# Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs



## Snarf (Jan 29, 2022)




----------



## RogiervG (Jan 29, 2022)

i am not going to watch 2h18m to figure out what YOU want to discuss (details on the matter)
Better write (in short) what the problem is etc etc...


----------



## Snarf (Jan 29, 2022)

RogiervG said:


> i am not going to watch 2h18m to figure out what YOU want to discuss (details on the matter)
> Better write (in short) what the problem is etc etc...


Fair point, I'll remove the poll. The poll was partly a joke, partly a cheap psychological trick to get people to actually watch the video, and partly an opportunity to test the feature. 

The video itself is well-made, reasonably sourced and congruent with my own research on the topic. In the context of VI-C it's mostly aimed at people who are interested but don't know a lot on the topic of NFTs and its problems. Particularly, it should be helpful when shifting through the all the claims by NFT/crypto-advocates.

Sidenote, the complexity of the topic is exactly one of the important problems with this topic. If 2h18m seems like a lot, you could skip to the first chapter on NFT's around 40 minutes in, though you'll miss some important context. You can also set the video speed to 1.25 or 1.5 if you're in a big hurry. 

EDIT: Okay so you can't remove a poll... I've reported the whole thread.


----------



## gamma-ut (Jan 29, 2022)

This commenter on the video will save most the bother:

"Here's something that struck me: if a new trend doesn't want to or cannot tell you what it's all about, be skeptical. If it doesn't want to tell you what it is or why it's a thing, it's because the trend is hiding something, most likely its intentions. If it cannot tell you what it's all about, then it's a trend for the sake of being a trend. And if a trend does both simultaneously and requires a 2 hour video to explain it all in a concise manner, run."

I also don't know why it takes two hours to explain why NFTs are 90% bollocks.


----------



## kitekrazy (Jan 29, 2022)

I though it was going to be about the NFTS file system I've been using for years.


----------



## Cheezus (Jan 29, 2022)

The sooner this fad dies the better, I’m sick of seeing people shill for this nonsense everywhere. I’m a bit concerned it’ll be one of those scams that sticks around forever like MLMs.


----------



## Noeticus (Jan 29, 2022)

The problem with NFTs is that humans made them up just like USD currency etc.

If humans are involved.... RUN!!!

As a side note: The above is available as an NFT.


----------



## d.healey (Jan 29, 2022)

I think it was a well researched video and a good explanation of the concepts and goals or crypto and NFTS.

BTW I posted this already in the other NFT thread.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 29, 2022)

that was extremely well made, informed and thorough. Very glad i watched the whole thing. 

I think its very relevant to for music creators since NFT/crypto has been taunted as a saviour of copyrights and royalties in the digital world. 

although the whole video is an argument against nsts, i do feel that if well implemented it could be useful for creators. For example, if my music is used in ticktock or a video meme and goes viral then i could get money from ad revenue in these social media platforms. But from all that he said in the video.... seems there a looong way to go for that scenario to happen, and most probably anyone who is pusing their own nft for music royalties etc is just trying to do all what he mentioend in the video. 

im surprised on how well researched that video was.


----------



## gamma-ut (Jan 29, 2022)

I made a start on it but frankly found it was so annoyingly and confidently wrong on even basic money-supply stuff (governments don't really create money, for example - though they do facilitate the means through central banks), which was shoehorned in there presumably to present some kind of overarching narrative on an economic crash leading directly to crypto and onto NFTs, I gave up.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 29, 2022)

Snarf said:


> EDIT: Okay so you can't remove a poll... I've reported the whole thread.


Once other people have commented, then we don't delete threads, since it's not fair to them to have their comments deleted.


----------



## jbuhler (Jan 29, 2022)

gamma-ut said:


> This commenter on the video will save most the bother:
> 
> "Here's something that struck me: if a new trend doesn't want to or cannot tell you what it's all about, be skeptical. If it doesn't want to tell you what it is or why it's a thing, it's because the trend is hiding something, most likely its intentions. If it cannot tell you what it's all about, then it's a trend for the sake of being a trend. And if a trend does both simultaneously and requires a 2 hour video to explain it all in a concise manner, run."
> 
> I also don't know why it takes two hours to explain why NFTs are 90% bollocks.


Didn’t watch the video, have no interest in watching the video, but it strikes me that someone who is already a cryptoskeptic is not the audience for this. It seems it aims more at the cryptocurious, in an attempt to relieve them of their curiosity and move them toward skepticism. 

Still, I agree that a 2+ hour video seems like it won’t help very much, if that is indeed its goal.


----------



## gamma-ut (Jan 29, 2022)

jbuhler said:


> Still, I agree that a 2+ hour video seems like it won’t help very much, if that is indeed its goal.


I agree (and broadly with its aims if it's to bring some scepticism). The trouble is if it's easy to fisk, the crypto crowd will descend on it like a pack of wolves. I'll have to see what's happened to it in the Bitcoin fever swamps.


----------



## danevaz (Jan 29, 2022)

I watched the video after finding it on the other VI-C thread. Did it in 4 sittings. As a retired software developer and technical trainer, I found it interesting. But, I admit, I was already biased, as I've always felt Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency as currently offered is a Ponzi scheme.

The real value for me was just getting some insight into this NFT world with its accompanying communities, lingo, acronyms, etc. As I watched, if something came up that I wasn't aware of, I Googled the topic and read up. Glad that I know a little more about this stuff now.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 29, 2022)

The premise of the mortgage bubble discussion is not exactly wrong, but I think it overemphasizes a haze of coordinated conspiracies and makes it all sound like an intentional scheme.

*The Problem*

The fundamental assumption underpinning the entire mortgage-backed bomb in 2008 -- the one that turned out wrong -- was that there was little or no correlation between the outcome for "Borrower X" and "Borrower Y" when it came to paying their mortgages on time. In other words, the lenders' models (and those of the rating agencies) were predicated on the assumption of little or no connection between the circumstances for each individual person borrowing for a home and all the other borrowers. If one guy couldn't pay, it was not correlated with the ability of the next guy.

