Even the name “web3” is stupid. Isn’t it supposed to be the next step after “web 2.0?” Shouldn’t it then be “web 3.0?” They couldn’t even include a space between web and 3!
There actually is a Web 3.0, and it predates the cryptocurrency-oriented conceptualisation of “Web3” by quite some time.
Web 3.0 is otherwise known as the Semantic Web, a set of standards developed by the W3C for formally representing (meta)data and relationships between entities on the internet, and for facilitating the machine-reading and exchange thereof.
Did they though? It might be my filter bubble, but whenever I saw web3 being pushed I saw a small refraction of responses of people who also thought it was a great idea (typical salesbros - so a good idea for others to do, just not for themselves). But the vast majority of people reject it for being a scam.
If you have time, I would suggest CoffeeZilla on YouTube. He basically just get into crypto scam, which isn’t hard to find these days. One specific case I would look at is the influencers taking on pretty much any scam projects to get money. The series is with Oompaville. A great watch.
Yeah, I have only a little sympathy for the people who got pulled into the get rich quick scheme, particularly younger people who hit some money only to get caught in what was basically a gambling addiction.
I have way more sympathy for their friends and family who either tried to financially support them when they hit rock bottom, or those who got scammed or stolen from just to pump more money into this bubble.
A. I don't actually feel bad for anyone because if you're involved in NFTs in any way, you're begging to be scammed. There is no legitimate use for NFTs.
B. This seems like blatant illegal fraud. You can't just advertise "get this cut of all transactions forever" to get people to join, then say "just kidding" once they include their "art" in your shitty scam. They're entitled to their shitty cut of your shitty transaction, and you can't hand wave it away by pointing to fine print when you sold the product very clearly making that claim.
There are uses for NFT, but it is clearly not what they are famous for.
NFT aren’t pictures of monke, they are a way to authenticate something in a decentralised way, so no trust in another entity needed. The picture isn’t the NFT, and that is why you can just right click-copy it.
You can’t however just copy the NFT, the actual token. Having a token that’s verifiably owned by someone is useful for certain things. It’s like a certificate of authenticity, but digital.
Digital certificates has already existed for half a century. There’s nothing new. A certificate doesn’t get any more legitimate just because it’s recorded on a blockchain.
Yes but NFTs are held in trust by you, not a 3rd party business. If you want to sell your NFT to a friend you can do that without brokering the exchange through a middleman who can/will charge a cut
How you transact the ownership of NFTs is a different story. I’m reacting to the claim that NFT is “like a certificate of authenticity, but digital”, which is not unique to NFTs at all.
This claim is also often misunderstood, since the NFT can only verify the authenticity of the certificate itself, not the art/asset it’s pointing to.
I can easily create an NFT of Mona Lisa. The blockchain will see no problem with it at all. Heck, I can create 1000 NFTs of Mona Lisa if I want.
This is still solved by certificates, I can make my own self signed certificate that says it me and sign whatever I want. The only thing that crypto “solves” is over the wire man in the middle attacks, which aren’t even really a problem in the modern internet
How do I know you haven’t made 10 copies of that same certificate and sold 9 to other people?
If it was an NFT I could see you issued 9 other copies of it before I was approached with the sale. Any other way I either have to place blind trust in you or rely on a 3rd party to handle the issuance/transaction
I could just use 10 different URLs for each NFT. All pointing to the same image. I can also use 10 different wallets to obfuscate it more. For that matter, I can use different blockchains as well.
Now it’s 10 completely different NFTs pointing to the same image. To verify there are no duplicates, you need to check every NFT in existence (across all blockchains in existence).
TOFU - trust on first use - save the certificate print first access and remember it so you know if it gets changed
WoT - web of trust - other certificate holders verify the certificate and hopefully you find a chain to someone you trust.
Central authority - the most popular. A central entity verifies and goes good for the identity.
In all three you need to trust someone, and ask three are a pain to transfer something to new owner.
NFT gives a fundamentally new option here, that’s transferable and doesn’t require trust. That it’s been used for and gotten known for monkey scams is a shame.
And how do you verify that the NFT can be trusted? With any of the 3 methods you mentioned!
Blockchain doesn’t circumvent this need of trust.
The thing blockchain eliminates is the need of a timestamp authority when doing transactions. Satoshi even called his invention “distributed timestamp server” before people started to call it blockchain. You don’t need timestamps when verifying the authenticity of an NFT.
