NFT's can also be attached to physical items and services, which is where I believe they have an attractive future. This particular NFT is clearly in digital form as an investment vehicle and looks on the face of it to be of a very dubious nature, which is why there is a clear need for those being targeted (Charlton Fans) to be protected from getting involved. Unless of course, they have a clear understanding of what they are investing in. I can't imagine there will be many who do invest if any.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
You gotta hand it to Henry, never not grafting for the museums collection 🤣
You wait till we're selling signed Miles Leaburn photos.
£20 for old school physical pics and £500 for an NFT
For me it’s more the way that football is going, with there slowly being a crackdown on gambling advertising in football, which I think is a good thing. But all that good work will be wasted if it’s just gambling out and crypto/NFTs replacing it which appears to be the way it’s going with even the FA looking to get involved in their own NFTs. I have no idea if this robot dao is a good project or not, but there will be plenty of examples where projects are not and fans think if a football club is involved it legitimises it and makes it a safer investment. An example would be the fan tokens that plenty of big clubs have attached themselves too that fans bought and have tanked in value since launching and I have read numerous articles on The Athletic about NFT projects that footballers/clubs have advertised and encouraged fans to invest in that have then tanked in value. I think we are just beginning though, soon most teams will have crypto/NFT sponsors or partners (or owners as we see already at Crawley). It’s just a shame we are one of those, it doesn’t feel very “Charlton” but neither does £32 a ticket in the north upper on a matchday, it’s just another sign that TS doesn’t really get it but I suppose we will have to get used to it
For me it’s more the way that football is going, with there slowly being a crackdown on gambling advertising in football, which I think is a good thing. But all that good work will be wasted if it’s just gambling out and crypto/NFTs replacing it which appears to be the way it’s going with even the FA looking to get involved in their own NFTs. I have no idea if this robot dao is a good project or not, but there will be plenty of examples where projects are not and fans think if a football club is involved it legitimises it and makes it a safer investment. An example would be the fan tokens that plenty of big clubs have attached themselves too that fans bought and have tanked in value since launching and I have read numerous articles on The Athletic about NFT projects that footballers/clubs have advertised and encouraged fans to invest in that have then tanked in value. I think we are just beginning though, soon most teams will have crypto/NFT sponsors or partners (or owners as we see already at Crawley). It’s just a shame we are one of those, it doesn’t feel very “Charlton” but neither does £32 a ticket in the north upper on a matchday, it’s just another sign that TS doesn’t really get it but I suppose we will have to get used to it
Gambling only replaced alcohol and tobacco advertising in the first place.
There are good, potential, uses of NFTs but a lot of the current ones aren't cost/benefit effective at the moment.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
You are aware that school books are tangible items right? I'm not missing some elaborate joke here.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
You are aware that school books are tangible items right? I'm not missing some elaborate joke here.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Large text books are actually a good potential use of the NFT technology it also allows the resale after you have finished the course, module etc with the copyright holder getting a %.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Large text books are actually a good potential use of the NFT technology it also allows the resale after you have finished the course, module etc with the copyright holder getting a %.
The resale is why Pearson are getting involved apparently.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Large text books are actually a good potential use of the NFT technology it also allows the resale after you have finished the course, module etc with the copyright holder getting a %.
The resale is why Pearson are getting involved apparently.
I bought/begged/borrowed books at uni that were 4th, 5th or even 6th hand. Some of them went out of print because the content changed so little the market was saturated with older copies. Win win.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
You are aware that school books are tangible items right? I'm not missing some elaborate joke here.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Rather proves my point
Textbooks are an useful commodity, they have a function.
You buy them to aid your studies NOT as an investment.
And they MAY in the future be sold in an NFT format but they still have functionality.
And if it happens (it hasn't yet) they will be sold by publishers just as they sold paper books, then Ebooks.
Just as we could consume music as sheet music, shellac, vinyl, 8 tracks, cassette, CDs MP3 and digital.
The format changed not the commodity you were buying.
But Generous Robots has no functionality. It is purely sold as an investment. An unregulated investment with a new, opaque "organisation".
As said, there could be a lot of useful uses of NFTs in the future. Books might be one, concert/sports tickets another.
NFT's or crypto are not for me. Bricks and mortar is the only thing I would invest in.
It’s a sensible approach if you don’t know or aren’t willing to learn about them (not saying you should). However I do believe they will both be very sought after as part of both institutional and retail investments in years to come. Crypto definitely. NFTs need to endure a few more years of FUD based on the path crypto has gone.
I haven’t been this confused since an 11 year old son of a friend of mine tried to explain that he needed to visit Blackpool pier because rumour had it that Pokémon were spawning on there.
I had a look on their website earlier. Horrific. OK, so a website isn't the be all and end all, but it looked shit.
Also had a look at the comments under the video. Loads of people going on about "being onboard", showing "loyalty" and what a "great community" they had going in their discord server (presumably once they'd all stopped playing CoD for 5 minutes).
All sounded very evangelical. All about believing and trusting and waiting for the "bullrun" , etc.
But not a word about what you would actually be "investing" in, other than the "scheme" itself.
