NFTs go quietly into the night.
kyoto kid
Posts: 41,036
....an article from The Guardian is pretty much the final word.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/29/unsellable-worthless-nfts-tax-write-off
Post edited by kyoto kid on
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
For art I would agree NFT is not the way to go, but NFT could be valuable for legal purposes especially in countries where offical documentation can be suspect.
https://nftplazas.com/romania-issues-plans-to-store-government-documents-as-nfts/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2021/06/30/what-are-nfts-and-are-they-here-to-stay/?sh=a6292702f15f
That sort of financial trickery brings about strong opinions I can't share here.
Could be, if there wasn't a chance you'd have to pay gas to access your own information. Considering it's just Romania, I'm pretty sure it was cooked up by a guy who won salesman of the year, knocking canned air into second place.
Good riddance.
Hey! Canned air inflated my flat tire once. It was canned sunshine from Florida that failed to improve my tan! :-)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Please take anything like this with an entire plain of salt. Both of these articles were written to promote NFTs (Regal Assets is a crypto and gold investment business), and official documents being added to a blockchain is one of the scarier "use cases" pushed for NFTs. I won't go into the full background on this because I'm pretty sure it would run afoul of the forum rules, but suffice it to say that if official documentation in a country is suspect, why is the solution to hand citizens' data over to unregulated third parties instead of fixing the problems? (This is a rhetorical question; there is no good or above-board reason to do that.)
I don't think NFTs make sense in any capacity. They are not infallible, and thus not so 'nonfungible'. So I do not see the point in trying to use them for anything, especially when they have their own negative impacts and often painfully slow transactions. Maybe if they didn't have these issues they could be more useful. But that is part of their design...that's the problem.
I am not a big fan of crypto at all, but crypto itself could have uses, as it can be a way to handle payment outside the scope of overbearing payment processors and countries. If Paypal decides they don't want to do business with you, you are basically screwed. They can do so for any reason. Payment processors basically get to decide what content is allowed, and I do not like that. But if crypto is ever going to be used as currency it needs to be stable. I don't know if that will ever happen, and again it has issues with transaction fees and time.
Frankly crypto needs a total overhaul. Maybe that will happen, this stuff comes in cycles and it gets crazier and crazier every time. We have been through 3 or 4 complete boom and bust periods, and each one has become significantly bigger than the previous. It is a ridiculous roller coaster. This last crash was so brutal it might have wiped out most investors from ever considering it again, but you never know. I wouldn't count crypto out from having another boom period in another year or two. Just in time to ruin RTX 5000, LOL.
Agreed!
Not to get into politics (although this topic is inherently political), but IMO the main reason crypto doesn't work for the best purposes it could realistically have is that there are a small number of people with enough money to prop it up at scale, and none of them have good motives for wanting to do that. It worked better when the idea was not to replace All Of Money with it, because for it to be useful to regular folks it has to be manageable by regular folks. Otherwise what you've got is the fox standing outside the henhouse pointing at the farmer and going, "Who are you gonna trust, him or me?"
...idneed, it seemed to coincide with alternating generations starting with Pascal, and again most recently Ampere (skipping Turing). With Lovelace already released and no hoarding (yet) should the trend continue, it would make whatever architecture the RTX 5xxx series will be the next wave for mining (the multi chip "Hopper" architecture seems to be destined for High Performance compute units for supercomputers and data centres just like Volta was).
By then I may have a 3090.
They're still promoted here.
It would help if people knew what the heck crypto IS?
..crypto currency, such as Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Dogecoin.
As with every proposed real-world application of NFTs, the trick is proving that the NFT was legitimate when minted. I will gladly sell you an NFT deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.
How about a drawing of the Brooklyn Bridge :D
https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x9201a886740d193e315f1f1b2b193321d6701d07/1021
NFTs are a somehow even more worthless Pog.
The idea of NFTs wasn't bad: a means for artists to get some control over their creations and limit piracy, as well as a means for purchasers to verify their purchase was genuine and valid, the implementation was abysmal, control over validity and genuinity was practically absent, while it didn't solve any of the piracy problems either, but probably only added a new avenue for those stealing other peoples work to fraudulently earn money from it.
Wow ... that is impressive ... how to make money by making a big investing mistake.
There are always a group of people looking to profit off anything. That never changes. The fact that crypto is so susceptible to such manipulation is a problem that crypto needs to solve. Other assets face this issue as well, but crypto is especially prone to it. It seems like every crypto has a handful of powerful whales that wield too much control. In spite of the promise that mining can be done by anyone, it ended up becoming an arms race where those with huge farms of machinary dominated all the wealth. The wealthy who could afford more grew wealthier. The people who got in early benefitted most. The 'fear of missing out' drove a lot of adoption.
For some, yeah, but not for all. It depends on what you sell as to whether you are going to make money or not. No different than selling a product on Daz. If you put out something in demand or that people want then you will make money. People are making money with NFT but they did their research and are putting up what is wanted. Just because an article says something doesn't make it true for all.
To me, the most interesting part of the article is the lawsuit. During that time, many of us were saying NFT is stupid and we can't believe there are actually people willing to pay large amounts of money for them. Now, the people who paid large amounts of money for them are saying nobody could have figured out this is stupid. Fine.
News sites have been heralding the demise of NFTs a lot lately, but if you ask anyone selling NFTs they’ll tell you they are doing just fine, and that in fact they are stronger than ever, and that this is just a shakeup which is weeding out all the weak players.