Not really, signatures on blockchains is just another TOFU or WoT variant, because how do you know the original token is the legit thing you wanted in the first place? It’s only after you have identified it that the existence of the blockchain becomes relevant in that it can track ownership without central authority.
These are the same promises the emergence of the blockchain gave us. We’re now nearly a decade later, and the most useful application has been get-rich-quick schemes. Yet, all these listed applications are still not in use, and/or better than their non-blockchain counterparts.
How you can really know electronic voting is a bad idea - all the people who would be the ones to be hired and paid a ton to build and implement it, cryptographers and infosec experts, are the same people who loudly oppose it.
There are so many different problems;
Assuming you manage to build the perfect system, can you actually explain it to people? If you put a prospective voter in front of the real deal, a secure electronic voting machine, and put a fake replica next to it, will ANYBODY EVER succeed in telling them apart? Or will you be forced to continuously audit the hardware from production to shipment to use, and somehow still respect voters’ privacy as they use the machine?
And how can you be confident your implementation is secure? You can to prove the algorithms are correct, that the implementation is correct, that the implementation behaves as end users (voters) expect, and that even the hardware is flawless (both in terms of logic and protection against manipulation).
How do you ensure people only vote once, yet also protect their privacy, but ALSO prove to them their vote was really counted? Individual keypairs? How do you distribute and protect them? Physical ID cards? What if they get stolen (in significant enough numbers)? What if a significant fraction of the population won’t use the new system, do you still run old school voting and combine the results?
How do you give somebody a receipt they can understand without enabling coercion to try to force people to vote a certain way?
But the same could be said for almost anything, for instance a car's engine is non-theoretical but could be otherwise done with a horse instead. I will still prefer the more advanced technology, but of course you do you
No, automobiles and mass transit were a massive innovation that drastically changed everyone’s way of life. Look at the current state of global logistics. You can essentially order any fruit from home and have it fresh at your doorstep at any time of year. You can’t do that without engines.
There is a lot of talk, for example, in the sustainability space where things like emissions allowances, carbon offsets, etc. are traded the old fashioned way where a digital ledger using NFTs would be both instantaneous and transparent/easily auditable.
But the most obvious example is security exchanges, e.g. stocks, bonds, etc. (which would be a massive threat to the existing financial institutions) because it could allow for instantaneous settlement and fully transparent markets.
HUGE HOWEVER, not all NFT systems would be equally useful for that kind of thing. What we saw with FTX, for example, was a blockchain exchange for tokenized securities where the blockchain aspects served no real useful purpose - it was a centralized, controlled, opaque use case. The distributed ledger model (which I think casual observers of blockchain assume all blockchain systems are) can correct for those failures. I personally think part of what made the FTX story so big was a combination of moves by major financial market players to get out in front of tokenization of securities by created the existing system again but with a blockchain coat of paint on top that then failed under its own scam at lightning speed which then gave the ammo to a whole “blockchain a scam, NFT an even bigger scam” narrative. They are just software utilities that can be used effectively or not just like any others.
Whenever I see someone identify a jpeg as an NFT, or put SBF’s face on a news story about it, I think about how successful the astroturfing of these narratives has been.
There are tons of people (actual serious people, not like SBF) working in this space and building these things now, so they are definitely more than theoretical, but they are not at the mass adoption stage.
And no offense, but this response has echoes of people saying federation would never work. But it’s just a different utility to accomplish similar goals to centralized forums. And when the old-fashioned, centralized alternatives really start to self-destruct because of their inherent flaws, the merits of the decentralized version become more obvious.
I’m actually pretty shocked that Lemmy/the Fediverse beats the same tired old drums about NFTs (ape jpegs being the most obvious), since they are red herring arguments. A tokenized jpeg has no value because a jpeg has no value. A tokenized security has the value of the underlying security. The token is just there to eliminate the need for accountants since the open ledger shows its work and the entire chain of custody.
It’s called a metaphor. We use them to illustrate things people are not familiar with with references to things they may be familiar with. I don’t really get why you won’t really engage with what I’m saying and just want to “nuh-uh” everything. I don’t own or trade in NFTs, and never have, and definitely think both they are blockchain have been overhyped, just like AI is being overhyped right now, but that does not mean that there aren’t actual, real world uses for these things that are major improvement over how things work now. The unsexy use cases for NFTs (using them for things that are currently traded or otherwise transferred digitally with manual, disconnected, and/or opaque back-ends) is likely the one that will endure, just like everything else.