That was wrong, but it wasn't a coordinated conspiracy. Many people sincerely believed it and historical data seemed to support it. Also, because it was repeated or accepted by so many impressive economists and institutions, including the Federal Reserve Chairman, it was easy for even fairly senior people at bank or regulatory or investing entities to go along with it.

*Intention? Hmm*

I don't think most of the people who were caught up in generating that bubble actually understood what was happening. I knew some of them and, as people are, they seemed very busy and just trying to get through the week. Besides, if they had known, many more would have gotten out of town while they could. Instead, many of them lost close to all of their net worth when it unraveled; they are money-motivated people and would have avoided that if they had really known what was going on.

That was another Greenspan assumption -- that the capitalists would not want to burn their own boat.

*Synthetics*

I also didn't catch whether the author emphasized the role of "synthetic" mortgage-backed bonds in the crisis of 2008-09. That was a crucial and much-ignored driver of all this, since it vastly magnified the impact of the default wave once it got going.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Jan 29, 2022)

d.healey said:


> I think it was a well researched video and a good explanation of the concepts and goals or crypto and NFTS.
> 
> BTW I posted this already in the other NFT thread.


Yeah, because it is such a well done video, I listened to the entire thing (while sweeping and vacuuming the house). Thanks to @d.healey for his original post. 

While the Youtuber may be a bit jaded, he makes some excellent points: 

Crypto is not safer or more secure than existing financial networks.
You don't have more privacy with crypto.
Crypto is not fairer and more equitable to the little guy than the current big Tech monopolies, such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. It still favors millionaires, billionaires, and early adopters.
Crypto is not more democratic. Those with more have more crypto have more voting power. 
Crypto is the perfect, unregulated environment for hucksters and con-men.

He makes many other great points. Anyway, this video changed some of my views on crypto and the blockchain. Would love to see someone knowledgeable debate this guy.


----------



## Snarf (Jan 29, 2022)

d.healey said:


> BTW I posted this already in the other NFT thread.


Ah, sorry. I used the search function but nothing came up. My bad.



jbuhler said:


> Still, I agree that a 2+ hour video seems like it won’t help very much, if that is indeed its goal.


I'm not sure, I don't think people are necessarily put off by long-form video's. This NFT video has been up for a week and it has 3 million views already, becoming the second most popular video on the creator's channel.



JohnG said:


> The premise of the mortgage bubble discussion is not exactly wrong, but I think it overemphasizes a haze of coordinated conspiracies and makes it all sound like an intentional scheme.





gamma-ut said:


> I made a start on it but frankly found it was so annoyingly and confidently wrong on even basic money-supply stuff (governments don't really create money, for example - though they do facilitate the means through central banks), which was shoehorned in there presumably to present some kind of overarching narrative on an economic crash leading directly to crypto and onto NFTs, I gave up.


Fair points. I agree that the first section is the weakest while contributing relatively little, unfortunately. In fairness, summarizing the 2008 crisis in 5 minutes is not the easiest job. The important takeaway, I think, is that the fallout of the crisis provided fertile ground for cryptocurrencies to flourish. In other words, I guess that means you can ignore chapter 0 and simply start at chapter 1.


----------



## timprebble (Feb 1, 2022)

If you have music on Spotify you might want to check this news:









Musicians are furious at website HitPiece, which listed their music as NFTs without permission


"Obviously, I didn’t approve this."




mashable.com


----------



## shponglefan (Feb 3, 2022)

timprebble said:


> If you have music on Spotify you might want to check this news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they are selling NFTs based on copyrighted works would that not constitute criminal copyright infringement?

It's one thing to court civil lawsuits, but it's another thing to risk jail time over this.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 3, 2022)

Tim_Wells said:


> He makes many other great points. Anyway, this video changed some of my views on crypto and the blockchain. Would love to see someone knowledgeable debate this guy.


I got this email from Time magazine this AM. Some thoughtful rebuttal to the original video.



Into the Metaverse


----------



## timprebble (Feb 3, 2022)

shponglefan said:


> If they are selling NFTs based on copyrighted works would that not constitute criminal copyright infringement?
> 
> It's one thing to court civil lawsuits, but it's another thing to risk jail time over this.


Exactly! 
Someone pointed out the site has no DMCA Takedown process available, which means the DMCA Safe Harbour law does not apply.

Let's hope justice prevails, but it seems outrage was part of their marketing plan.
This was shared on Twitter, the guy behind it is not some unknown.
He worked at Sony & knows exactly what he is doing...


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 3, 2022)

timprebble said:


> Exactly!
> Someone pointed out the site has no DMCA Takedown process available, which means the DMCA Safe Harbour law does not apply.
> 
> Let's hope justice prevails, but it seems outrage was part of their marketing plan.
> ...


Wow. Definitely sounds like the web3 and NFT space - trying to be 'disruptive'!


----------



## Tim_Wells (Feb 4, 2022)

marclawsonmusic said:


> I got this email from Time magazine this AM. Some thoughtful rebuttal to the original video.
> 
> 
> 
> Into the Metaverse


Thanks for that! While she acknowledges most of his arguments are valid, she offers some balance and stresses that we are in the very early days of a promising technology. Good article!

I didn't realize how viral Olsen's video had gone. I think anyone who's serious about crypto ought to watch it, as well as the response above.

My personal take away is it's too early to invest in crypto, unless you're willing to lose it all.


----------



## milford59 (Feb 4, 2022)

I have been involved in finance and trading (fx & derivatives) for over 40 years, and amongst the many self-imposed rules that I followed for all those years, trading for banks and financial institutions was “know how you are going to get OUT of a trade before you get IN”….. Of course, in most liquid currencies this is not an issue, but when you decide to dabble in , for example, emerging market currencies, it can become an issue because Central Banks and Governments of some of these countries will just change the rules to attempt to punish anyone whose activity they don’t like - this will rarely (if ever) happen with developed economies.

