Topic: Another NFT sold for huge $$$ ' A column of New York Times (Read 288 times)
NFTS are gonna be the way people do business. It’s more effective and safe.
I really can't understand why there are NFTs that are being sold at very high amounts of money. I mean I get what NFTs are trying to do and I support it but the way they have been doing it concerns me. I'd love to see musicians or artists minting their work and maybe cartoons or manga as well. I have seen this Korean NFT website and it made me think that it's possible for NFTs to be more useful than being just purely moneymakers.
For some people, it's probably ridiculous, but I see NFTs as one of the new ways and media to appreciate artists or art itself. A new way to appreciate one unique thing that unreplaceable and has an intrinsic value. This kind of thing doesn't have the same value for each people. It's just the same way with the physical one, you can never judge people's sense of art and sentimental side since it's actually really personal. NFT's just the sign that the world has changed, anything physical will go digital at any time.
it does seem to much to pay 350 ETH for the NFT column, and I bet that Kevin did not expect this amount when come up with an idea, but there are obviously people with a large amounts of ETH that are willing to pay for NFT's, hoping that all will worth more in a few months/years/decades
and some will worth much more than today, but it is a matter of question will that be for all, or just some that will remain popular in the future
this NFT is first column NFT, and it is worth, but 350 ETH does seem to much
and some will worth much more than today, but it is a matter of question will that be for all, or just some that will remain popular in the future
this NFT is first column NFT, and it is worth, but 350 ETH does seem to much
NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...
NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
The reason that you don't see value because you don't have the money to buy that piece of art, I mean you already said that it is subjective which means that for some people that piece of art that you don't see any artistic ability has a value to them, NFT is a collective though which means that if it is considered a collectible then it is considered an NFT.NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
As of now NFT is being taken by many as the progenitor of the Digital Renaissance, and they may just be right. Knowing how in such a short span of time it had already became a multi-billion dollar enterprise/technology. Everytime I hear about news about how great NFTs are and its proper milestones, I just get so pumped up and excited about what we should expect in the near future.
Indeed, NFTs are now tempting many to start tokenizing their stuff. This example shows that NFT is a new trend that is likely to make crypto adoption even faster and make it easier and faster to create your own crypto and smart contracts. All this contributes to the development of the crypto industry as a whole, which means that for the NFT crypto community this is an excellent opportunity to earn money.
The best thing about NFT is that it has the ability to not just be a simple stepping stone for global cryptocurrency adoption, it can be implemented to other things, and that alone sets NFT apart from other preexisting technologies offering to help cryptocurrency adoptionNFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...
NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
Think about it this way, let's say that art worths money right? We all know mona lisa is something we can't even put a price tag over it, there are things that people cannot even sell, it's incredible and it is definitely way more than what we can afford. However we know how they were made, we know painting is painting, scripture is scripture, whatever art we are talking about it is whatever it is and there is nothing shocking about how it was done and what it was used to get done, it's just there and yes it is talent that brought painting into mona lisa, I can use painting as well but can't create that, but I can use it anyway.NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
NFT is different, it's a new thing, so people are paying extra insane amount of money to it because it is a brand new thing, it's not old school like other arts, it's something that never existed before today, so there is a rush. It's not going to go on like this, but it is early days so people are a bit excited about it.
Indeed, NFTs are now tempting many to start tokenizing their stuff. This example shows that NFT is a new trend that is likely to make crypto adoption even faster and make it easier and faster to create your own crypto and smart contracts. All this contributes to the development of the crypto industry as a whole, which means that for the NFT crypto community this is an excellent opportunity to earn money.
NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...
NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
The reason that you don't see value because you don't have the money to buy that piece of art, I mean you already said that it is subjective which means that for some people that piece of art that you don't see any artistic ability has a value to them, NFT is a collective though which means that if it is considered a collectible then it is considered an NFT. NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
Someone summed it nicely with 'When money is worthless, things that are worthless take its place' It's hard to judge this as different things have different meanings to people, and besides NFTs I can find a bunch of other things that are sold for astronomical prices that leave me baffled (a Lambo for example 
), but we have to acknowledge that people like to spend their money, not just stockpile it and that what we considered to be a huge amount of money, for someone else it is not. People have always and will continue to spend their money on things that to others seem worthless.
In all fairness to Lambos at least in their case you can see that it is a superior car than what you can buy normally, so people understand the high value they command, however I agree that we are entering weird times, NFTs are selling like no tomorrow and most of the time I am scratching my head about why its value is so high, but if two or more persons want to have it then a bidding war will begin in which the one that has the deepest pockets will win. ), but we have to acknowledge that people like to spend their money, not just stockpile it and that what we considered to be a huge amount of money, for someone else it is not. People have always and will continue to spend their money on things that to others seem worthless.