The unsexy use cases for NFTs (using them for things that are currently traded or otherwise transferred digitally with manual, disconnected, and/or opaque back-ends) is likely the one that will endure, just like everything else.
Who is actually or supposedly will be in the future using them for this purpose?
Digital scarcity is in and of itself kind of a niche concept.
You are right on. The idea of artificial scarcity is a scam. I replied to someone a little higher up about the securities use case, but the short version of that is, for things like stock in a company, stocks are already scarce (there are only as many shares as the company issues - or there is only supposed to be that many). It’s the scarcity of the underlying asset, not the “digital” aspect of it, that creates value. Each share is issued by the company as a single NFT token and there are only as many NFTs as they issue shares.
The idea is that this would be the software used to run the actual transfer of shares traded on the exchanges rather than what is used today which is just closed ledger entries on books of all the participants. But the current manual process takes multiple days to settle each transaction and this would be instantaneous, and in one transparent distributed ledger.
A tokenized security is the same thing as a tokenized jpeg. Blockchain has no control over what happens outside it.
I could create a token and say it refers to my Ferrari. Obviously I don’t own a Ferrari, but what can the blockchain do about it? To ensure the token is legitimate, some trusted authority must ensure the Ferrari really exists in the physical reality. Suddenly blockchain doesn’t “eliminate the need for accountants”.
And whenever I want to sell the token, someone must ensure I still own the Ferrari. Who knows, maybe I crashed the Ferrari somewhere in the forest?
Same goes for any asset - including carbon offsets, stocks and bonds. Blockchain is completely unable to say anything about the state of the physical reality.
We still beat the same tired old drums about NFTs because if it doesn’t work for jpegs, it doesn’t work for anything.
You wrote all that out and didn’t really think about what you wrote, because you actually proved my point. Yes, they are the same thing, but the difference is one has no value (a digital picture of a monkey) and one has value (a stock in, say, Apple). UNLIKE FTX - the tokenized securities that would be verifiable would be issued directly by the company, so each stock the company issues is done so as an NFT token. You can verify whether it is the company’s actual stock or not because it is an NFT, so it would be traceable all the way back to the company and its initial issuance.
Consider what it is like buying one share of Apple today. Think about it. If you buy one share of Apple from Schwab or something, how do you know you actually received on share of Apple? It says you have one share on the Schwab site, but you are just taking their word for it, and they are taking their brokerages word for it, and they are taking the market makers word for it, and they are taking . . . . In fact, in most cases you don’t even own that stock (you can find out based on how you are taxed when the company issues a dividend - if it is a qualifying dividend, but you owe normal income taxes on it, congratulations, you never even owned the share). Our entire current “mainstream” stock market is based on beneficial ownership, which is the biggest “trust me bro” in history.
However, if the transaction was done on an open, distributed ledger, it is wholly verifiable. NFT goes directly from company to each owner and the entire transaction history is visible, verifiable, and instantaneous.
As already explained, you don’t know what you’re paying for with an NFT until a trusted authority has said that they are indeed the issuer of that NFT contract. If you can’t know what you’re paying for on Schwab it doesn’t matter if they sell you a classical contract or an NFT. Either Apple said “these people are selling the real deal on this page on their site” or they did not. NFT only really adds the ability to keep tracking the token as it gets resold elsewhere, but this is solvable without blockchains if the market was to implement stuff like federated transparency logs.
In this case, the NFT would only be issued by the actual issuing company or its agent. This is how it works today but instead of NFTs it is paper certificates or, worse, a ledger entry why the issuing agent that is then confirmed with the centralized shared deposit uprise which actually owns most of the real shares. In most cases, especially in the trading platforms where you can execute free trades, you are just a beneficial owner and not an actual owner of the underlying security. With an NFT there would be no need for beneficial ownership at all anymore. It’s not the only way to do it, it’s just a utility like the others you mentioned, but it is a legitimate use case.
it’s quite frustrating how much bandwagon hate and resistance there is to the basic concept of a trustworthy and decentralized system for proof of ownership. i find your thoughts to be very well written, patient and insightful.
yes, the initial and popular use case for NFTs has not been ideal as digital art is easy to copy. but it is not difficult to think of other applications that are far more useful - stocks/securities being the easiest one. almost any product of value could and should have an NFT associated with it. this would make validating authenticity and ownership extremely easy and cut out tons of brokering fees for certain things.