Crypto and NFT’s are a perfect example of markets where you have no control whatsoever over your ability to get out of a position - we have already seen examples of crypto exchanges pulling the plug when everyone is rushing for the door at the same time.

The price of NFT’s can easily be manipulated by the same owner selling from one account and buying with an account he has set up in a different name. It‘s no different to a “pump and dump” stock scam - and for those reasons I would not get involved in Crypto or NFT’s under ANY circumstances - there are hundreds of other investments that I would choose ahead of these.

Your mileage may vary, but be prepared to lose every cent of your “investment” ….


----------



## Mistro (Feb 16, 2022)

I don't know much about crypto but the overall vibe I get is people trying to detach themselves from established governments and "Main Street". If going into an alley with friends away from the main street and front door is being offered to you, run the other way. We are still dealing with a pandemic because of this attitude.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Feb 16, 2022)

Warren Buffett says crypto is not going to end well.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Feb 16, 2022)

shponglefan said:


> If they are selling NFTs based on copyrighted works would that not constitute criminal copyright infringement?


Unquestionably criminal copyright violation. Unfortunately, artists are going to have to rely on non-US action since our Justice Department has historically been completely uninterested in the enforcement of such statutes.... not to mention grossly incompetent in general over the past decade.


----------



## d.healey (Feb 16, 2022)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Unquestionably criminal copyright violation.


I'm not sure it's so clear cut. If I wrote down a URL to a YouTube video on a piece of paper and sold the piece of paper to you I wouldn't be violating the copyright of the YouTube video.


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Feb 16, 2022)

d.healey said:


> I'm not sure it's so clear cut.


Check around 17 US Code § 106 & 106A, 506... etc etc... I'm counting at least 4 laws broken here. 😅


----------



## rgames (Feb 16, 2022)

shponglefan said:


> If they are selling NFTs based on copyrighted works would that not constitute criminal copyright infringement?


I don't think so, and that fact gets at the heart of the problem with NFTs: they require some legal weight behind them before they're useful. But their whole ethos is built upon "no government necessary."

I can sell you an NFT that says you own the White House. But... who cares?

It's when you try to enforce it that the lack of value is realized. If you buy that NFT then show up in DC asking Biden to pack up, guess what? You're going to be ignored because there's no government that cares what an NFT says.

Likewise with an NFT for anything else. The fact that it's a certificate of ownership is meaningless unless people decide it isn't.

Whoever sold NFTs for a bunch of music probably did it to make that point. Nobody cares. Just because you own the NFT doesn't show that you have any right to make money off the music because nobody recognizes the NFT as a valid certificate of ownership. It just shows that you're an idiot.

NFTs won't have any meaningful value until governments, banks, businesses, etc. start to recognize them as valid certificates of ownership. But their whole shtick is "we don't need those guys!"

Well... catch 22.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Feb 16, 2022)

Also - people in this thread are confusing cryptocurrency, NFTs and blockchain technology.

Cryptocurrency and NFTs *use* blockchain technology but are different things. And neither *is* the underlying blockchain technology.

I suspect cryptocurrencies have some future but I struggle to see how they'll become mainstream.

I can't see how NFTs ever become useful without widespread government buy-in, which basically gets away from their supposed purpose.

Blockchain technology definitely has a future, though maybe not for NFTs or cryptocurrency. Ultimately it's just a highly secure transaction ledger. If you agree to pay X for product/service Y there's a (basically) immutable record of what X and Y are, so your record and the seller's record can't be manipulated. So you can avoid issues where disagreements arise because of different records kept by the buyer and seller. The information on the transaction exists independent of either the buyer or seller.

That kind of certainty has lots of value for things like business transactions, medical records and a bunch of other things where accuracy and security are of critical importance.

rgames


----------



## Tim_Wells (Feb 17, 2022)

rgames said:


> Also - people in this thread are confusing cryptocurrency, NFTs and blockchain technology.


I don't know who you mean, but if you watch the video (which is excellent) he goes into depth on all three, even though the title just has NFTs in it. I personally don't waste my breath discussing NFTs because they appear to be a ridiculous side-show of the crypto circus. 

The blockchain will likely have real-world utility. Crypto may, as well. But probably not in all the ways its advocates envision. From all I've learned about it recently, I certainly wouldn't invest in crypto.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 17, 2022)

rgames said:


> Blockchain technology definitely has a future...





Tim_Wells said:


> The blockchain will likely have real-world utility...


As a software developer, I thought this too when I first got into crypto and blockchain (2017-ish).

However, in the years since, we still don't have a 'killer app' that is built on blockchain technology.

Normally it takes a killer app to propel a platform into mainstream general usage. For example, there is a lot more (real-world) traction around platforms like AWS and Azure than blockchain.

The only 'killer apps' for blockchain appear to be cryptocurrencies, NFTs and DAOs. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Cheezus (Feb 17, 2022)

Blockchain has been around for over a decade and still hasn’t demonstrated real world utility other than crypto. Personally, my optimism for its future has run out.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Feb 17, 2022)

marclawsonmusic said:


> As a software developer, I thought this too when I first got into crypto and blockchain (2017-ish).
> 
> However, in the years since, we still don't have a 'killer app' that is built on blockchain technology.
> 
> ...


Interesting. You may be right. I came up in the Accounting and IT world and I know a lot of the big accounting firms and banks were looking at blockchain closely. But maybe they were susceptible to the hype, like everyone else. I was thinking in particular, that "smart contracts" may have some utility in accounting systems.


----------



## rgames (Feb 17, 2022)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> Unquestionably criminal copyright violation.


I don't see how - here's another way to think about it.

What is copyright? It's a legal process whereby you claim rights to some intellectual property. There is no copyright in the NFT sale and no attempt to make money from the music, therefore there is no copyright violation.

Now let's say whoever paid for those NFTs does start marketing that music and making money off of it. At that point it becomes a copyright violation (once the rightful owners file for copyright).