Which I suppose is great unless you are a weak player... whatever that is… I’m assuming there are some sort of gladiatorial games in which NFT bros fight to the death in some sort of pit, Thunderdome or Colosseum of some type to effectively weed out the weaker players… I’ve personally never seen that, but it sounds interesting and I’m sure all the various news media have been monitoring these games closely and that’s why we keep seeing these articles daily for the past year or so as the number of players who are not true believers or strong players dwindles.
I guess the weeding out process takes a while.
Although a lot of people who don’t really like NFTs are very happy about the perceived demise of NFTs, I personally don’t see NFTs coming to an end anytime soon… No matter how badly they are doing because as with any four letter endeavor starting with an “S” and ending in “M”*, they’ll be around forever as long as there are discerning individuals willing to fork over money for them.
And apparently there’s a discerning individual born every minute, according to some circus guy or Wolverine in that movie where he played a circus guy, wore a top hat and sang a lot…
Whatever…
From the beginning I never saw NFTs going anywhere because of the whole non fungible thing… They are too non fungible, people like the option to fung and if you are all non fungible from the get go, there is very little room to fung in the event you need to fungilate latter.
If you know investing stuff like I do, you’d understand how important fungilation is to serious investors and people in tuxedos holding money bags with dollar signs on them… it’s like Basic Investing 101… be fungible or at least have the option to fung later, that’s literally carved on Alfred Vanderbilt’s tombstone and he made his millions selling tight jeans, so he should know about funging.
What investors really need is that flexibility to fung when they want to, but not fung if the funging isn’t fungworthy.
With this in mind I’d like to take the opportunity to announce my new and totally legitimate and not at all shady alternative to Non-Fungible Tokens…
Semi-Fungible Tokens or SFTs...!
You are probably sitting there amazed that nobody thought of this before, but I did about thirty minutes ago and it’s really a thing now.
So if you don’t want to miss out on the opportunity of a lifetime and feel left behind like some two month old carton of pork fried rice at the back of the fridge, you need to get in on this now…
But you are probably thinking “what’s a SFT?”…
Well, I’ll tell you… A Semi-Fungible Token (SFT) is a unique digital identifier that cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided, that is recorded in a blockchain, and that is used to certify authenticity and ownership of something that can be copied, substituted, or subdivided and probably has been thousands of times over.
The ownership of an SFT is recorded in the blockchain and can be transferred by the owner or someone pretending to be the owner, allowing SFTs to be sold and traded by anyone.
SFTs can be created by anybody, and require few or no coding skills to create.
How does a SFT differ from an NFT?
A Non-Fungible Token (NFT) is a unique digital identifier that cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided, that is recorded in a blockchain, and that is used to certify authenticity and ownership of something that can be copied, substituted, or subdivided and probably has been thousands of times over.
The ownership of an NFT is recorded in the blockchain and can be transferred by the owner or someone pretending to be the owner, allowing SFTs to be sold and traded by anyone.
NFTs can be created by anybody, and require few or no coding skills to create.
Clearly the difference between the two makes SFTs superior in every way, plus they are new and totally unproven, which inherently makes them even more valuable because nothing new or unproven ever fails and inevitably continues to skyrocket in value indefinitely.
I know this doesn’t address the issue of what some are calling the “downfall of NFTs”, but I think we are all bored with NFTs at this point and looking for something new and distractingly interesting, something that every discerning individual out there will find new and shiny and worth throwing money at in great huge fistfuls.
Well, that’s my two cents and as soon as I figure out how to make this all happen and to incorporate some disinterested monkeys into the whole thing, I’ll get back to you all so you can get in on the ground floor of this brand new “S”- -“M” thingie… so get those fistfuls of cash ready in the meantime.
*There are lots of four letter words starting with an “S” and ending in “M”… For example: Swim, Swam, Swum, Scam, Slum, Shim, Seem, Spam, Slam, Sham, Scam, Stem, Skim, Slim and apparently “SOOM” Which stands for “Standard Open Object Microkernel”… which is either some kind of bare minimal software needed to implement an operating system, or that tiny fragment of popcorn that wedges itself between your teeth and slowly drives you insane… though technically only a few of those can be considered endeavors, but either way, that can mean whatever you want it to mean, it’s up to you.
say you made bank selling NFTS without saying you made bank selling NFTs
What makes an NFT one that people would want? Not being hideously ugly like 99% of them are? The creator being famous? I have never seen an NFT that tempted me, not even slightly and no matter the price.
Gee, not the ones made by Mr. T??? {oh we laughed so hard over here when those came out}
Maddona's video NFTs were pretty interesting
An integral part of the weeding process is telling as many people as possible that it's a perfectly safe, artist-friendly way to make guaranteed money for, say, a year or so. It's best if you try to make them think that if they don't either invest in NFTs right away or start selling them immediately, everyone else will make money and they'll be poor and full of regrets when it all blows up. It's especially important to tell them not to listen to anyone warning them it's an unstable market rife with scamming and grift. Then, after you've cultivated your weeds, you tell them it's their fault for not realizing this was a cutthroat zero-sum game all along. That's the power of the Web3 community! :)
What they fail to mention is that holders of the BAYC NFTs were dropped a ton of their stupid APE tokens when that was launched. Tokens the BAYC holders were able to sell eager plebs for a small fortune when they went live for public sale. The profit they made from the tokens allowed the NFT holders to sell their NFTs cheaper than they bought them and still make money. But the way taxes work, they claim profit on the tokens, while being able to report a loss on the NFT. Then outlets like the Guardian pick up on the NFT sales and write articles like this as "proof" NFTs are dying while ignoring the other ways NFT holders were able to turn profits from their "devalued" NFTs.
And also, why is thi s in The Commons and not the NFT forum?
Moved to NFT forum.