Thetownend.com

I still don't really get what NFT's actually are, but on the wider level this seems to have disaster written all over it (so surprised they didn't try to buy us)!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59696837

I must admit I had never heard of it until now, that sounds dodgy AF.

NFTs are like crypto currency.

To me they are bound to come crashing down

except people are getting very rich. so ...

I see a "Wall Street Crash" impending with Crypto currency with a lot of people losing a lot of money and 1 or 2 very rich people getting even wealthier by selling at exactly the right time, I am looking at you Elon.

NFTs are basically just digital proof of ownership. You can attach an NFT to anything, for example shares held in a football club.

In my opinion there's nothing "scammy" about it, just a real lack of understanding.

sorry, not scam, just not sure of real world value in some applications

things like this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnn.com/style/amp/nft-accidentally-bored-ape-sold-intl-scli/index.html (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnn.com/style/amp/nft-accidentally-bored-ape-sold-intl-scli/index.html)

real worth 280k?

I mean I suppose the same could be said of any art.

how vigorously are these things defended by their owners if somebody else uses it.

By the same token, what makes £280k worth something? It's just a pile of paper or a number on a spreadsheet somewhere.

NFTs are not just art, they are unique digital certificates, it's just no one has thought of a really good use for them yet.

Not to get too technical, but:

"Non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) are essentially a form of digital artwork that can be bought and sold under a cloak of anonymity provided by blockchain technology. That anonymity, especially when paired with a relatively new technology, fosters an environment ripe for money laundering ie. Disguising the existence, nature, source, control, beneficial ownership, location, and disposition of property derived from criminal activity.”

Simply speaking: Potentially dodgy as fuck!

What NMH said.

"How much for that crappy internet meme Kitteh cartoon?"

"That'll be £300,000 of Her Majesties finest English Pounds please"

"Cushty. I'll take it"

"Are those Pounds the proceeds of drug dealing, human trafficking, exploitation, terrorism or the like?"

"Fuck off and mind your own business"

"Certainly Sir- that'll do nicely".

As both Samdy and Jayo said:

Lack of understanding
and
Not many have found a good way of using them.

By my own admission, I'm trying to use them in a good way. I've set up a small start-up that creates NFTs (which also includes physical items shipped to people who buy) and for the value of each one sold, a ¹/³ of the sale goes into purchasing trees. So if it sells for £1k, we buy approx 330 trees.

I've found this is at least one way of offsetting any carbon produced inadvertently by us on the Ethereum Blockchain. However, fuck Carbon Neutral and the ETH & BTC Blockchains...we're planning on moving to more efficient, quicker and cheaper equivalents of those mentioned, which means much less processing power and in turn would mean we go Carbon Negative (that's a good thing, as it means we're offsetting more via carbon sequestration than there is produced by us).

Without going on too much, there's more to crypto than just Bitcoin and Ethereum, although to the man on the street that might be all they know. Crypto and digital assets get a bit of a bad rep but more so because in terms of use cases, Bitcoin isn't particularly very good, clean, cheap or efficient; similar can be said for ETH.

Two platforms we're looking to build on for NFTs and other projects is Aesthetes & KlimaDao. The former is specifically for the curation of fine art (and photography) via NFTs and runs on the XRPL (XRP Ledger - It's like the blockchain only much quicker and cheaper, also everything on there is transparent so you can see and trace every single transaction). The latter is a specific platform that purchases voluntary credits from the voluntary carbon market (but there's more to it than that) and runs on the Polygon/Matic Network (again another one that is much cheaper than traditional blockchain).

Some say that when ETH2.0 arrives, that will change things. It may but ETH2.0 appears to be somewhat AWOL at present. By the time it arrives, some of the networks mentioned above could already be well ahead of them (they already are), so for me ETH2.0 is a bit of a moot counter argument when trying to defend the astronomical fluctuation of ETH fees currently. A transaction of ETH can cost you several £100+ at different times of day. But even at the "cheapest" you can still be looking at anything from £8 to £40 - just for sending something as simple as ETH to ETH (in different wallets not talking exchanges). When it comes to "Smart Contracts" which is what most NFTs run on via ETH, you're talking higher fees still.

There are some bad actors in crypto and digital assets but I think that is true of anything where there is money to be made. There will always be hustlers and Lee Power types. But there are a lot of people trying to do good and integrating systems that run well on things like the XRPL. Like anything, we can read articles that will only focus on the "dark side" of the "dark web" (a cheap term I find that people with little knowledge like to appropriate to crypto without much balance) and that may sway our opinion or cause us to err on the side of caution but doing our own research will find many useful pieces of literature to ponder over.

My wondering is in some ways, crypto is very much a "gatekeeping" kind of place at times (a lot of that has come from people unwilling to listen or learn from those who know their DOGE from their DASH) but I do think some of these articles are written to stop some of joe public from getting in on the game early. Write a demeaning article about the "dangers" of crypto and push it enough times...sure enough people will shun it and it's easier to shun something that someone doesn't know or care much about and it's mission accomplished.

To the Mooooooon! ;)

What's your point? The exact same thing happens with physical assets like property, art etc. being purchased with laundered money.

Harder to track than physical assets.

Sorry NMH, I'm inclined to disagree with that. Considering my spiel above, there are versions of blockchain that definitely trace every transaction.

That's not to say that people can still "hide" or "conceal" their funds/assets anonymously but as Samdy says, this also happens with FIAT/physical assets.

There is literally a publicly viewable ledger of ownership.

My professional experience of trying to track transactions in both the physical and virtual realms showed that virtual world stuff was easier to conceal.
That was 7 years ago though.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/nft-market-crypto-digital-assets-investors-messari-mainnet-currency-tokens-2023-9

Bradford?

I'd forgotten that they had a go at Bradford first TBH

Actually that's my bad - I thought this was a new thread and didn't realise it was the first post on page 2!! I've now read back - ignore me!! :)

Did you happen to see Crawley's accounts released yesterday?

Nope, but their owners website doesn't fill me with confidence... https://wagmiunited.com/

Non Tangible Stuffs worth fuck all after internet hype shocker.

Probably a big point that is missing is that many of them will indeed be worthless because a lot have been given away for free. A lot of businesses use/used them as marketing material - take a popular TV show and the next season coming out, they would give free/claimable NFTs to fans of said show. I think in that example, it was more to do with the collectible element but they were literally free.

Obviously there is a often market corrections and I do agree that the value of the oft commented ''Crypto Punks'' were at an overinflated value. But like any art, that value really only ever lies with what someone is prepared to pay for it of course. What I think is valueless, someone else will think is worth remortgaging their house for [not financial advice]. Kandinsky's Concentric Circles has never been something I admire but millions of people around the world love his work. I enjoy stuff by David Hockney but others can't stand multiple paintings of trees.

When new versions of exchange of value come in, there will always be some boom but there will always be people who can't or don't want to adapt. That's fine, but people should allow a space to evolve rather than bashing something they often haven't even dipped their toes into.

Hey ho that's the way it goes  :pint:

Isn't the major issue with NFT's that they don't follow the same rules as the physical art form - that being that 99.99% of everything ever produced in the name of art is shit and worthless, like every painting I ever did in school art class.  NFT's come from the opposite viewpoint, that everything chucked on the internet is somehow worth something, just because the creators think it is.