If the person who bought the NFTs really believes he owns the rights to the music then guess what he'll have to do? He'll have to file for copyright, because no government recognizes NFTs as a certificate of ownership. So he could have just skipped the NFT and filed for copyright.

The NFT is meaningless. Copyright is all that matters until governments start acknowledging NFTs.

rgames


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 17, 2022)

Tim_Wells said:


> Interesting. You may be right. I came up in the Accounting and IT world and I know a lot of the big accounting firms and banks were looking at blockchain closely. But maybe they were susceptible to the hype, like everyone else. I was thinking in particular, that "smart contracts" may have some utility in accounting systems.


I was thinking the same thing, Tim... at least a few years ago.

I also think smart contracts would be a great solution for licensing creative works:

Work is created by author
Work is added to the chain (the _work itself,_ not just an NFT representation)
Any time work is accessed, streamed, used, or shared, it's a transaction - and the smart contract can track and monetize it
The problem is that *blockchain is not the right platform for this*. It's too unwieldy - especially for large digital assets. That's why the digital item is always stored off-chain (only the URL is on-chain - how NFTs work). And, as soon as that digital asset goes off-chain, the whole thing is no longer 'de-centralized', so we're back to square one.

I also like the idea of blockchain for software licensing (or plugin licensing!). All purchases, authorizations, resales, etc. could be on-chain which would basically negate piracy. This is a lighter-weight scenario... but that also means it can be solved with lighter-weight technology than blockchain! Again, back to square one. 

So, the theory is great, but I'm no longer sure of the application. Meanwhile, we are stuck with crypto and NFTs!


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Feb 17, 2022)

@rgames that’s not _really_ accurate… hence why I posted the pertinent statutes above. 😊


----------



## rgames (Feb 17, 2022)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> @rgames that’s not _really_ accurate… hence why I posted the pertinent statutes above. 😊


What part isn't accurate?

By decree in this forum post, I grant you, @Stephen Limbaugh, all rights to and full ownership of the White House located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW in Washington, DC 20500, USA.

Congratulations, and enjoy your new home.


************************

Do you think that post has any meaning, anywhere? No, it does not!

Likewise with the NFT. Anybody can grant ownership of anything to anyone.

That grant of ownership is meaningless by itself. It's not until you try to do something with the supposed ownership that it matters.

Cheers 

rgames

EDIT: you know what? I'm feeling pretty generous today, so also by decree in this forum post, I grant you, @Stephen Limbaugh, full ownership of all stock for Apple Computer, Incorporated.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 17, 2022)

marclawsonmusic said:


> I was thinking the same thing, Tim... at least a few years ago.
> 
> I also think smart contracts would be a great solution for licensing creative works:
> 
> ...




There was recently a post in facebook groups with this thing you mentioned. 
this is it:





__





Dequency Executes First-Ever Music Synchronization License Smart Contract on the Algorand Blockchain


/PRNewswire/ -- Music synchronization licensing marketplace, Dequency, has executed the first-ever sync license on a public blockchain. "Late Night People" by...




www.prnewswire.com






I was checking a little background and it has some guy from tesla. some big wig teacher at berklee and other "poeple who know what they are going" and at first glance i thought it was a good idea. 

but googling around i notice that their concept is based on algogrand blockchain and cryto currency algo. 

And that the creators/dao of algorand opened the coin throwing millions of it to see how it will be priced... but turns out they have billons in their possession. 

So it basically what the main video showed about the line goes up with nfts. where the main idea is to be a big bagholder in a cypto platform/dao etc where if it takes off "to the moon" then you will become mega rich... like that kid in did ehtereum. Even if its a contract based ledger etc, moey transfer whould rely on the coin. 


in this case the whole concept is: 

Keatly Haldeman, CEO of Dequency: "Our vision for Dequency is to cut out the middle man in music licensing transactions so that creators maximize earned income and get paid immediately. By executing the first-ever on-chain sync license transaction, we're one step closer. We made history today."
“Licensing of music into film, tv, or other applications in 2022 is currently akin to booking travel in 1975; inefficient, rife with unnecessary intermediaries/rent seekers, and closed off to those unable to get through the corporate gatekeepers,


Well.. guess who the middle man in music licensing is? because im thiking that BMI and ASCAP and RIAA, record labels that have clout to get more money etc... Because if your music will be used for a superbowl commercial then how much someone would charge is not something a musician will know. 
And obvously we all know how simple music contracts are right? Never issues with rights or anything like that... just like buying a plane ticket :/


So this idea of making it work for artist is still like in the main nft video. its all an excuse to be the next platform and get poeple to rely on their coin so the main bag holders be rich all while the underlying issue is not resolved, its made worse and it ends up being more cmplicated than whats available. And of course the creators of that system just care so deeply about us. 

This is actually what we should all be focusing on:

*








Warner Chappell: Spotify, Google and Amazon are paying songwriters an ‘appallingly low’ rate in the US - Music Business Worldwide


Warner Chappell's co-chairs slam streaming pay rate for songwriters…




www.musicbusinessworldwide.com




*


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Feb 17, 2022)

@rgames yeah… your example is not remotely close to what Hitpiece.com did.

….not to mention, the White House (and national monuments for that matter) are not subject to copyright law as it pertains to the issues specifically discussed here.


----------



## aeliron (Feb 17, 2022)

danevaz said:


> I watched the video after finding it on the other VI-C thread. Did it in 4 sittings. As a retired software developer and technical trainer, I found it interesting. But, I admit, I was already biased, as I've always felt Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency as currently offered is a Ponzi scheme.
> 
> The real value for me was just getting some insight into this NFT world with its accompanying communities, lingo, acronyms, etc. As I watched, if something came up that I wasn't aware of, I Googled the topic and read up. Glad that I know a little more about this stuff now.


All I know is: my nephew-in-law wrote an essay about crytpocurrency, whereupon his professor promptly sold all his Bitcoin.

Me, I don't know how "safe" or "unsafe" it all is. On the one hand a lot of very smart people are involved. Not a guarantee of anything, of course, but someone will make money somehow ... and some will lose it, and have.