Yeah. No exclusivity, no transfereable digital rights, except to the NFT itself.
It's highly stupid, and reminds me exactly of what the high-class luxury art world is all about. People paying a lot of money for things they don't understand.
Keir Finlow-Bates pointed out on a podcast yesterday and I roughly paraphrase: You're buying a finger pointing to the moon.
You can change who owns the finger, but if the moon changes or disappears or moves, the finger is still pointing to that same spot.
It's highly stupid, and reminds me exactly of what the high-class luxury art world is all about. People paying a lot of money for things they don't understand.
Keir Finlow-Bates pointed out on a podcast yesterday and I roughly paraphrase: You're buying a finger pointing to the moon.
You can change who owns the finger, but if the moon changes or disappears or moves, the finger is still pointing to that same spot.
Finally found someone with the same thought and I'd say this hype is pretty stupid.
I know this is crazy, NFT is booming and people are spending a lot of money for just a digital art or collectibles where they can easily pay the best graphic artist in town, for at least a thousand dollar and not a million dollar. The hype of NFT is still here, rich people will continue to spend their money for sure.
All those rich brats are buying things that has literally the same value even before those arts are being put into NFT. There is no purpose or anything about purchasing those NFT instead of just flexing to the whole world that you are rich and sooner or later this hype will die.
Not sure if this can be tokenized though, Im not totally following all this NFT shit. Its totally absurd
We can tokenize our entire world, we will see more ideas in the future.
I think this New York Times journalist was inspired by Jack selling his first tweet as an NFT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-tweet-ever-as-an-nft-for-over-2point9-million.html
I think this New York Times journalist was inspired by Jack selling his first tweet as an NFT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-tweet-ever-as-an-nft-for-over-2point9-million.html
Right, in the end everyone would tokenized almost everything that is 'unique' and sell it to some rich guy that has tons of money to spend. Perhaps we will see Mr Beast selling his first ever youtube video in form of NFT? that would be hilarious if that happens
Not sure if it can be tokenized though, Im not totally following this whole NFT shit because its too absurd to be honest. No offense to anyone that supports it
NFT's are even more speculative than any crypto or stock because you are taking the subjective value of art and throwing into the equation. A street artist sold this piece for 64k - https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/nft-zuckerberg-fnnch-street-art-sf-16053999.php Maybe I am old fashion, but I am not seeing the artistic ability here...
NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
NFT's obviously transcends art, like this 3 million dollar Jack Dorsey tweet https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/22/22344937/jack-dorsey-nft-sold-first-tweet-ethereum-cryptocurrency-twitter
In few months/years these persons would ask themselves, why the hell did they spend so much money on these nft. With high probability, they will regret making this purchais. Somehow I’m really sure in it.
They would probably resell this one in time since they believe that NFT is the future, well they are rich enough to afford this kind of stuff so let them be. I know this is crazy, NFT is booming and people are spending a lot of money for just a digital art or collectibles where they can easily pay the best graphic artist in town, for at least a thousand dollar and not a million dollar. The hype of NFT is still here, rich people will continue to spend their money for sure.
Quote
Art is a diverse range of (the products of) human activies involving the conscious use of creative imagination to express technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
No wonder Kevin Roose a New York Times writer intends to auction his column as an NFT, "Buy this column on the blockchain."
I think we'll be saying goodbye to garage sales soon.
We can tokenize our entire world, we will see more ideas in the future.
I think this New York Times journalist was inspired by Jack selling his first tweet as an NFT.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/22/jack-dorsey-sells-his-first-tweet-ever-as-an-nft-for-over-2point9-million.html
In few months/years these persons would ask themselves, why the hell did they spend so much money on these nft. With high probability, they will regret making this purchais. Somehow I’m really sure in it.
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
Even i am confused with the amount of money they are able to raise with these digital art, if it was reasonable amount then i could understand but some of these contents are getting millions and i will not think about spending that much to hold something digitally which will not fetch any resale value until you find someone who is much more crazier than you to purchase that 
. 
NFTs are booming, can all that money raised bring new development to society? In some countries they are proposing the way to regulate the NFT, also not only this is here in the news there is relevance on this:
Recur raises $5 million for perpetual cross-platform NFT royalties
source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/recur-raises-5-million-for-perpetual-cross-platform-nft-royalties
This and others are taking scenarios with recognized companies, as they appear they are laying very good foundations so that they are not branded in possible scams.