I really appreciate that. As part of my unredditing process and knowing we are trying to make this place better than what Reddit became, I really want to give civility and open back and forth as much of a chance of catching on as possible. NFTs ate something that have been eaten up by this overwhelming hype and anti-hype machine. I think, like most software solutions, that they will find a good niche in appropriate systems and, like most things, once they are implemented, most people won’t even realize they are using it.
This is the funniest use of NFTs I’ve ever read about:
As a self-described “fartpreneur,” however, Matto may have girlbossed a little too close to the sun. On Christmas, she says, she went to the ER with what she describes as heart attack-esque symptoms, which doctors promptly diagnosed as severe gas pain as a result of her diet. Matto’s visit to the ER, which she recounted to a journalist from the U.K. outlet Jam Press, was aggregated across news outlets across the globe, prompting fervent social media debate as to whether Matto’s fart-selling enterprise was a savvy business move or a cultural death rattle resounding from the bowels of late-stage capitalism (pun very much intended). Yet Matto is unruffled by such critiques, and has harnessed her newfound virality into promoting her newest venture: selling fart jar NFTs for 0.05 ETH (a little less than $200) each, though she has significantly reduced sales of her physical fart jars following her ER visit.
It’s what you get when you invest in glorified digital receipts being used in a confidence game. The real legality is behind whatever the purchase and license agreements say, and a digital receipt may matter shit to it, specially if the the transaction is largely absent of any other value.
Who could have seen this coming? Who could have foreseen that all of Web3 was a ponzi scheme that would say anything to get people to pretend hashes on a blockchain is worth 100s of 1000s of dollars. Who? WHO?
Hard disagree, “web3” (defi) is meant to provide a decentralized alternative to our modern economic infrastructure, that doesn’t have huge institutional points of failure like central banks or investment banks. The only reason people piled into these speculative projects, centralized exchanges etc. is because probably > 60% of the population is into the idea of getting-rich-quick while < 1% of the population is into trying to build a better future with tech, or even just getting their head around how the technology work in the first place & what kind of potential it actually has.
I’ve been watching blockchain since Bitcoin was under a dollar and it really blows my mind how much people love to spout off about it without understanding anything about the space. You’ve got teams of hundreds, thousands of people working for years to solve all the problems in the space like PoS or scalability or contract security, but the general public is all just talking trash about the entire space because of NFTs.
Even this article, “Web3 was supposed to make sure the original artist always got paid”? Who said that? “A key feature of NFTs has completely broken?” No one who knew anything about NFTs ever said there was some universal “guarantee an artist would get paid”, particularly not if a contract to purchase an NFT didn’t guarantee that directly. If a given contract guaranteed that (or at least, the party creating the NFT on-chain), then it still does. If it didn’t, then it didn’t. Anyone actually learned Solidity and read a smart contract for themselves? Cause I’ll tell you, any smart contract where some institution has “god controls” over the state of the contract, that’s against the entire point of “web3”/“defi”.
Very well put. I’m so sick of people dog-piling on NFT/Blockchain because their only exposure to it is shitty Bored Ape images and manipulated crypto currencies. There’s so much potential there but lazy media reporting and people’s unwillingness to actually learn something about it has done some serious damage to web3 viability.
Yeah NFTs themselves don’t guarantee royalties, but most publicly advertised NFTs are based on unique or limited run graphics that include such contract terms. When artists started getting sketched out by the idea, one of the biggest arguments in favor of them was that artists could receive royalties on every sale, something that became a major selling point for marketplaces aimed at laymen who didn’t really know anything about crypto.
It’s not surprising, then, that this feature being taken away seems to negate one of biggest supposed benefits that NFTs provided. This was supposed to be the thing that balanced concerns about art theft and the value of quantity over quality that haunt NFTs to this day.
The general opinion of crypto isn’t going to improve until people feel it’s stable and safe enough to actually trust their money with, and moves like this certainly aren’t helping that image of volatility.
I don’t know much about NFTs, but can’t the “give original artist a cut of royalties” clause be coded into the smart contracts? Why does it depend on a particular platform?