But if people will buy NFTs, why not sell some? Like a lot of other things, including smartphone apps and posters of ducks playing soccer, value is what potential buyers are willing to pay for something, based on what they perceive. That's why wealth is not a zero-sum game - it can be created. I mean ... look at Flappy Bird. And "art" that goes missing because it looks like trash and was carted off to the dump, because most "modern art" is a grift.

As long as it's wealthy folks buying them and not poor shmucks treating it like an investment and ending up broke.


----------



## Tim_Wells (Feb 17, 2022)

aeliron said:


> As long as it's wealthy folks buying them and not poor shmucks treating it like an investment and ending up broke.


Yeah, buyer beware and all that. But I think, at least in part, it's wealthy folks and some scam artists hyping a product to pump and dump it onto people who are financially illiterate; people who don't understand it but believe it's a way out of their crappy situation. After all, so many "smart" people are buying it. 

Elon Musk pushing Dogecoin is unconscionable to me

I realize I'm painting with a broad brush and there are plenty of good folks involved with crypto. But there are going to be a lot of _poor shmucks_ who loose their shirts.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Feb 17, 2022)

aeliron said:


> someone will make money somehow ... and some will lose it, and have.


It's telling that the talk about crypto always seems to come back to making or losing _good old fashioned normal money_. "So-and-so made money off crypto", "so-and-so lost money on crypto".

Not talk about crypto as something inherently valuable or useful in and of itself, but something that people can get into and out of solely because it can make them money.


----------



## rgames (Feb 18, 2022)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> @rgames yeah… your example is not remotely close to what Hitpiece.com did.
> 
> ….not to mention, the White House (and national monuments for that matter) are not subject to copyright law as it pertains to the issues specifically discussed here.


OK maybe I missed something. They sold NFTs for music they don't own rights to, correct? If so, everything I said applies.

Regarding the White House, it's not about the copyright. It's whether someone granting someone else ownership of something in the form of an NFT has any meaning, copyright or otherwise.

It does not. You can grant someone ownership of music through an NFT but that transaction is meaningless in any court of law as far as I can tell. Likewise, I can grant you ownership of the White House through a forum post, also meaningless in a court of law. So that forum post carries as much legal weight as the NFT - i.e. they're both meaningless from a legal standpoint.

So I don't understand how the example is unrelated. They're both examples of transfers of ownership that carry no legal weight.

rgames


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Feb 18, 2022)

They _copied_ artist images, names, likenesses, album art etc to coax people into _buying_ their NFTs… 

That is not different than putting a picture of Led Zeppelin on a T shirt and selling it without permission. lol…


----------



## rgames (Feb 18, 2022)

Stephen Limbaugh said:


> They _copied_ artist images, names, likenesses, album art etc to coax people into _buying_ their NFTs…
> 
> That is not different than putting a picture of Led Zeppelin on a T shirt and selling it without permission. lol…


Yes, but that's not what the linked article is about. The linked article is about somebody selling NFTs that claim to transfer ownership of someone else's music. From the article:

"Each HitPiece NFT is a One of One NFT for each unique song recording,"

It doesn't say anything about names and likenesses.

If you're saying they used names and likenesses to drive the sale then yes, clearly a copyright violation. But that's not what I see being discussed in this thread. Here and in the article (I think?) we're talking about whether someone can convey ownership simply by creating an NFT. They cannot, which is also what the article says.

rgames


----------



## Stephen Limbaugh (Feb 18, 2022)

rgames said:


> If you're saying they used names and likenesses to drive the sale then yes, clearly a copyright violation.


Yes exactly! 🥳



rgames said:


> But that's not what I see being discussed in this thread. Here and in the article (I think?) we're talking about whether someone can convey ownership simply by creating an NFT.


Got it… I was referring strictly to the Hitpiece scheme being illegal, responding to what I thought was a specific comment about that. 😊👍🏻


----------



## JoelS (Feb 18, 2022)

Tim_Wells said:


> Yeah, buyer beware and all that. But I think, at least in part, it's wealthy folks and some scam artists hyping a product to pump and dump it onto people who are *financially illiterate*; *people who don't understand it *but believe it's a way out of their crappy situation.
> ...
> But there are going to be a lot of _poor shmucks_ who loose their shirts.


Bolded emphasis added by me, and selectively quoted because I want to address some specific things here. First, though, since it's the topic of this thread:

The Folding Ideas video was a well-researched, skillfully delivered one-sided hit piece. He cites a lot of very valid problems with the behavior of participants in the crypto/NFT space, and... that's it. Take any issue, present only the problems, editorialize with venomous mockery, and you'll get a lot of plaudits from people already on your side and sway others who have a superficial 'just curious' stance.

Back to commenting on the quote I cherry picked:

Financially illiterate people should seek to become financially literate.

Is it too much to ask of people, that if they are going to 'invest' a significant chunk of their net worth in a thing, that they seek to understand what they are doing? Why is that not the baseline requirement in anyone's internal decision making process? I don't want to see scammers succeed, and I do want to see 'regular' people succeed at finding financial security and stability. I spend a fairly significant amount of my time educating people about the basics of the crypto market (though I pointedly do not offer financial advice, as I am not a financial advisor).

Nearly anyone, presently, can learn about crypto and participate in that market. They can learn risk mitigation techniques. They can apply various approaches towards their participation in the market, with different time horizons and behaviors of investing, trading, and speculating (which require specific strategies and mindsets, and are all very valid ways to make money). There is an enormous amount of opportunity for average, non-wealthy people to learn about that market and participate in it responsibly.

No 'investment' in a financial market is guaranteed to be safe. Have you looked at the equities markets lately? How safe are they in the short term? Are they safe in the long term? (probably yes) Is the dollar safe? How deeply have you looked into global finance? Do you trust banks to act in your interest?

Imo, the entirety of global finance is a bunch of handwavey nonsense where the power players at the government level make up the rules as they go along and tilt the playing field to suit their agendas.

