StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

Don't Tread on Me said:
I am confused. They aren't buying the art to have it, they want to invest it and sell it for a premium later?

So this NFT shit is just a stock market for retards?
Click to expand...
Stocks are fungible. It would be an art market, and if your local museums are anything like mine, the buyers who aren't laundering money are negligibly less retarded in NFTs.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Bad Take Crucifier, FierceBrosnan and Lemmingwise
Cool Dog said:
Why he got delisted? wokies too buttblasted about peebleyeet making money? or opensea did it preemptively?
Click to expand...
They haven't commented.

Rarible tech support guy has commented that it came from higher-up, but that's it, nothing more yet. The only thing that happened before that someone tweeted at them complaining about the confederate flag and there are some unverified claims of people saying they send dms and linked rationalwiki.

Right now they are on mintable instead.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FierceBrosnan and Cool Dog
Lemmingwise said:
They haven't commented.

Rarible tech support guy has commented that it came from higher-up, but that's it, nothing more yet. The only thing that happened before that someone tweeted at them complaining about the confederate flag and there are some unverified claims of people saying they send dms and linked rationalwiki.

Right now they are on mintable instead.
Click to expand...
How far have the prices dropped?
 
Cool Dog said:
Damn thats a lot, any examples? I mean its all autogenerated crap right? why are those more valuable?
Click to expand...
I don't remember which one it was. Rare traits generally make them more valuable, which is why black flurks are more expensive than white ones. There are calculations for how rare each flurk is with a rarity score. Then there are certain mixes that just really work well as an image. Synergy you might call it. Though some anti-synergy can also lead to something valuable, like a guy with a communist shirt and a gadsden flag.

They are randomly generated, but not all traits have equal chance of showing up. And even if some did; with only 5000 generations some would be more common than others. I think female ones are rarer but male ones sell for more so far.

These are the 12 rarest trait mixes:

rarest.JPG

There are a number currently being auctioned, and this one is going for 5 eth currently, which is will then be the highest selling price yet. Whoever minted it and then auctioned it will have turned their 350 dollar-ish investment into roughly 16000 dollars.

mdr.JPG
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Billy Bong, Aunt Carol, walnut and 6 others
KateHikes14 said:
Stocks are fungible. It would be an art market, and if your local museums are anything like mine, the buyers who aren't laundering money are negligibly less retarded in NFTs.
Click to expand...
I would say a better comparison to NFTs would be if an art gallery was selling the rights to take a picture of a painting for thousands of dollars but also they just left the painting hanging in front of a giant window so anyone walking by on the street could take a picture any time they wanted. At least in a traditional art sale you get something physical and unique.

Cool Dog said:
Why he got delisted? wokies too buttblasted about peebleyeet making money? or opensea did it preemptively?
Click to expand...
My theory, NFT people desperately want normies to get more involved in NFTs and StoneToss is bad for business.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Stationary aszs, Crystal Golem, ABE LINN COHN and 2 others
Lemmingwise said:
Normies vaguely like the amogus comic though.


enjoy:

View attachment 2747971
Click to expand...
Based on what I've seen on the internet normies generally are vaguely amused by Stonetoss comics in a void but have a rock bottom perception of Stonetoss once they know the backstory.

Trust me you don't need to convince me most modern art is stupid. That said if you own that painting you have a physical thing that is unique that no one else in the world owns. With NFTs you have an entry in an online ledger that says you own a thing that is not only not-unique but by nature of online images everyone who sees it effectively has a copy if they want one.

Mintable showing 18 sales in the past 24 hours, so sales starting to slow down but floor is stabilizing. Looks like a handful of people holding 50+ Flurks really driving a lot of the demand, not knowing shit about NFTs I would assume that's probably normal for NFT collections in general though.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Orange Rhymer and FierceBrosnan
Cat Attack said:
Mintable showing 18 sales in the past 24 hours, so sales starting to slow down but floor is stabilizing. Looks like a handful of people holding 50+ Flurks really driving a lot of the demand, not knowing shit about NFTs I would assume that's probably normal for NFT collections in general though.
Click to expand...
There have been exactly 1488 holders of stonetoss nft's for a while, so somewhere a rich guy is juggling things to keep things that way.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Billy Bong, ABE LINN COHN, Orange Rhymer and 5 others
AnOminous said:
There are now walled gardens, shit like Coinbase, where normies can relatively safely deal with shit like cryptocurrencies, but early crypto when it was mainly just Bitcoin was one Ponzi scam after another. It always surprised me that early adopters of something that was fairly complicated to deal with at the time, so if they could do it at all, they would have to be smarter than a fencepost, could repeatedly fall for the absurdly ridiculous scams that were nearly the norm then.

Back when the only way you could cash out BTC was ridiculous shit like turning it into GreenDot MoneyPaks (remember those?) or even more ridiculous shit like converting it to Second Life Linden dollars, then those into normal USD, and then sending that to PayPal, or buying shit with it on dodgy sites and having it sent to you so you could then resell it on ebay, or just keep it if you actually wanted it (or use it if it was drugs).

NFTs are sort of at that state now. They seem like a really good way to launder money and are definitely a good way to scam. But they're also a good way to bypass bullshit entirely that banks shouldn't even be allowed to do, like blocking people for wrongthink and not because their money is somehow illegal.
Click to expand...
Good post.

Peep this, my nigs: toward the start of the Summer and around the time that YouTube broke adblock, their service became inundated with crypto advertisements. If there was ever a sign that "it's over!", that was it. It's fucking over. Say hello to normies, regulation and the wrong kind of people not being allowed to bank with major cryptocurrencies. NFTs are doing their best to catch up.

