- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
The only use I see of NFTs is manipulating some dumb rich faggot into giving you some of his money.
NFT (Non-Fungible Tokens) - Files as crypto currency
- Thread starter Spergerella
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2019
EA is really interested in NFTs, apparently. Doesn't surprise me in the least.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2021
This NFT shit is fucking crazy.
I'd sorta understand it if these were like going for 20-30 bucks and were just some shitty amateur art project, but people unironically spend millions of dollars on these.
I'd sorta understand it if these were like going for 20-30 bucks and were just some shitty amateur art project, but people unironically spend millions of dollars on these.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
This has to be the most autistic scam I've ever heard of.
Lurk McDurk
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
I'd say that's exactly what it is. There are lots of reports about the cartels selling franchise deals (to recruit), selling shares to Mexican corporations, etc. I don't think they're as stupid as the US press presumes they are.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2020
the nft debacle is just deviantart adoptables for absurdly wealthy people, but hey! if youre an artist and looking to get rich quick might as well take advantage of these retards!
Vect
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
I've read the OP like 5 times, literally...my brain just can't process to what end this blockchain stuff serves a purpose.
So it's an encrypted token, that 100% verifies one's ownership (but not copyright if you're not the creator) of an asset that likely has no function, of dubious real value and requires no effort to create a perfect duplicate.
So I'd pay money, or value, for a 'right' to ownership that is currently unenforceable? Which makes it slightly less useless than owning the copyright?
I dabble in digital art. I once had an original redesign of Starkiller Base stolen by some Youtuber, but I just thought that's what happens on the Internet - nobody can really own anything. And these artists are surprised that their work gets copied?
Whats more, if it's an original piece of digital art, but you change the colour of a single pixel, does that then change it to a new piece of original art?
Have I missed something?
So it's an encrypted token, that 100% verifies one's ownership (but not copyright if you're not the creator) of an asset that likely has no function, of dubious real value and requires no effort to create a perfect duplicate.
So I'd pay money, or value, for a 'right' to ownership that is currently unenforceable? Which makes it slightly less useless than owning the copyright?
I dabble in digital art. I once had an original redesign of Starkiller Base stolen by some Youtuber, but I just thought that's what happens on the Internet - nobody can really own anything. And these artists are surprised that their work gets copied?
Whats more, if it's an original piece of digital art, but you change the colour of a single pixel, does that then change it to a new piece of original art?
Have I missed something?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
The copyright is transferred on some occasions, depends on what the artist specifies when they launch. It's more common for photography NFT's but more of the profile picture projects are beginning to do so.
Opensea (the largest NFT exchange on Ethereum) will usually hide art with stolen IP,
Generally, the people buying NFT's don't care if someone right clicks though. Ugly monkeys seem to get quite mad for some reason, but they're the worst community.
Which is half of what the profile picture projects are offering, community. Paying thousands of dollars for access to a discord server is gay imo. But whatever, it's their ether.
The other half is a status symbol, kind of telling they got so popular in a year where kids have been locked down, and can't flex their watches and sneakers so easily.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2021
The first generation beanie babies are still worth decent money. Just check the sold listings on eBay.
Spergerella
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
Meh, not exactly investment worthy numbers.
Beanie Babies make me sad. The types who bought them remind me of today’s MLM sad moms.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2018
...and to think that I found a 'bucket' full of Beanie Babies in a pharmacy in Puerto Rico wher each Baby cost under $10 a few years ago.
*Hidden_Bird*
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
Aw yeah, retarded Gorillaz here we come. Ngl i am excited to hear what they'll shit out, or how they're gonna do it.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
I'm just glad the funny monkey pictures are being used for things other than just overpriced NFTs. There's a very specific vibe about them and I hope and pray they use actual monkey noises in whatever they shart out. It's funny as hell watching people get incredibly mad about this announcement when the entire reason these monkeys are so hated is solely because of the NFTs being needlessly expensive shit and nothing can convince me otherwise. if they made the things like a collectible pin series or some kinda clothes brand thing people would be all over them and not bitching about "ugly monkeys" and claiming not to care when they clearly get visibly angry when someone posts funny monkey NFT imagery. The humor doubles with the cases of people buying the monkey NFTs and not understanding how NFTs work.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
one of the biggest arguments for nfts i see is that it supports the artist (despite there being a huge problem of art theft via nfts)
and there is also already a way to support artists, its called commissioning them, artist gets the money, you get the sandy cheeks cock vore picture, and no energy is wasted its a win win win
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
Someone right clicked the whole NFT market
Except with NFT's, not only could you resell your degenerate underwater squirrel porn once you've jacked yourself raw, but the artist gets royalties on every resale in perpetuity
ditto
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2019
![centaursTesticle [CT]](http://uploads.kiwifarms.st/data/avatars/l/87/87343.jpg?1623360926){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2021
You know those star registries where you pay someone money to get a certificate that says you named a star, and like no one other than this one website recognizes it?