That doesn't mean you can't learn to navigate the markets in a pragmatic, informed, responsible way and benefit substantially from that participation. Demonizing the whole space and scaring people away from looking at how it can benefit them in a way that doesn't put them at great risk is, to me, the wrong approach.


----------



## Land of Missing Parts (Feb 18, 2022)

I trust regular old dollars and keep it in banks and invest in boring index funds. 

Longstanding institutions aren't perfect, but they're the product of many generations past who fought to establish norms, protections, regulations, all of which is too easy to take for granted and glibly talk of throwing away because they still aren't perfect.

It's not so much that I think banks are perfect or act in my interest as I think banks aren't the wild west, and I trust that they won't just disappear overnight with my money.


----------



## GtrString (Feb 18, 2022)

timprebble said:


> If you have music on Spotify you might want to check this news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And if you accepted cookies to read it, they now also own your house, and will sell it as real estate information to highest bidder! 

I may be old, but I fail to see the need for crypto, nft’s ect. I have regular investments, and they add up over the years without much of a risk. There is just no need to take bigger risks imo, I see it as much more ethical to own part of a real company of choice with hard working employees.

If you invest in real stocks, you contribute to the economy, and it will benefit you for a minimum of effort. But the more speculative games is not really a good deal. The house always wins in gambling. Common sense will save your a$$

Fyi, I both watched the video and answered hell no. Polls are unreliable


----------



## JoelS (Feb 18, 2022)

Land of Missing Parts said:


> I trust regular old dollars and keep it in banks and invest in boring index funds.
> 
> Longstanding institutions aren't perfect, but they're the product of many generations past who fought to establish norms, protections, regulations, all of which is too easy to take for granted and glibly talk of throwing away because they still aren't perfect.


I have no argument against boring index funds. They largely do what they're intended to do, which is provide a low-risk investment that gradually moves upwards over a long period of time.

Regulation will benefit the crypto space, if it's done right... which is a really big topic, but in general having sensible, clear regulatory guidelines (which should have been worked on years ago) will likely be a good thing. I certainly don't see crypto as being in a zero-sum competition with traditional finance where it's all or nothing. There's no need to align with one extreme or the other. Participation in crypto markets doesn't require zealotry. Most of the big exchanges are basically aiming at being 'Banks 2.0,' but with better financial products with higher yield. US regulated exchanges have FDIC insurance on their accounts. It's not so fringe as a lot of people think.


----------



## NoamL (Feb 18, 2022)

rgames said:


> That kind of certainty has lots of value for things like business transactions, medical records and a bunch of other things where accuracy and security are of critical importance.


Those are exactly the things I don't want in a public ledger.

We already have secure, trusted, ledgers they're called databases. Trustless ledgers aren't really a problem that needs solving. My bank isn't going into my account and stealing $5 every month hoping I don't notice. My physician isn't forging my electronic medical records to make himself look better.


----------



## Cheezus (Feb 18, 2022)

JoelS said:


> Bolded emphasis added by me, and selectively quoted because I want to address some specific things here. First, though, since it's the topic of this thread:
> 
> The Folding Ideas video was a well-researched, skillfully delivered one-sided hit piece. He cites a lot of very valid problems with the behavior of participants in the crypto/NFT space, and... that's it. Take any issue, present only the problems, editorialize with venomous mockery, and you'll get a lot of plaudits from people already on your side and sway others who have a superficial 'just curious' stance.


Wouldn't it actually be more dishonest if he went out of his way to make arguments in favor of something he's genuinely against in order to appease people who disagree with him? What's wrong with just presenting your well-researched opinion on something? "Say good things about thing you don't like instead." I don't get this argument.


----------



## JoelS (Feb 18, 2022)

Cheezus said:


> Wouldn't it actually be more dishonest if he went out of his way to make arguments in favor of something he's genuinely against in order to appease people who disagree with him? What's wrong with just presenting your well-researched opinion on something? "Say good things about thing you don't like instead." I don't get this argument.


Does some degree of objectivity have to equal appeasement? I already watched the whole thing once, and don't really intend to go back to cite specific parts. There was plenty of solid, factual accounting of stuff that is legitimately bad behavior. There was also a whole lot of invective, mockery and demonization of the entire space and people who participate in it, and when that is presented as an unquestionable truth, for me it diminishes the more factual critique and leads to incoherent echo-chamber noise that makes actual discussion impossible.

The more 'burn it all down' a take is, the less it invites or suffers any real discourse. His take was rather incendiary, and I felt he presented a lot of opinion as fact. In my view, it was misleading and the fact that he did a lot of research gives him an air of authority that many people (judging by the comments) accepted uncritically.


----------



## gamma-ut (Feb 18, 2022)

NoamL said:


> Those are exactly the things I don't want in a public ledger.
> 
> We already have secure, trusted, ledgers they're called databases. Trustless ledgers aren't really a problem that needs solving. My bank isn't going into my account and stealing $5 every month hoping I don't notice. My physician isn't forging my electronic medical records to make himself look better.


One of the subtleties that tends to get trashed in discussions of blockchains and the like is that they don't have to be entirely trust-free or entirely open systems. There is a case to be made for using so-called permissioned digital ledgers (PDL) for handling things like medical records or rather metadata that's associated with those records. 

The disadvantage of a conventional database is that it needs to be maintained by a single agency or supplier – moving things from one supplier to another is a PITA. In the blockchain-type system, you keep data or metadata that needs to be shared, such as who is responsible for what, but the contents of the records stay in private databases unless they need to be transferred to a new supplier. What you don't do is put actual medical records on the blockchain, which would violate various privacy laws in the first place. That could be a public blockchain with encrypted contents or a PDL where only accredited members have access and have to obey rules on how blocks are added (which overcomes much of the need for some energy-hungry cryptographic update mechanism).

As with most things, you can design a shared database to do the job but the shared nature of blockchains makes it easier to implement if for some reason it is hard to assign one agency to manage the thing.