It doesn’t depend on the platform, but the venn diagram of artists trying to get paid and people who know how to write a smart contract doesn’t overlap much. Marketplaces were built to ease the former into the space by taking care of all that for them. The artists, for their part, just had to trust that the contracts actually did what they said they did and watch for the money to hit their accounts as proof.
People who were depending on the platform to sort that out are now stuck with either finding another platform or figuring out how to write the contracts themselves on top of their other business duties. Even if they do so, they’re likely going to lose a good portion of their following and brand precense in the move.
Fundamental difference between a currency accruing value due to superior characteristics over its competitors, and a Ponzi scheme where a truly worthless good that only has transitory value because it’s “the next big thing” is passed along from original entrants to new entrants. USD has no “inherent” value (not even the “full faith and credit of the government”) either, and critical issues where the broader institution responsible for its issuance is a corrupt war-mongering police state. If we’re being honest here.
So, you’re claiming that you need a constant new stream of people buying into it, to make it work? Man, that’s almost like the definition of a ponzi scheme. Weird.
Another “I know you are but what am I” class comment. I’m talking about actual adoption, usage, cyclical exchange, not buy low sell high, that should be obvious from what I wrote.
Yeah, I’ll just unlearn all the monetary theory books I read because, trust me bro money is worthless. I got this new money, it’s worth more money. I see now.
Hey, the guys who never took an econ class know more than you. Trust me bro. It’s amazing. It will change the world.
Public has started to realize what a joke the entire concept is. The true believers are all so mad now. Hopefully new investors dry up soon and the entire clown show can collapse with no new money flowing in (you know how a ponzi scheme goes bust).
The society built on those monetary systems is literally destroying the planet. The history of those monetary systems is of the ruling class debasing currency and seizing as much value under the eyes of the law as possible for their private benefit going back thousands of years. Our entire legal system grew out of the Roman Empire, European feudalism, British Empire and then the slave-built corporatist state of the U.S.
Is your argument that “tradition must be right”? Slavery is traditional, war is traditional, pollution is traditional, animal agriculture is traditional, oppression is traditional, class hierarchy is traditional.
Yeah, “give me anything but an alternative to the thing I hate”. Reminds me of people who talk all day about global warming but, god forbid they have to eat a veggie burger instead of having an entire 10x as wasteful mode of production dedicated to bringing animals to their plate.
Thinking cryptocurrency is just a new dollar built on a ponzi scheme has nothing to do with supporting modern capitalism. New money has all the same issues as old money. Which it will be exchange for and values with. This entire circle jerk is ridiculous.
You know who owns a ton of the Bitcoin? Hedge funds and investment banks. You’re supporting a system built on burning a whole bunch of fossil fuels to create a few lines of code that can be horded by the same people who horde all the wealth. You aren’t changing shit.
Want to change something? Got get a gun and become a domestic terrorist or something. You aren’t changing the world by buying crypto.
Am I supposed to treat this like a good faith comment? Let’s assume you’re wrong, how would I even reply? It’s basically “no u”.
If you really know so much about monetary theory I’d expect you to lead with what you actually know, not just vaguely allude to how much you know. Right?
I’d expect that I wouldn’t want to waste time trying to convince a brainwashed crypto bro or that I give a single fuck past making fun of you.
Here’s some super basics of almost all monetary economic theory. Currency is a medium of exchange. It’s velocity (or rare it moves through the economy) is a vital measure of the health of the economy and effectiveness of the currency. How easy is it to go buy something with Bitcoin, and how fast is it moving through hands in an economy? Oh, it’s a joke as a currency you say? Description of how it is being used sounds exactly like a ponzi scheme for some reason.
See to everyone else, it’s very, very obvious why it’s a ponzi scheme. It will collapse someday. As it’s only real use is as a very ineffective currency. Somehow people like you have made that worth tens of thousands of dollars to each other.
See, this is the classic bad faith anti-blockchain argument. Article we’re talking about is about NFTs, which are based on Ethereum, an extremely sophisticated blockchain with proof-of-stake, smart contract capability, and a huge infrastructure of people who’ve built economic machinery on top of it and are using it actively. But you want to prove your point, so you cherry-pick Bitcoin, the very first “proof of concept” blockchain which has essentially had active development halt because the creator wanted anonymity, vanished into thin air, and the developers working on it largely refuse to hard-fork it, so which has no real smart contract capability, still uses wasteful proof-of-work, etc.
