Topic: Crypto Art record! 69M for a Beeple (Read 507 times)

I wonder who are those guys spending that much of money for an art, this can be a good market for them and a lot of money to spend for.

NFT are growing, and It think this year will be the best year for them, so congrats to all the early supporters of NFT and for sure its not too late to join with them. Working with some arts now, let’s see if its worth to try.

It is every single art he has ever made all combined to one picture. You could see squares and many of them, each of them is one art that he has made so far, that is why it worths so much because you basically own an NFT that would be all of his works together and if he doesn't end up selling all of it again and again, that means you own the only NFT there is that combines all of his works together in one, kind of like you own all of his work.

The owner could easily end up making it bigger and printing it to put it on his wall as well but that is not what NFT is for, he just owns it somewhere and stored it, when this guy gets more and more famous, and when he dies, suddenly his things will worth more. Obviously it should never worth 69 million dollars, nft is a craze right now, this craze will die down and the price of this will go down as well, but its history made anyway.

the pic looks blurry so i open it in new tab but it was still unclear . i dont know what kind of art was that and why it was sold that high but i think that was normal for an nft because even others sells more weird things that arent consider to be an art anymore .

 i notice that most nft that are sold are expensive , this nft is not for us poor but thats okay because poor dont like to collect stuffs hehe

Maybe it's just like a license and anyone else in the digital space or we often call it Internet can't really use the image without your approval and the file is sent through private like emails or etc though I wonder how's the practice of enforcing the law with these NFTs, are they really useful as a proof of ownership?

I'm not an art connoisseur or something but that art looks like it has been taken straight from Minecraft and has been pieced together to form its entirety..

No, your website example is not enough proof that they own something, not even close. It's simple - if there is not a good relationship between the token and the digital art, then the entire market will collapse and be worth almost nothing. If you can actually own digital art as a unique buyer, then there is value. In your example the website IS the object. But owning a digital token is not owning the digital art. It's like owning a piece of paper that says you own gold, versus actually owning gold. They are not both the same thing.

Why do you ask these question in the first place? Do you plan to buy the artwork and negotiate it at lower prices by reasoning that you don't own anything physically. The answer to your question is simple, owning the NFT is like basically owning a website, you know that you can't hold it physically but you know that you are the owner of it, and you mentioned that there is a token as proof, isn't that enough proof that they own something?

Why do you ask these question in the first place? Do you plan to buy the artwork and negotiate it at lower prices by reasoning that you don't own anything physically. The answer to your question is simple, owning the NFT is like basically owning a website, you know that you can't hold it physically but you know that you are the owner of it, and you mentioned that there is a token as proof, isn't that enough proof that they own something?

But what exactly do you own? So I get that the buyer owns a token with a unique digital signature, say the public key is:

4985POSDIEFUA8OW3FJUWOI8FJWAOWAO398FJ8OIKL

But what does that have to do with Beeple's 5000-image artwork? Is the file which is hundreds of megabytes ALSO stored in the blockchain? What is the relationship between the unique digital token and the artwork?

-snip-

How do you know they're not collectors, and how you classified someone as collectors?
As far as i know, collectors also sell and buy unique things. Yes true NFT can be anything, but i think there's need some rule to classified NFT.

Buying this expensive NFT is extremely risky at all. If someone can afford this expensive price, the price is just very small for them, they can afford to lose it at all. They are willing to lose at all.
Recently about NFT trends, tweets also on Twitter can be now bought and sold. I am amazed by these NFT trends now.

NFTs have a unique signature in them so there isn't a possibility of replicating it. If you think that it is replicable then why don't you do it? I mean you have a strong adverb there to support your claim. Let's just accept the fact that it isn't our money and the art was worth that much, it's not our money so why do we have to feel regret about it? You think that it is absurd but here we are in a world where Jackson Pollock painting can fetch you millions, you don't understand how rich people think.

I think they were paying too much just for the unique identity and ownership as what the wiki says.

"A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital file whose unique identity and ownership is verified on a blockchain (a digital ledger). NFTs are not mutually interchangeable (not fungible). An NFT is created by uploading a file, such as a digital artwork, to an NFT auction market."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token

I think this is too much for a small digital artwork compared to the famous ones and this is insanely expensive that almost took more money than those famous artworks. This looks like a hype thing again but whatever, it's their money their choice what they gonna do with it. lol

I think only rich people spend their money to buy art at a very high price. Because rich people sometimes have excess money and are confused
about what to spend it on, they usually end up buying works of art at fantastic prices. Anyway the picture is not clear, even though I am curious
about the picture. To be honest I'm not someone who really understands art, so sometimes confused by many works of art that are valued
very expensive.

A digital piece by Beeple is selling for 69M USD according to The Japan Times, The Verge and other, at Christie's.

This follows a trend of increased prices for NFTs that are becoming an alternative asset of choice for the wealthy willing to invest in art with all the advantages of blockchain technology (easy to transfer, authenticity without doubt, proof of ownership,..)

I'll never understand this NFT craze. How can a file of a picture/collage cost millions of dollars?

What do you actually "own" here? Cuz it's not a digital image, which can be replicated infinitely and anyone can access or view. What you own is some signature in a blockchain and a bunch of people who agree that has some special properties that give it value. However, if you don't have property rights over the digital image, you don't own it. It's absurd people believe you could own something that is infinitely replicable.