Medical records may be a poor application, full stop. Something like an Ebay for widget suppliers to manage shipments to factories would arguably be a lot more suitable.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Feb 19, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> There was recently a post in facebook groups with this thing you mentioned.
> this is it:
> ...
> 
> So it basically what the main video showed about the line goes up with nfts.


Great points, @gsilbers, and exactly what I found after spending 3-4 weeks on some music-related DAO Discord servers.

There are a number of folks trying to tackle the music licensing problem, but all have the same problems discussed in the video re: the web3/DAO model.

In the end, it's all great ideas. Fantastic ideas. _Revolutionary_, in fact. And they use this rhetoric to get folks like me (coders and musicians) to invest time (and $$$) to join their team and build their software. And for what? Maybe I can be part of the 'ground floor' of something 'that will change the music business'. It's all fairytale stuff and honestly _very_ enchanting - because I can see the potential value if these problems are solved.

But I know it's just appealing to my Robin Hood nature (and TBH some ruthless capitalism - after all, I could make _millions _if it 'goes to the moon'). It just all feels too much like 'get rich quick' or Ponzi and also _very _cultish. So alarm bells are going off and eventually I left those Discord servers and will keep my money and time.

Maybe I am missing out 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Tim_Wells (Feb 22, 2022)

JoelS said:


> The Folding Ideas video was a well-researched, skillfully delivered one-sided hit piece. He cites a lot of very valid problems with the behavior of participants in the crypto/NFT space, and... that's it. Take any issue, present only the problems, editorialize with venomous mockery, and you'll get a lot of plaudits from people already on your side and sway others who have a superficial 'just curious' stance.


A hit-piece? Possibly. Though in this case, I believe it's warranted. I applaud him for providing a sorely needed reality check in a space that's full of hype and BS.

Plus, I haven't seen anyone refute any of the facts he lays out other than nitpicks.



JoelS said:


> Financially illiterate people should seek to become financially literate.
> 
> Is it too much to ask of people, that if they are going to 'invest' a significant chunk of their net worth in a thing, that they seek to understand what they are doing? Why is that not the baseline requirement in anyone's internal decision making process?



Of course, they should. But fact is, not many will.

My point is, crypto is a very poor investment choice for the financially illiterate. But that's often who it appeals to the most. Crypto is an unregulated Disneyland for scammers and con men who know exactly how to prey on those who are poorly equipped to protect themselves. 

Now.... again... I'm not saying everyone involved with crypto is bad or dumb. Far from it. I'm sure the vast majority are intelligent, well-meaning folks.



JoelS said:


> I spend a fairly significant amount of my time educating people about the basics of the crypto market (though I pointedly do not offer financial advice, as I am not a financial advisor).


I honestly wish you and your associates the very best and have no problem with it, as long as you're doing it wisely and carefully.

I love new technology and have seriously considered putting some money in crypto. But as I've learned more about it, I've come to believe it's a lousy investment. I'm not alone. Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon agree.

Could Bit Coin go to $500,000? Sure. But someday, the air is going to come out of it, because it doesn't do anything functional. It's purely a speculative instrument. It has no utility other than buying NFTs and stuff in video games.

To me, it's an investment in the same way that highly-leveraged stock options are an investment, or the lowest rated junk-bonds are an investment. It's probably not going to end well.

I think people get wowed by the technology and all the machinations of the crypto marketplace. They don't realize they're buying pixie dust.

Some compare it to gold because of the scarcity issue with Bit Coin and certain other coins. But no-one is going come along and make a new, better Gold 2.0 in six months and leave you stuck with version 1.0. Plus, gold is highly regulated, and it can actually be used in real products. Anyway, gold has turned out to be a pretty crappy long-term investment. Returning around 1% over the past 50 years. 

The whole space reminds me of Multi-Level Marketing. But at least with Herbalife, you end up with a garage full of sh!tty vitamins.

Will the blockchain and crypto currencies play an important role in the future? Very possibly. I truly wish the technology and all the well-meaning folks involved the very best. I'll be watching closely from the sidelines.


----------



## JoelS (Feb 22, 2022)

Tim_Wells said:


> Plus, I haven't seen anyone refute any of the facts he lays out other than nitpicks.


The factual parts of the video are not ones I dispute. Separating the facts from his opinion, presented as fact, is difficult. I don't particularly care to take the time to point-by-point address it all. He very clearly thinks crypto has not achieved anything positive, and won't. I disagree.

If I made a two hour long video about being a composer in the music industry, and presented nothing but the worst excesses and failures, I could certainly make it sound like a horrible industry to be in and convince 'outsiders' that it is not worth anyone's time or consideration... and that it needs regulation! Would that be fair, or an accurate depiction of the industry?



Tim_Wells said:


> My point is, crypto is a very poor investment choice for the financially literate. But that's often who it appeals to the most. Crypto is an unregulated Disneyland for scammers and con men who know exactly how to prey on those who are poorly equipped to protect themselves.


I'll assume you meant 'illiterate' there. I could give a lengthy examination of that statement, though this may not be the thread for it. Since I try quite hard to increase people's financial literacy in regards to crypto, that probably gives away my viewpoint. I don't feel anyone should invest, trade, or speculate on anything with their money unless they learn about what they are doing.

Crypto, at this point, is not unregulated depending on where you live. US participants in crypto are prohibited from using exchanges that are not regulated under US law. For basic participation in crypto, anyone who is buying or trading on Coinbase, Gemini, FTX US, Binance US, or Kraken is on an FDIC insured platform that complies with US regulatory structures. More regulation is on the way, possibly even this week in the form of an Executive Action from Biden (I've heard it variously stated as an Action and an Order, which are two different things, but we'll see what it is when it drops).

If you're using decentralized exchanges or use a VPN to skirt around geoblocking from exchanges outside US jurisdiction, or just live in other parts of the world, well... you are responsible for your own actions.

More regulation and clarity are needed, but it's not hard to figure out how to participate in as safe a manner as anyone can participate safely in a financial market.