Recur raises $5 million for perpetual cross-platform NFT royalties
Quote
“RECUR’s technical team is involved in the official process for Ethereum improvements (EIP), and our technology will be implemented at the blockchain layer,” said Recur co-CEO Zach Bruch. “By doing this it will allow the NFTs minted on our platform to move freely around the ecosystem while still generating recurring royalties for the owners and IP holders. Ultimately, our goal is to make NFTs chain-agnostic and keep NFTs and royalties decentralized.”.
source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/recur-raises-5-million-for-perpetual-cross-platform-nft-royalties
This and others are taking scenarios with recognized companies, as they appear they are laying very good foundations so that they are not branded in possible scams.
NFTs being promoted on media are mostly useless eccentric riches' toys which are probably a fun hype for few people who belong to these circles, but the truth is that NFTs go much further than this bullshit. Besides playing a big role in online games, they can be responsible for an interesting income for many gamers and jobless people around the world.
I think it's a shame how media gives so much credit to these worthless NFTs histories and don't talk about the positive potential of non fungible tokens that can benefit many more people in their daily lives for real.
I think it's a shame how media gives so much credit to these worthless NFTs histories and don't talk about the positive potential of non fungible tokens that can benefit many more people in their daily lives for real.
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
I always think about it too. every time I read about NFT (pure, digital art) that has been sold for an expensive price, the first thing pops up in my mind, "is it worth the money?".
don't get me wrong too, I born and raised by an artist.
I prefer NFT with some utilities, at least give the holders a benefit.
a few days ago I read about NFT which gives its holders a new token that will conduct IDO.
I believe we will see more NFT like this, NFT holders offering, NHO
Yes, it's very simple and that's why you see a rampant of NFT coming already from different people who are longing to sell their digital arts for a quite good amount of money or at least, make money from it.
All this NFt craze is looking more and more like bubble going to burst. i wish that NFTs would be accepted more slowly and rationally.
It will decrease in demand and craze soon. Just as you've said, the bubble will burst and everyone who's into it will likely to be disappointed when the hype and craze becomes slow. 
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
It is worth it only if the next person is willing to pay more or the same amount as the first person who bought it originally. All this NFt craze is looking more and more like bubble going to burst. i wish that NFTs would be accepted more slowly and rationally.
You have to ask yourself the same thing about spending so much on online money to you know, I mean what you people are doing right now, being skeptic and ridiculing NFT because they pay a lot of money for an art or anything that is tokenized is the same as the people back then who laughed and ridiculed bitcoin during its 0.1 USD days, why ask as to why they spend so much on NFT? I mean you are not the people that are buying the piece so how does it affect your life if they buy it if you find it stupid, you people that are skeptic are going to be left behind.
Valid statement though!While bitcoin got the demand due to actual use case but NFTs are more look like a collectible item so people want to buy it just for simply holding without actually using it that is what the difference between bitcoin adoption and NFT.
NFT art hype is taking us to old age again with the help of latest technology
How is it any different than bitcoin? I don’t see a difference between the price of bitcoin and the price of NFTs. They both seem high and speculative.
I do see a difference. There will never be more than 21M bitcoin. As of art and NFTs, imho anything can be art and anything can be under a NFT; this means basically infinite supply.
While some of those objects may worth the money, I also feel like NFT is just another hype that will fade out at some point.
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
How is it any different than bitcoin? I don’t see a difference between the price of bitcoin and the price of NFTs. They both seem high and speculative.
Yeah. No exclusivity, no transfereable digital rights, except to the NFT itself.
It's highly stupid, and reminds me exactly of what the high-class luxury art world is all about. People paying a lot of money for things they don't understand.
Keir Finlow-Bates pointed out on a podcast yesterday and I roughly paraphrase: You're buying a finger pointing to the moon.
You can change who owns the finger, but if the moon changes or disappears or moves, the finger is still pointing to that same spot.
It's highly stupid, and reminds me exactly of what the high-class luxury art world is all about. People paying a lot of money for things they don't understand.
Keir Finlow-Bates pointed out on a podcast yesterday and I roughly paraphrase: You're buying a finger pointing to the moon.
You can change who owns the finger, but if the moon changes or disappears or moves, the finger is still pointing to that same spot.
You have to ask yourself the same thing about spending so much on online money to you know, I mean what you people are doing right now, being skeptic and ridiculing NFT because they pay a lot of money for an art or anything that is tokenized is the same as the people back then who laughed and ridiculed bitcoin during its 0.1 USD days, why ask as to why they spend so much on NFT? I mean you are not the people that are buying the piece so how does it affect your life if they buy it if you find it stupid, you people that are skeptic are going to be left behind.
