top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 171 points 3 years ago (7 children)

This is so funny. The entire point of cryptocurrency was to be an irreversible, untraceable currency. Now these dipshits are sueing over losses? I don't know if they are severely mistaken or severely angry. You are not getting that back. Neither do you deserve to. You knew what you were doing.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 114 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The first step is "Fuck the government!" The second step is always "Help me, Obi Wan Government, you're my only hope!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    When was cryptocurrency meant to be untraceable? It literally had the complete ledger out in the public.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 47 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 35 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    That was true back in the days when you could mine your own coins and hold them in your own wallet, but with all the KYC requirements these days, it's pretty hard to get, say, BTC that's not traceable to you.

    It's not impossible, but it's certainly not as easy as cash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 25 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    You forgot unregulated which usually even makes it to the front row in a lot of arguments completely denying the necessity to even have regulations at all...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago*

    I don't really agree with this sentiment.

    Are they dipshits?

    Yes

    Should Sothebys lose all credibility and be fined for faking an auction?

    Also yes.

    Should Bored Ape owners get any of their money back?

    Naaaaaaaaaaaw

    This crosses certain lines that are beyond just: huuuur crypto dumb

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 118 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    It's hard to feel sorry for anyone who fell for a very obvious art grift. Even harder to be sorry for those caught grifting.

    Even a cursory understanding of value would have told these people that pretty looking receipts are a piss poor investment, but no, they were convinced that NFT's (a tech they obviously knew nothing about) held intrinsic value despite having nothing of value backing them.

    Everyone caught up in the NFT art grift did so because they thought they could make a quick buck being ahead of the wave of the next big pump and dump like crypto and got fucked by their hubris. The grifter's meanwhile were out here selling them graffiti'd up CVS receipts and saying they were worth the Mona Lisa.

    The result? A perfectly valid and valuable technology has been completely disregarded by the public because 90% of people were too stupid to think before they bought into a tech they didn't understand and they all lost money to grifters. Worlds most widespread art grift and everyone was played a fool, and a valuable tech has been discredited, misunderstood, and shunned.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 3 years ago (31 children)

    A perfectly valid and valuable technology has been completely disregarded by the public

    Damn, you were so close! Just expand what you said about NFTs to the whole crypto bullshit and you got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    The one example I’ve heard that makes sense are NFTs to represent a purchase of digital games. This then allows the selling of digital keys second hand.

    Other than that it all sounds like a scam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    you dont need useless nft tech for that to be possible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Of course not, but what little I know of NFTs is they do the two things needed for that to be possible: one, ability to transfer ownership, and two, verify ownership.

    I have no clue if NFTs are the best way to accomplish that, let alone even a good way, and people much smarter than me can figure that out.

    In the end I don’t think it matters. For it to be viable it would require the big companies to adopt it, which I never see them accepting a legal way to do second hand sales of digital goods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    Yeah, if you are waiting for a company that loses money through second-hand sales to implement an NFT scheme to facilitate second-hand sales... That could take a while.

    This post of yours is one that I completely agree with.

    That's a fundamental issue with NFTs though. Every instance of a fitting use case already has a non-NFT way to accomplish the same in the way the people in charge want to keep it.

    Why would e.g. Steam want you to be able to trade games without Steam being involved/getting a cut? They can just ask you go buy from them.

    Why would a state want to hand over control over the land registry to some cryptobro?

    Why would the whole financial side of the art industry want to hand over control to a block chain and make themselves redundant?

    Also, revertability of mistakes is a core feature of any reasonable transaction system. A system without that is worthless.

    Sorry, this turned into a rant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (30 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 79 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Neither side of this looks good for crypto bros.

    One side says, "This was a ripoff; you knew it was a ripoff when you sold it to us."

    The other side says, "This was a stunt; you knew it was a stunt when you bought in."

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 3 years ago*

    "Yes your Honour, I knew it was a pyramid scheme. But I never thought I would be the last buyer. I always thought there would be another dumbass to buy it from me at a higher price, otherwise I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I'm not stupid, unlike those last buyers!

    Moreover, your Honour, on a technical note, this is not a monkey. You see, a monkey is different from a monke, and both..."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 68 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    The amended lawsuit alleges that "Yuga colluded with fine arts broker, Defendant Sotheby's, to run a deceptive auction." After the sale, a Sotheby's representative described the winning bidder during a Twitter Spaces event as a "traditional" collector, the lawsuit said.

    The lawsuit said it turned out the auction buyer was now-bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, whose founder Sam Bankman-Fried is in jail awaiting trial on criminal charges. Ethereum blockchain transaction data shows that after the auction, "Sotheby's transferred the lot of BAYC NFTs to wallet address 0xf8e0C93Fd48B4C34A4194d3AF436b13032E641F3,77 which, upon information and belief, is owned/controlled by FTX," the complaint said. Speculation that FTX was the buyer had been percolating since at least January 2023.

    So basically, they're alleging Sotheby's, Yuga, and FTX staged the auction to pump the price. Bold claim, curious how this will play out.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The amended lawsuit alleges that "Yuga colluded with fine arts broker, Defendant Sotheby's, to run a deceptive auction." After the sale, a Sotheby's representative described the winning bidder during a Twitter Spaces event as a "traditional" collector, the lawsuit said.

    The lawsuit said it turned out the auction buyer was now-bankrupt crypto exchange FTX, whose founder Sam Bankman-Fried is in jail awaiting trial on criminal charges.

    I don't think it's fair to pin this all on people who got duped. Calling FTX, a company now known for throwing around large sums of stolen money to pump up the brand, bribe government officials, and fix prices, a "traditional collector", is beyond misleading.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 3 years ago

    lmao even they can never be a true investor

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    [Bored Ape NFTs can now be purchased for just $50,000 each.]

    You can also buy my special doodles for $12 million each.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 23 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Oh it's even stupider than that.

    In most cases it's, A. Just a link which happens to be a jpg. Which means it the website wants to change the jpg they can or if the website goes down it points nowhere.

    Or B. Just a hash, which might supposed to be a unique representation of a specific image, but really is just a string of characters, so different sites might disagree what that image is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 29 points 3 years ago

    i don't think you can sue for buying the losing ticket of crypto gambling

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    All of this NFT art is so ugly. If it was unique in a visually pleasing way—okay buy it. But to me, all of these images just look basically the same but with a new background or accessory.

    Are there any actually good looking NFT series?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 23 points 3 years ago

    What a bunch a dumb apes

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Wish I could feel sorry, but so much of the NFT audience responded with such smugness and superiority to any warning and criticism, that it is hard to summon any other feeling than schadenfreude

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago

    Hahahahahaha

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Bored Ape, in particular, was tried as an attempt to bring digital art into the fine art market to use as a tax dodge. If this case goes to court I hope it's going to shine a big bright light on the fact that a lot of the fine arts market has been a giant tax dodge scam for decades. 🤞

    Not that it's been a secret, but exposure is good.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago

    Poor Ape Rot Club.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago

    They were fungable after all!

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago

    Whaaaaaaaaaat? Who could have possibly have seen this coming??

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›