Tim_Wells said:


> I love new technology and have seriously considered putting some money in crypto. But as I've learned more about it, I've come to believe it's a lousy investment. I'm not alone. Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon agree.


Jamie Dimon is... perhaps the worst example to cite. I'll keep my own opinions of his very inconsistent stances on crypto to a minimum, save to say I believe he has been deliberately misleading through his public statements. In 2017, Dimon said "If a JPMorgan trader began trading in bitcoin, I'd fire them in a second. For two reasons: It's against our rules, and they're stupid. And both are dangerous." A few years later, JPMorgan offers its clients access to crypto, and is 'the first bank in the metaverse.' Oh, and Dimon recently called it worthless again, while JPMorgan -the bank- sees a bullish outlook and makes very grand price predictions. And they made their own crypto. So, the CEO thinks it's a scam and worthless, but his bank thinks it's extremely valuable and is neck deep in the industry. Ok.

Warren Buffet just bought $1B worth of stock in a crypto bank. Make of it what you will.

Paul Tudor Jones, who does not suck at investing, thinks crypto is pretty good.

These people are out to make money, and will say whatever puts more money in their pockets or moves people towards (or away from) things that impact their profits. By the time they say something publicly, they have already made their moves in the market.

I prefer looking at price action charts rather than divining the true intent of billionaires.



Tim_Wells said:


> Could Bit Coin go to $500,000? Sure. But someday, the air is going to come out of it, because it doesn't do anything functional. It's purely a speculative instrument. It has no utility other than buying NFTs and stuff in video games.


So, I don't mean to get pedantic here, but I guess I will since this is factually incorrect on basically all levels. I'll also note that I'm not here trying to convince anyone to buy anything. I do want people to have correct information to use in evaluating their own decisions.

Nobody generally speaking buys NFTs with Bitcoin. NFTs are primarily bought and sold with ETH (Ethereum) which is quite different from Bitcoin. NFTs are also bought and sold with SOL (Solana) and other smaller networks. ETH and SOL are smart contract platforms, whereas Bitcoin is not. They have much more functionality than BTC, including but not limited to various financial practices like staking for interest and lending.

BTC is indeed used as a speculative instrument, but it is not without utility. One case to cite is that it is a borderless system of transferring money almost instantly. International remittances and money transfers have become faster and easier even through traditional channels recently, but traditional channels can be swiftly frozen and blocked by government entities. Wherever you stand on that issue, without debating the politics of it, BTC has utility in that case that is unavailable to traditional finance.



Tim_Wells said:


> The whole space reminds me of Multi-Level Marketing. But at least with Herbalife, you end up with a garage full of sh!tty vitamins.


At least my bags of devalued altcoins aren't taking up the physical space that I'm using to store my CD collection, comic books, and sports cards.

Crypto is a big sprawling, mutating, evolving messy entity that nonetheless can be interacted with in safe, responsible, and profitable ways.

NFTs -the technology- imo have potential and interesting applications.

NFTs -the cultural zeitgeist based phenomenon- are... uh... very open for valid criticism, but there are elements and participants that are not problematic in amid the ones that definitely are.


----------



## milford59 (Feb 22, 2022)

JoelS said:


> BTC is indeed used as a speculative instrument, but it is not without utility. One case to cite is that it is a borderless system of transferring money almost instantly


I have a slightly different view - it is not a system of transferring *money* almost instantly …. It’s a system of transferring *BTC* almost instantly. If you owed me $100 and insisted on paying me in BTC, the exchange rate I would be happy with would be several percent away from any rate that you would see online at that moment to allow for the insane level of volatility in the price.

BTC will never be accepted as a store of value or as means to purchase and sell items (i.e the traditional definition of “money”) until the price stabilises, and it gains universal trust from potential users. Nobody really prices any goods or services purely in terms of BTC - they price those goods and services in fiat money with a constantly changing price expressed in BTC, depending on the “exchange rate”.

If I advertised a nice guitar on Reverb for $3,780, I would happily leave the advert there for a month while I went on holiday…. and if it sold that’s great !! Would I price that guitar for 0.1 BTC (current price is 1 BTC = $37,800 USD) and happily leave the advert for a month while I went in holiday ? Hell no…. !!


----------



## JoelS (Feb 22, 2022)

milford59 said:


> I have a slightly different view - it is not a system of transferring *money* almost instantly …. It’s a system of transferring *BTC* almost instantly.


That's fair, so I'll revise and say that BTC is an 'asset.' The point was made in reference to it having 'no utility,' and that remains a viable utility. An asset that has guaranteed scarcity, extreme portability, is unconfiscatable, and exists on a decentralized network has utility. I'll be transparent and say I'm using it as a speculative asset. Doesn't invalidate the other use cases, though.

If someone's intent was to go USD->BTC->transfer->USD, on most days you could likely accomplish that and get the same price if one sold the BTC into USD directly upon receipt or shortly after. Some days, it might be a different story. I wouldn't use it in that manner, though.

Crypto also encompasses 'stablecoins,' which in most cases are pegged to USD 1:1. If I was looking to send someone a specific amount of USD via crypto, I'd probably do it via BUSD or USDC, personally.

I deal with foreign currencies regularly enough to note that they are all subject to exchange rate fluctuation, even intraday, though not so dramatic as BTC's. The value of the dollar vs. other currencies (look at the DXY chart) has moved within a 13% range over the last few years.

The Turkish Lira vs. USD is down 50% in the last year, and at one point was down 65%. And it's in a collapsing downtrend since 2010. Between 2010 and now, BTC is up 61310841% vs USD. That's obviously not the most fair comparison. If you had used your Lira to buy BTC at arguably the _worst_ time (2017 peak) prior to last year, you'd have an 80% gain right now vs. +250% for USD vs LIRA, but you also had a shot at a peak of 250% gains, twice, had you decided to sell. Either way, BTC would have acted as a store of value better than the Lira. That is another utility for it, with variable returns depending on your local currency.


----------

