NFT Art = US$69,000,000

[DrG]

That just sold for ~US$69 million https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/12/nft-beeple-christies-blockchain/

Seems like I could gen something like that - what gives?

"What sets it apart, though, is that this specific file is an NFT, or non-fungible token."

Interesting stuff and maybe a defense against "deep fakes" (*gosh* I hate this terminology - we should really be able to do better than that).
https://stephenmeade.medium.com/how-blockchain-and-nfts-could-help-with-deepfakes-f47b7eaefaeb

[ElizabethFord]

On the other hand, this is the same picture that will always be the original and will never be lost because it uses blockchain technology.

[DrG]

Another much publicized entry into the NFT movement, "Charlie Bit My Finger".

https://time.com/6050450/charlie-bit-my-finger-leaving-youtube/



Edit: Reportedly sold for over US$760,000!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/22/us/charlie-bit-my-finger-nft-trnd/index.html

[Nominal Animal]

Am I the only one who sees this just as an another example how humans are turning inwards from physical reality, taking another step into becoming an eusocial species where members only interact with each other in isolated hive cities?

Me no like.  Me like the rest of the world, not human hives.  Yuk.

[DrG]

I am fascinated by this NFT "trend". Assuming the report is accurate, what exactly was purchased? To me, what was purchased was a unique video - unique in the sense that it can be demonstrated to be the original video and not a copy. Ok, so what is the value of that? Apparently, the value is US$760,000 but how can that be?

This video is old, the kids are teenagers now. It was viewed 883 million times. One could argue it has historical significance, I can understand that, but to what degree? Will the day come when you can pay an admission fee to see the original video of "Charlie bit my finger"?

Once the plan was announced, I suspect that thousands saved that video. They now own a copy of a video whose original is arguably worth $760,000.

What I see is a trend toward YOLO (you only live once) investment strategies. Not sure how I cash in on that though

[Stray Electron]

What I see is a trend toward YOLO (you only live once) investment strategies. Not sure how I cash in on that though

  Cashing in is simple, you just have to find someone that is even more gullible than you were!  The Beanie Baby craze is a good example.  How did that work for the people that spent hundreds of dollars for certain ones?

[DrG]

What I see is a trend toward YOLO (you only live once) investment strategies. Not sure how I cash in on that though

  Cashing in is simple, you just have to find someone that is even more gullible than you were!  The Beanie Baby craze is a good example.  How did that work for the people that spent hundreds of dollars for certain ones?

Well, sure, the bigger sucker theory. Pick your example, tulips, beanie babies, whatever...eventually we get to the end of the line...the biggest sucker, and when he can't buy them all, it comes tumbling down.

I don't like that game, it only seems easy. I am reminded of that old adage: When you sit down at the poker table, if you don't know who the sucker is, it is you.

[Marco]

Seems like I could gen something like that - what gives?

In this case the NFT is essentially a bit of performance art, there will only ever be one first NFT sold by Christies ... that's what they paid for. Even if NFTs as a whole crash and burn, this one will hold some value as one of the most visible excesses (assuming the Ethereum blockchain remains secure).

As for why they paid so much, my guess is that it's one of the hundreds of crypto billionaires with an emotional/ideological investment in blockchain tech. Who is desperate to give blockchain some raison d'etre other than finding the greater fool. Of course in the process they are just creating another market dominated by speculators.

Flippers and crypto megarich, those are the people buying NFT.

[mrflibble]

Think of it as art investment, but without the art. Totally legit money laundering scheme!

[james_s]

Generally speaking I have never understood art and I don't think it ever will. I cannot fathom paying thousands, let alone millions of dollars for something that has no function. It may go up in value but that is only if you find someone else who is willing to spend a fortune on something that is useless. Happens all the time though, many thousands of art works have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars, including quite a few that I probably would have thrown in the trash if I found them, having no clue that they are actually valuable to someone.

[TimFox]

That’s OK:  there are many people out there who don’t understand mathematics, nor why anyone would be interested in it.

[T3sl4co1l]

Relevant:

[james_s]

Mathematics is extremely useful whether one understands it or not. The vast majority of art is completely useless, it has no functional purpose at all other than taking up space, people just look at it.

[Bassman59]

Someone who can drop $69 million on an NFT is clearly not taxed enough.

[figurativelythedevil]

$69 million

Nice

[Infraviolet]

In many ways the whole NFT craze isn't even art, yes it can help some artists do well and make money with which to fund future works, but the person who buys the NFT simply gets a claim that "I own this", they don't even guarantee getting a lasting copy of the artwrok. The art isn't stored within the blockchain, just the claim to it, so if bad things happen and all that survives is the blockchain, the artwork you have a claim to will have gne anyway.

[DrG]

NFTs as holiday gifts - of course 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/23/nft-holiday-gift/

[SiliconWizard]

When you understand that beyond a certain amount (not for us poor lads, unfortunately), money becomes virtual, it makes sense to use it to buy bullshit virtual art.

[DrG]

True, but in this "recent" trend, the prices are not astronomically stupid; from the cited article...

The image he bought for around $200 is in the form of an NFT, a one-of-a-kind asset that exists digitally.

Seems to me that it is being mass-marketed. For some reason it reminds me of paying to have a star named after you....look honey, I bought you a non-fungible token

[TimFox]

I see no practical difference between an intangible NFT and the previous craze for star naming.
I have spent money on tangible art and on pdf downloads of useful text, as well as on membership to art museums that thereby grant me unlimited entry to view the exhibits.