NFTs were a vehicle to launder gains from cryptocurrency.
dude probably took the loss as a write off and gained millions in clean liquid cash.
When I first learned about NFTs I figured I was simply too stupid to understand it. There was simply no way it was as dumb as it sounded.
Turns out I was right, it was way, way dumber than it sounded.
Art is money laundering for the rich.
It all make sense now, doesn’t it?
Throw back to Banksy setting a trap in 2006, and springing it 12 years later:
“We’ve been Banksy-ed,” Alex Branczik, Sotheby’s head of European Contemporary art said in a press conference after the incident. “I’ll be quite honest, we have not experienced this situation in the past, where a painting is spontaneously shredded upon achieving a record for the artist.”
Now that… that’s fuckin’ art right there.
I love the rest of the article entirely missing the point of Banksy doing that being a surprise.
There, you idiots, frame that image.
They keep referring to Banksy as “he.” We don’t know if Banksy is male or female though, correct?
As far as I know that’s correct, nobody knows who Bansky actually is.… Is what I was going to say.
What astoundingly serendipitous timing.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/
TL:DR
First posted on the 13th, picked up by other media roughly 6 hours ago, Reuters released a special investigative report, and they believe Bansky is:
... are you sure? ...
Robert Del Naja, the frontman of Massive Attack.
Small correction:
Spoiler
They actually go on, in that Reuters article, to say it isn’t Del Naja, but instead David Jones. The Del Naja bit is kind of a red herring. David Jones, formerly Robin Gunningham, as long suspected. The Wikipedia page has already been updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy
I’m going to go with ‘Aha! I did an intentional misdirect!’
… yep. Mhm.
(cough)
derp
The article was fun to read, so I fully accept that explanation! ;P
And Love Is In The Bin became more valuable than Girl With Balloon at a subsequent auction, too, by a factor of 18x.
This fake art for sure, and so much that people start to think monetary value is what is important in art.
There was an experiment where someone set up a high class shoe store in a nice location. They took cheap shoes from discount stores and marked them way up and put them on some nice display racks. People bought them.
Expensive = good…to some people.
Genius! When they come back to complain about the craftsmanship or return them, the place will have never existed.
Checkmate, bourgeoise. XD
So how is he laundering money now with it?
Follow the money.
Logan Paul owed somebody $635,000. He paid them.
Could be such a simple thing as getting rid if an overflow for tax reasons, but I’m not well versed in USA taxes except it’s horrible so don’t take it as fact.
I literally emailed a bunch of people doing wildlife conservation and begged them “This is a bubble. Please sell cheesey lion photo NFTs for money. This won’t last.”
It went the way it usually goes if anything is used exclusively as a subject of speculation. NFTs were meant to represent things, but people inscribed “value” in the representation instead. As if the housing market suddenly exploded the day someone invented writing its owner on a piece of paper.
There are lots of legitimate but boring uses of NFTs, just not the kind that make the news like pictures of monkeys.
Name one… 😅
Proves ownership that is much more difficult for scammers to steal. Banks and insurance companies can use them(contracts…etc). Reduces costs in proving ownership as well. Unfortunately art seems to be the only thing anyone knows about but it should honestly be a very secure but ultra boring technology.
We already have mechanisms for all of that. Any security it provides you can have without it, the only difference it had going for it was “it has blockchain” and that was the Arbitrary Magic Hype Word at the time - like “AI” is now and “cloud” was before. In reality that means it’s a huge unwieldy system that wastes tons of resources for what’s often really poor reasons.
We do have existing mechanisms in place. More expensive and less safe options. This is definitely not a huge and unwieldy system. Very simple and streamlined and much cheaper. Nothing amazing or world changing… just some minor technological advances.
I don’t see how it’s more expensive or less safe for authentication to be signing with a private key and publishing the public key…
You don’t get it. It’s on the block chain, it’s a chain of blocks man, like it’s decentralized finance man, we’re calling it defi, like hifi but defi, it’s gonna be huge.
That’s… really just wrong
I still think we could’ve used then to provide game ownership rather than just rentals
No there isn’t. There’s lots of ways you can shoehorn NFTs in, but it’s always a poor fit. People always try and claim that NFTs will solve some sort of problem that is already solved with existing technology.
There is no problem NFTs can solve that can’t also be implemented much more cheaply and effectively with an SQL database from the 90s.
I’ve sold some photos as NFTs 🤷♀️, and I’ve bought some art from well known people like sabet and ame72.
It’s not as ridiculous as people make it sound. It’s just these headlines of the most ridiculous examples sets people’s perception of the tech. It’s really not much different than patreon or something, except the creator doesn’t get totally screwed.
I actually had this whole period where i would be doing something and I’d think to myself “Surely i misunderstand NFTs” then I’d stop what i was doing and check.
I mean, look at the bright side. Someone scammed Logan Paul out of $635,000.
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone at the top of the scam pyramid paid influencers to “buy” NFTs to try and kick off sales.
Now that you mention it, I better put on some welding equipment before looking at that side.
Tap if you don't get it
To avoid eye damage from how extremely bright it is
Today it’s ON SALE for $150. In reality it’s worthless.
He bought it for the headline.
… or because he needed to sink a $600k investment loss for tax purposes
Hahaha remember when they said nfts were going to be valuable because the artists involved were so innovative and cool? Then now the next GPU-selling trend is to rip off artists.
Future US Senator, folks! Truly a country of serious people.
ETA: $155 is still comically high.
Nice. I love seeing rich cunts making poor choices.
At least someone is happy with the USA then.
how about this take? logan spent 635K on a publicity stunt and 5 years later you muppets are stilll tweeting about it, pretty good return id say
And it had no discernible effect on his life.
Correction: today it’s worthless and in 2021 it was worth nothing.
Is it really worth $155, tho? Did someone actually buy it for that much? Or is it actually worth nothing since nobody is willing to buy it? 🤔
I’d guess that 100% of its worth is down to Logan Paul having owned it.
Just means when he sells it he will have quite a bit of capital loss to offset any gains he made.
Would have been better off donating to charity
The concept of an NFT and the security of purchasing isn’t worthless. The fact that people with too much money bid up and purchased any old crap available as a NFT was and always is idiocy. That crap reverting to worthlessness when it wasn’t worth anything to start with is reasonable. Some people were able to make a ton of money with that hype. Same as they now are on AI.
why is lemmy obsessed with nft’s?
They need people to feel superior to.