It’s not “obvious” that it’s a ponzi scheme, it’s the point you want to make so you’re just bending the facts and cherry-picking things to try to prove it. I’m not impressed. And tossing “monetary velocity” out there as a term isn’t making me think you’re some brilliant economist - if anything, monetary velocity is an overstressed concept in modern econ because the government sits around trying to manipulate it via interest rates instead of letting people’s actual spending priorities dictate how the economy works, leading to a consumerist frenzy and catastrophic boom/bust cycle.
Oh no, I used super basic short terms to explain something to someone I think is a moron. Let me detail flaws in every digital currency, NFT and type out an entire book for you cuz I give a fuck. I look forward to laughing at the collapse and truly believe all of you are beyond educating. So, yes I am arguing in bad faith. I don’t think you get that. Thought that was super obvious.
The issue is not much effort is put into developing price stability in cryptocurrencies, this is because it is counter to the incentives of the creators and early HODLers. They do not want price stability, they want significant price decreases, this causes people to speculate on the “currency” not use it as a currency. Until a cryptocurrency implements some form of MV=PY it will not really be successful as a currency.
How does one “implement” the equation for calculating GDP? All the (descriptive) variables in the equation are already present. IDK how that got 4 upvotes.
Several major cryptos are already used as media of exchange. That’s the actual criteria for “success of a currency”, relative usage. They haven’t overtaken USD, but let’s not pretend it’s just a speculative vessel, Ethereum sees over a million transactions per day.
You cannot, but you can increase money supply money supply more stably when following average GDP growth, and increase money supply more when velocity decreased- and atrophy the supply when it increases. And a currency is much more than just what people can spend at a store. It is what people keep their savings in, what companies pay their employees in, what banks lend.
This cannot be done with an unstable currency- you cannot have a debt that will either go up or down 20% in value in the same year. I do not think fiats are inherently more stable, but some fiats have proven to be somewhat more stable because of responsible central banking- its not a good idea to count on central banks being responsible for ever. But essentially all widely spread cryptos continue to have a significant amount held by speculators and therefore they cannot be stable currencies.
The simple answer is that fiats are only more stable because their relative worth is more settled. For the same reason small stocks are unstable while big blue chip stocks are (relatively) not. If you look at logarithmic charts of any big crypto over time you can literally see the volatility tapering out as the market cap increases.
Of the cryptos that survived yeah thats been true, except for the speculative rushes encouraged by a lot of hodlers. Furthermore, even those transactions are high- the velocity is still much lower than in most fiats where people put their excess in a bank that then invests with it.
Stop using Economics terms. They’re definitely made up and not at all a description of how people actually act. Seriously though. It’s obvious that Bitcoin is just a Ponzi scheme. Otherwise, people would actually use it as currency instead of a speculative asset.
Notice how people who buy bitcoin get really happy when the price in USD goes up. That’s because they don’t value Bitcoin except as a way to get more USD. Do you get all excited when the dollar is worth more in foreign currency? Or if you’re European, the Euro? Not really because you are not holding onto USD or EUR as a speculative asset.
Nothing is priced in Bitcoin just like nothing is priced in baseball cards or beanie babies. No one uses it as a currency because transactions take forever and there’s nothing backing it. With USD or EUR you are guaranteed to be able to pay your taxes in it. Bitcoin is complicated Venmo and its backers want to hide that fact.
Well no, I’ve bought “a lot” with bitcoin. Through bitpay I could buy confuser parts, VPN. And I’ve bought a lot of games for btc too
Paid maybe 30-50 cents per transaction, which is nothing compared to traditional banking. If more had support for either btc or bitpay-like-services, it’d be easier to use.
You are an anecdote, but most people aren’t you and most businesses that allow bitcoin transactions immediately sell it for a government backed currency. It is not stable enough for them to keep the wages of hundreds of families in it.
People outside of spaces where cryptocurrency is accepted have a really hard time understanding just how much cryptocurrency is used. Every year it becomes more pervasive and integrated but people keep spouting the same criticisms they have for years.
Most of the opinions here are pretty america-contric.
Btw the article does not reflect the headline and ya’ll should really read it before posting about how NFTs are broken. I wonder if folks would have read the article if they disagreed with the headline.
So, what you’re saying is countries with volatile, unstable currencies that typically try to get their hands on as much USD as possible are more willing to use a currency other than their own? Man, that’s such a shocker. I cannot believe that someone would rather store their wealth in almost anything other than money printed by unstable governments that’s worth as much as a square of toilet paper.