I wonder who are those guys spending that much of money for an art, this can be a good market for them and a lot of money to spend for.

What exactly is the buyer getting?

The artwork is hundreds of megabytes. Is it linked in some way to the token?

Does the metadata include a hash of the artwork? The title of the artwork?

I'm not an art connoisseur or something but that art looks like it has been taken straight from Minecraft and has been pieced together to form its entirety..

But we're not here to critique the art. I'm not surprised that such pieces of work would fetch for insane amounts of money (if it is true). Apparently, this is an NFT, and for sure this will boost the attention and hype around such to greater heights after seeing this auction that has reached millions.


Imagine Onlyfans image leaks becoming NFTs in the near future. I can see that coming, and oh boy almost every picture from famous people would be turned into NFTs.

It’s very subjective, but I believe most of NFT users are not collectors, but only a speculative traders.
NFT can be used to represent something, virtually. Digital, physical, or intangible item can be presented as an NFT. CMIIW.
http://Https://www.coindesk.com/how-to-create-buy-sell-nfts

-snip-

Agree, especially when the Arts looks messy and not really good or worthy to buy.
I dont know what is the clear category NFT is, bcs a tweet can be considered as NFT too.
So is basically NFT is anything unique and precious for a someone?

I wonder who are those guys spending that much of money for an art, this can be a good market for them and a lot of money to spend for.

NFT are growing, and It think this year will be the best year for them, so congrats to all the early supporters of NFT and for sure its not too late to join with them. Working with some arts now, let’s see if its worth to try.

And later on, they will not be this expensive to buy.
It will just be an ordinary item to buy. Right now, they are spending millions of dollars just to get a hold of this digital art.
Wonder if the value of this will also grow thru time just like the physical art pieces.
And this type of collection, only those elites can afford.
Regular users cant afford such expensive digital art.
More than likely, there will be more rising digital artists in the next coming years.

I can't really see any valuable technology or its application. In this case I just see it as a way to show off what blockchain can do to solve various problems. Additionally, these projects stand out because their users don't have to interact with the underlying blockchain technology, but can still benefit greatly from this technology, making projects ripe for adoption official. Ultimately, the NFT opens the door capable of digitizing all intellectual property rights and encrypting all assets.

This is like selling stars, you get a certificate and all and someone earns money for nothing.

If anyone is interested in buying my first post on Bitcointalk, bidding starts at 100 Bitcoin.

This is like selling stars, you get a certificate and all and someone earns money for nothing.

If anyone is interested in buying my first post on Bitcointalk, bidding starts at 100 Bitcoin.

The artist, who has collaborated with Luis Vuitton and pop stars like Justin Bieber and Katy Perry, uses software to create an irreverent visual commentary on 21st century life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/arts/design/nft-auction-christies-beeple.html

currently interested in NFT, but this news is too far away from what I've expected. No, I've never undervalued arts.
but, every time I read about NFT that being sold for an expensive price, I always think that it could be a money-laundering activity.
or it was just a market manipulation. I mean, I can ask someone to buy my NFT with my own money. I just need that people's claim, and voila, I gain credibility as an expensive NFT creator.

Have you guys heard about the properties turned into NFTs as well? Although there's no confirmation if there's any value or validity to it like a land title would. It's crazy because its like anything can be turned into a NFT now. I can imagine more celebrities jumping into this and take advantage to get profit.

I wonder who are those guys spending that much of money for an art, this can be a good market for them and a lot of money to spend for.

I wonder who are those guys spending that much of money for an art, this can be a good market for them and a lot of money to spend for.

NFT are growing, and It think this year will be the best year for them, so congrats to all the early supporters of NFT and for sure its not too late to join with them. Working with some arts now, let’s see if its worth to try.

Admission of market manipulation

In a December 2006 interview, Cramer described activities used by hedge fund managers to manipulate stock prices—some of debatable legality and others illegal. He described how he could push stocks higher or lower with as little as $5 million in capital when he was running his hedge fund. Cramer said, "A lot of times when I was short at my hedge fund ... When I was positioned short—meaning I needed it down—I would create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures." He also encouraged hedge funds to engage in this type of activity because it is "a very quick way to make money."[33]

Cramer stated that everything he did was legal, but that illegal activity is common in the hedge fund industry as well. He also stated that some hedge fund managers spread false rumors to drive a stock down: "What's important when you are in that hedge-fund mode is to not do anything remotely truthful because the truth is so against your view, that it's important to create a new truth, to develop a fiction."[34] Cramer described a variety of tactics that hedge fund managers use to affect a stock's price. Cramer said that one strategy to keep a stock price down is to spread false rumors to reporters he described as "the Pisanis of the world," in reference to CNBC correspondent Bob Pisani, who Cramer insinuated was able to be manipulated, saying "You have to use these guys." He also discussed giving information to "the bozo reporter from The Wall Street Journal" to get an article published.[35][36] Cramer said this practice, although illegal, is easy to do "because the SEC doesn't understand it."[37] During the interview Cramer referred to himself as a "banking-class hero."[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer#Admission_of_market_manipulation

The record-smashing NFT sale comes after months of increasingly valuable auctions. In October, Winkelmann sold his first series of NFTs, with a pair going for $66,666.66 each. In December, he sold a series of works for $3.5 million total. And last month, one of the NFTs that originally sold for $66,666.66 was resold for $6.6 million.