Imagine that but with urls that go to jpegs instead of stars.
so basically its like owning the direction to an artpiece at a museum..
But with the understanding that the museum could renovate at any time and you're left holding directions to a blank wall...
And you don't own the direction. You 100% securely and verifiably own a piece of paper with the directions written, and the person who sold it to you heavily implied that you own the artpiece because of that (but you don't in any real way).
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
This idea of "your art could disappear at any moment!" has been thrown about a few times in this thread, so I think it's worth mentioning that permanence is part of the value.
NFT's hosted on amazon s3 hold little to no value. Industry standard is to use Interplanetary File System (IPFS), for theoretically permanent storage.
Which is why some art that is hosted purely by on chain code is worth eye-watering amounts
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2020
Instead of fixing their game or even potentially making Ark 2 not be as much of a total shitshow as Ark 1 and Atlas, Studio Wildcard is looking into NFTs.
Interview with Doug Kennedy, Studio Wildcard [A].
Ark 2's marketing machine is already going brrr so hard. It isn't good enough that they have an animated show based off Ark, but they have Vin Diesel as the face of Ark 2. I guess they are already copying big brother EA to figure out how to monetize the living hell out of Ark 2. Wildcard genuinely has bigger fish to worry about than this but greedy companies be greedy.
Interview with Doug Kennedy, Studio Wildcard [A].
Doug failed to elaborate on what this meant, but stated that it was totally big and ambitious, y'all. The community is currently losing its shit and speculating that Wildcard will do something really shitty and try to NFT their dinosaurs in Ark 2. Given Wildcard's reputation of being an exceptional example on how NOT to run a game company, I don't think they're wrong to fear this. Anyone who's familiar with Wildcard's antics is aware of how they are basically EA on an indie studio scale. For anyone unaware, Ark 1 is a mess of DLC, where Wildcard has repeatedly duct taped half-baked content on top of their disaster show of a game and had their hand out saying "money pls." This is the game studio that was so thirsty for money they released Scorched Earth, a DLC for an unoptimised mess of a game that had yet to see its full release.
Ark 2's marketing machine is already going brrr so hard. It isn't good enough that they have an animated show based off Ark, but they have Vin Diesel as the face of Ark 2. I guess they are already copying big brother EA to figure out how to monetize the living hell out of Ark 2. Wildcard genuinely has bigger fish to worry about than this but greedy companies be greedy.
Despite adding community maps to the "official map" list, they refuse to help support those maps and fix rampant bugs and issues that they have. The DLC they release not only is poorly tested and causes issues within themselves, but previous content too because there's no standardization for how the game is handled. An example would be how lava is handled differently between each map and how the separate maps lava pools could kill a creature that was supposed to be immune to lava. This also fails to touch on the issues the DLC has created, where there has been a steady power creep with the creatures released inside each DLC. Multiple creatures have been so overpowered they destroyed the balance of the game, which of course encourages more people to buy the DLC. This is partially due to adding abilities and special statuses to each creature that the original ones did not get. Despite a couple of half-assed "we'll re-balance it" patches, the meta of the game is still destroyed by the same problem children. A lot of creatures have been abandoned and have had community mods to try and help them.
The creator toolkit is also supposed to help mod creators, but it is riddled with bugs and odd idiosyncrasies that could make working with Source Engine blush. Multiple high profile mods have been discontinued because of the difficulty of working with this toolkit, but how it can just randomly corrupt your project files, apparently. Most developers get frustrated with Wildcard or Ark and peace out. How could you not when the game is a whopping ~350 GB for a full install NOT INCLUDING MODS. This is totally asinine and full installs are encouraged because multiplayer and unique creatures on maps. You could always use map extensions, but they often break the delicate balance of creature spawning, which can cause some creatures to over-spawn and others to pretty much disappear. Like Bethesda games, mods are used to fix the problems of Ark, to the point of it also being a meme.
The creator toolkit is also supposed to help mod creators, but it is riddled with bugs and odd idiosyncrasies that could make working with Source Engine blush. Multiple high profile mods have been discontinued because of the difficulty of working with this toolkit, but how it can just randomly corrupt your project files, apparently. Most developers get frustrated with Wildcard or Ark and peace out. How could you not when the game is a whopping ~350 GB for a full install NOT INCLUDING MODS. This is totally asinine and full installs are encouraged because multiplayer and unique creatures on maps. You could always use map extensions, but they often break the delicate balance of creature spawning, which can cause some creatures to over-spawn and others to pretty much disappear. Like Bethesda games, mods are used to fix the problems of Ark, to the point of it also being a meme.