Integration isn’t the same as substitution, it means I can pay a dev living in Indonesia in eth and they can deposit it to their bank without having to go through a third party, because it’s a hell of a lot faster, safer and easier than trying to set up an international wire transfer between banks who don’t speak the same language.
Furthermore, if cryptocurrency helps a population regain control of their finances in a failing economy, how is that a bad thing?
Didn’t say it was a bad thing. Just think it’s funny that being usable in an unstable third world economy is about the only good use case for the amazing currency of the future.
You’re right I’ll go dump all my retirement savings into whatever crypto is the next big thing tomorrow. What was I thinking, new money is so much better than old money. Cuz it’s worth more money than old money and money’s better.
P.S. it’s easy to tell where the third world starts, it’s where they use crypto instead of a central bank currency.
I mean, it’s generally considered kind of a slur now? And also because it was a bit racist to begin with, since it measures progress against white, western ideas of progress.
But it’s impossible to have a discussion about crypto with anyone who gets their information from one news source and a bunch of reddit comments, or whatever information you get from people who furiously agree with each other.
I don’t think crypto is great, I think it’s a useful tool.
I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith so w/e. Take it or leave it.
Oh shit, you finally got the point. I really don’t care to argue with you. Your smarter than me. Bitcoin is clearly the wave of the future. I only read newspapers from the 90s or something. I must have no idea what it even is. Everyone who buys into crypto is a genius and we just don’t understand it cuz it’s so cool. New money>old money cuz techbro said so.
I think the Trump NFTs were my first time hearing of perpetual trade royalties. Most of the NFTs I own are tied to games though… maybe it’s more common in the art space and chains I don’t frequent.
I was into BTC before anyone really had a good place even check the value and would waste them on side projects and also gamble them away randomly like they were Chuck E Cheese tickets. It does not keep me up at night, in fact everyone constantly checking the price of crypto is almost the antithesis to Crypto in my opinion. The investing mindset is kind of nauseating, you can’t talk about any project without price being brought up.
That was just many parts of the grift. Also when that feature was very rarely used, it was ironically a regular web 2.0 feature that was pushed between participating centralized MFT marketplaces. You know, because it was never actually decentralized.
How is this Web3 scam still a thing? I thought I would finally stop hearing it after the crash but it just keeps coming back. The only people who will get rich from this are the scammers themselves.
Mastodon and fediverse is more web3 than web2 (lest I’ve misunderstood). The problem has been shitty implementation.
I.e In reality, nothing is more valuable than the ground work it stands on. So just because it’s an NFT doesn’t mean it should’ve been worth anything. It has to provide meaning and value to the consumer. Like if all of steam would put their marketplace on a blockchain, those items would still be just as valuable as before. The value comes from the item implementation, not the “storage” technology
To me that whole royalties spiel was always just marketing to bait non-technical people into adopting the NFT system.
I’ve never seen anyone build and use an enforcable mechanism for a multi transaction chain to pay out to one original address repeatedly. I think at the very least you would always have to hold the NFT in a multi sig wallet between the artist and the current owner, for the artist to have a mechanism to keep enforcing their royalty claims. That would also require involvement of the artist in every further transaction.
Maybe I’m missing something like a smart contract that can fabricate new multi sig transactions on demand with pre-approval of the artist somehow… If anyone knows of something like that I’d be interested in the technical details.
It could theoretically be done by implementing a covenant system in contracts, but it never got built despite all the talk about it (probably because of the extra complexity it requires in validating new transactions). Otherwise, like you said, multisig is needed so one side can simply demand the new transaction to be signed use the same contract before agreeing on transferring. Which requires this second signer to anyways be available online…
The confidence of people commenting here that have little idea what an NFT even is kinda funny if not sad. You’re on the anti-NFT bandwagon just as much as tech bros are on the pro-NFT bandwagon.
The fact is blockchain is a technology that can hold value, why would people think it’s somehow immune to being used by bad actors? Does the blockchain enable more fraud than the dollar?
It’s broken now? I’d say that’s a bold assumption that it ever worked in the first place.
Edit: to be clear, I mean that it is and always has been an impossible problem. The only reason it ever worked is because some broker company wanted it as a feature, not because anything compelled them to give original artists a cut. And that’s before you consider the question, “but how do you know the NFT was made by the original artist?”
Add comment