Do not trust crypto. Know your neighbors, buy local, keep your cellphones in an old microwave and keep your head down.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Fanatical Pragmatist
Lemmingwise said:
Normies vaguely like the amogus comic though.


enjoy:

View attachment 2747971
Click to expand...
Say what you like about Jackson Pollock or just say he was a retard randomly throwing paint at a wall, but try to make a Jackson Pollock that would convince anyone. Whatever he was doing was unique. I think a lot of these so-called modern artists are unfairly ridiculed because what they did as an original is now badly copied by complete no-talents.

For instance, take Marcel Duchamp literally submitting a urinal to an art gallery. When he did it, it was a very pointed criticism of art itself and itself a work of art. Look at all his imitators, though. Their wackyzany bullshit has ruined art, because it has no actual point.

Or compare Hunter S. Thompson to the plethora of absolute fucking dumbasses who think their drug-fueled ramblings about stupid shit they did is real. You could almost say livestreaming is a form of this. They don't understand that while HST was indeed often wasted, he actually meticulously crafted books like Fear and Loathing. If you read his letters, he was discussing the writing of this novel with his contemporaries in detail, and obviously put a lot of thought into the book. His persona of this crazed madman on a million drugs was essentially bogus, even though he actually kind of was a crazed madman on a million drugs, and this eventually led him to suicide.

I guess my point, if I have one, is just saying "modern art is the suxorz" is the art equivalent of the chick saying "I love all music but country and rap" and not knowing who Hanks Williams, Sr. was or who Kurtis Blow is. It's a Sturgeon's Law thing. Sturgeon said 90% of sci-fi is crap. And the corollary is 90% of everything is crap. The remainder is still worth something.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Stationary aszs, Grey Gardens, Owen Grady and 10 others
AnOminous said:
Say what you like about Jackson Pollock or just say he was a retard randomly throwing paint at a wall, but try to make a Jackson Pollock that would convince anyone. Whatever he was doing was unique. I think a lot of these so-called modern artists are unfairly ridiculed because what they did as an original is now badly copied by complete no-talents.

For instance, take Marcel Duchamp literally submitting a urinal to an art gallery. When he did it, it was a very pointed criticism of art itself and itself a work of art. Look at all his imitators, though. Their wackyzany bullshit has ruined art, because it has no actual point.

Or compare Hunter S. Thompson to the plethora of absolute fucking dumbasses who think their drug-fueled ramblings about stupid shit they did is real. You could almost say livestreaming is a form of this. They don't understand that while HST was indeed often wasted, he actually meticulously crafted books like Fear and Loathing. If you read his letters, he was discussing the writing of this novel with his contemporaries in detail, and obviously put a lot of thought into the book. His persona of this crazed madman on a million drugs was essentially bogus, even though he actually kind of was a crazed madman on a million drugs, and this eventually led him to suicide.

I guess my point, if I have one, is just saying "modern art is the suxorz" is the art equivalent of the chick saying "I love all music but country and rap" and not knowing who Hanks Williams, Sr. was or who Kurtis Blow is. It's a Sturgeon's Law thing. Sturgeon said 90% of sci-fi is crap. And the corollary is 90% of everything is crap. The remainder is still worth something.
Click to expand...
counterpoint: art is for nerds and you're a nerd
let's swirly this nerd, boys
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Stationary aszs, ddw, Isolated Incident and 10 others
AnOminous said:
Say what you like about Jackson Pollock or just say he was a retard randomly throwing paint at a wall, but try to make a Jackson Pollock that would convince anyone.
Click to expand...
This just isn't true.

Nevermind the fact that the paintings were poured, so the paintings are dripped onto the floor instead (hence, "dripping paintings")


The test to find out if a pollock painting is real is neither looking at a database of what he painted or visually identified. It is entirely decided on forensic testing.

There was the whole debacle of his former lover claiming "red black and silver" to be a real pollock while this was contested by the experts, saying it looked nothing like a pollock painting (and the later fractal analysis that supposedly could detect pollocks didn't catch it either).

It wasn't until forensic testing that they found particles of his polar bear rug and his hair and other particles from things in his home, that it was deemed to be a true pollock.

This is follows a pattern. Pollock paintings authenticity is typically decided by these kind of forensic methods; canvas type, paint type, is it signed (fake signed paintings increase criminal liability) and oyher forensic testing.

Most of the pollock paintings sold in the art marketplace are deemed to be fake. So yes, any retard can throw paint at a canvas and convince people it's a pollock.

There was also an art teacher that invited his class to say what emotions the pollock displayed on the overhead projector evoked in them. Only it wasn't a pollock but a closeup picture of an overall he wore when painting and all the random splatters on it. In decades of teaching no student had spotted the fake in advance.

AnOminous said:
I guess my point, if I have one, is just saying "modern art is the suxorz" is the art equivalent of the chick saying "I love all music but country and rap" and not knowing who Hanks Williams, Sr. was or who Kurtis Blow is. It's a Sturgeon's Law thing. Sturgeon said 90% of sci-fi is crap. And the corollary is 90% of everything is crap. The remainder is still worth something.
Click to expand...
Sturgeon's law supports what I was saying, it doesn't undermine it as you seem to think.

Not that I don't think modernist art has a higher percentage than 90% of being crap (and yes I include fountain and pollock in that), but my point was rather that despite the dollar value placed on these, they would still overwhelmingly be regarded as crap popularly. People pretend to like these things because they're afraid of being seen as philistines if they don't get it, even while they provably don't get it when tested.

And of course the whole modernist art was heavily pushed by the cia in one of the early propaganda steps towards the cold war.

Conclusion

The point is that most people thinking nfts suck doesn't really diminish their value if a couple of people really love the idea.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Stationary aszs, Pomme Poire Peche, beef lo mein and 12 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back