Valid statement though!While bitcoin got the demand due to actual use case but NFTs are more look like a collectible item so people want to buy it just for simply holding without actually using it that is what the difference between bitcoin adoption and NFT.
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
You have to ask yourself the same thing about spending so much on online money to you know, I mean what you people are doing right now, being skeptic and ridiculing NFT because they pay a lot of money for an art or anything that is tokenized is the same as the people back then who laughed and ridiculed bitcoin during its 0.1 USD days, why ask as to why they spend so much on NFT? I mean you are not the people that are buying the piece so how does it affect your life if they buy it if you find it stupid, you people that are skeptic are going to be left behind.While bitcoin got the demand due to actual use case but NFTs are more look like a collectible item so people want to buy it just for simply holding without actually using it that is what the difference between bitcoin adoption and NFT.
The process is simple enough isn´t it?
The process is very simple, a digital painting and other virtual assets that have no value asre the NFTs, but the hype makes them to have value, it is what the world are going for which makes the price to increase. There alcan be hundreds or thousands of such art work, but the one(s) will be tokenized which makes it original while the remaining worth's nothing. NFT are used by celebrities, but it will be good for the world to also make use of it for charity purposes, I have been reading recently how NFT are used to raise funds for charity purpose, this is done by New York Times.
The NFT of record: New York Times raises $500,000 for charity in NFT column sale
https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-nft-of-record-new-york-times-raises-500-000-for-charity-in-nft-column-sale
If NFTs are for charity purposes, I do not see anything wrong there, rather than celebrities selling what supposed to worth nothing at very huge prices.
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
You have to ask yourself the same thing about spending so much on online money to you know, I mean what you people are doing right now, being skeptic and ridiculing NFT because they pay a lot of money for an art or anything that is tokenized is the same as the people back then who laughed and ridiculed bitcoin during its 0.1 USD days, why ask as to why they spend so much on NFT? I mean you are not the people that are buying the piece so how does it affect your life if they buy it if you find it stupid, you people that are skeptic are going to be left behind. 
Does it really worth it to spend so much on an online art? Don't get me wrong, I do love some unique art and mostly love the idea of having them on blockchain but the way the price of the NFT's are being inflated is a bit surprising to me, I guess choice of what is valuable is quite different.
Someone summed it nicely with 'When money is worthless, things that are worthless take its place' It's hard to judge this as different things have different meanings to people, and besides NFTs I can find a bunch of other things that are sold for astronomical prices that leave me baffled (a Lambo for example ), but we have to acknowledge that people like to spend their money, not just stockpile it and that what we considered to be a huge amount of money, for someone else it is not. People have always and will continue to spend their money on things that to others seem worthless.
), but we have to acknowledge that people like to spend their money, not just stockpile it and that what we considered to be a huge amount of money, for someone else it is not. People have always and will continue to spend their money on things that to others seem worthless. 
Here is the add, the price still yet to be determined.. as of now, more than half a mill USD.
This basically reveals all the stupidity surrounding the NFTs that do not really confer any exclusivity right or possible utility. But.. I feel tempted
The process is simple enough isn´t it?
Quote
As I watched these riches change hands, I thought to myself: Why should celebrities, athletes and artists have all the fun? Why can’t a journalist join the NFT party, too?
So I decided to turn this column into an NFT and sell it on the open market. Whatever I make from it will go to The New York Times’s Neediest Cases Fund, a 110-year-old effort started by the former Times publisher Adolph S. Ochs that supports charitable causes in New York and beyond. (Administrative note: Since the Neediest Cases Fund doesn’t accept direct cryptocurrency transfers, I’ll have to convert the proceeds to dollars first, meaning that this is not a tax-deductible gift for the buyer.)
So I decided to turn this column into an NFT and sell it on the open market. Whatever I make from it will go to The New York Times’s Neediest Cases Fund, a 110-year-old effort started by the former Times publisher Adolph S. Ochs that supports charitable causes in New York and beyond. (Administrative note: Since the Neediest Cases Fund doesn’t accept direct cryptocurrency transfers, I’ll have to convert the proceeds to dollars first, meaning that this is not a tax-deductible gift for the buyer.)
This basically reveals all the stupidity surrounding the NFTs that do not really confer any exclusivity right or possible utility. But.. I feel tempted
Quote
Once I joined Foundation and linked my account to my Ethereum wallet, I had to upload an image of my column to a decentralized storage service called InterPlanetary File System, or IPFS. I then had to mint a token mapped to that file — essentially, generating a unique cryptographic signature that would live on the Ethereum blockchain, marking the file I uploaded as the real one.
The process is simple enough isn´t it?
Jump to: