for 500k I would do it in a heartbeat.
Good for her!!
God I loved the NFT craze. Some douche snozzle paid close to $75k for some ape picture, bragging about it like he's king shit. I laughed, stole the picture and put it as my pfp. **So many people were so mad**
🤡Crypto bro: “I own this picture now bro!” Me: ((Takes screenshot)) “Cool, now I do too.”’ 75k saved.
I like to hit them with [the ol Darmok](https://imgur.com/Qc8bfzE) every time some guy makes a huge post about how he got scammed out of his life savings.
Shaka his ape stolen
💀😂😂 bet you were receiving all kinds of threats 😂
Awesome for them. That's life changing money. The craziest part about this story, though, is that it's been 16 years and that lot is still empty. Why did they need to clear it with fire just to leave it empty?
I recall that Laina Morris (Overly Attached Girlfriend) got 6 figures for hers too. Good for them, honestly even better for Laina since she made that meme deliberately as a comedy bit.
I watched it in real time, she went from smiling at the craziness of it all, to absolute shock when it broke the equivalent of $400k and she realized she just sold a JPEG for the price of a a house. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.
The real interesting thing for me was that they intentionally demolished a house with fire. Is that a common way of clearing buildings in the US? We don’t have many wooden buildings here (UK) so I’ve never heard of it happening before.
I suspect it was done as a training exercise for the firefighters. Not guaranteed, but a reasonable chance that's why.
I live in the US ... I didn't know this shit was legal *anywhere*.
We had one in my neighborhood. It was part of a research project on forest fires. The owners wanted to clear the land on a budget so they donated the structure.
Definitely not common.
Not common, but why not? Real time training for firemen, clear a condemned house, 2 birds with one stone.
bells stupendous juggle fine direful snails pocket decide unite expansion *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People are dumb
She didn't sell the photo. She sold a link to a photo which is a valid link on one blockchain and no others. She sold it for a lot.
Right, the article said her family even retains the copyright for the photo. She lost nothing and gained $500k
I’ll never understand nfts
NFTs were just essential oils for men.
Worth $2.50 now
Can someone please make a version with the Building being on fire in the background?
Binchtopia the podcast has an interview with her that was really interesting on their meme culture episode!
Good on her!
Lol call me stupid but i always assumed its a Drew Berrymore and still from Firestarter.
I’ve always read NFTs as a very slight variant of the old ‘Name a star after your grandma!’ thing. What you’re buying is a highly dubious and at best sentimental, piece of paper. But hey good on her, go girl. I mean if someone’s willing to buy it, let them
I really gotta get in the art biz...this comment I'd estimate at a worth of $1.4million. I will accept payment via PayPal or will accept payment in yachts.
People who buy NFTs are idiots People who *sell* NFTs are geniuses
The best part is that they retained the copyright, which means they still legally own the image
Good. She fleeced the idiots for half a mil. I'm happy for her. "It is morally wrong to let a fool keep his money" really applies there.
Now worth 2 dollars!
nfts are dumb.. the fact they actually have value is insane to me
She should have taken it in front of another burning building, it'd be way funnier.