I'm open to new ideas, but if nobody can tell you what youre "investing" in they why on earth would you give them any dough?
Being a true passionate fan is physiological, it has nothing to do with how many games you attend or where you are in the world. It's what unites us as a collective. Now we’ve got the data to prove it.
Chintan Patel
Chief Technology Officer of Cisco UK & Ireland
Who are these processions of corporate nauses who think they can talk as an authority on such matters as football passion?
Wouldn't know authentic football passion if it walked up to him.
All about rinsing as much dosh out of our local football institutions by globally marketing them and pretending watching a stream in a replica shirt on the other side of the world is equivalent to season ticket attendees from Moss Side.
They'll never get it in the same way as a club that's in your blood.
Re NFT textbooks, it was nagging at me all night so I gave up waiting for an explanation from the cultists and found this reasonable article - it sort of makes sense, especially the bit about the difference with e-books.
All the talk earlier in the thread of blockchain / NFT’s being used for ticketing in the future - if you went to Wembley on Sunday or last summer, you’ve already seen the future.
I agree with you and Mr Morris. I don't see value in gambling (and have known people very badly affected by it), nor in collecting trainers, nor in paying extortionate prices for iPhones, designer clothes, skins in Minecraft, etc. I have no interest in buying NFTs nor crypto. And I have no interest in paying $110 for this: but I don't think that paying to 'own' the supposedly 'digital original' of that image is that much worse than all those other things I mentioned. I think (I could be wrong) people like to have that sort of thing for bragging rights, which is an impulse not be underestimated. So back to the point of whether we should be morally comfortable with Generous Robots being the sponsors on the back of the shorts of our players: to be honest, I still can't work out what Generous Robots sell, and I would not invest in them, but as things stand (for the club and the world), I would rather we concentrated our lobbying efforts on giving the crossbar challengers two attempts 😉
I honestly don't get why everyone is losing their shit over this, wanting meetings with the club and saying we should get rid of this sponsor.
Say for example i buy a signed Miles Leaburn shirt online for 100 quid. If he goes on to have a great career there's a chance in a few years the shirt might be worth a bit more. If he ends up playing in non league in a few years then i've probably lost 100 quid.
Now say i buy an NFT of his header on Saturday for 100 quid. In a few years it might be worth something, but equally there's a strong chance it won't be.
So what's the difference and why is everyone up in arms about being scammed? Any investment is a risk, you might make money, you might lose money. So what's the issue and what am i missing?
Reminds me of that ‘financial advisor’ on the Crypto thread who claimed this wasn’t true and that he knew which investments to make where there was no risk whatsoever. Wonder how that worked out.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Rather proves my point
Textbooks are an useful commodity, they have a function.
You buy them to aid your studies NOT as an investment.
And they MAY in the future be sold in an NFT format but they still have functionality.
And if it happens (it hasn't yet) they will be sold by publishers just as they sold paper books, then Ebooks.
Just as we could consume music as sheet music, shellac, vinyl, 8 tracks, cassette, CDs MP3 and digital.
The format changed not the commodity you were buying.
But Generous Robots has no functionality. It is purely sold as an investment. An unregulated investment with a new, opaque "organisation".
As said, there could be a lot of useful uses of NFTs in the future. Books might be one, concert/sports tickets another.
Would you say that you’re about stage 4 of the Kubler Ross then Henners? 😘
Re NFT textbooks, it was nagging at me all night so I gave up waiting for an explanation from the cultists and found this reasonable article - it sort of makes sense, especially the bit about the difference with e-books.
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Rather proves my point
Textbooks are an useful commodity, they have a function.
You buy them to aid your studies NOT as an investment.
And they MAY in the future be sold in an NFT format but they still have functionality.
And if it happens (it hasn't yet) they will be sold by publishers just as they sold paper books, then Ebooks.
Just as we could consume music as sheet music, shellac, vinyl, 8 tracks, cassette, CDs MP3 and digital.
The format changed not the commodity you were buying.
But Generous Robots has no functionality. It is purely sold as an investment. An unregulated investment with a new, opaque "organisation".
As said, there could be a lot of useful uses of NFTs in the future. Books might be one, concert/sports tickets another.
Would you say that you’re about stage 4 of the Kubler Ross then Henners? 😘
No, but you're trying to make a "joke" and change the subject rather than address the point or admit your analogy was completely flawed
Not everyone is demanding a meeting. Only one organisation is.
Some fans think it is all fine, others have serious doubts.
Some doubt the whole current NFT model, some just doubt this particular sponsor, some doubt both.
The key difference in the example you give, for me at least, is you have bought a shirt that you can wear, frame or otherwise enjoy it for 10 years.
No one is telling you it's an investment when you buy it. You're buying a shirt. A tangible object.
You can then sell the shirt if you wish or you can donate it to the museum.
If you buy an NFT of a shirt you don't have a tangible object to enjoy other than as a digital image.
It may or may not increase in value but you're not comparing similar commodities.
One has a function, the other is only and is described by its creators only as, an investment.
And that investment is in an unregulated, fraud riddled market and from a "firm" with hidden ownership which is six months old and whose owner appears on a video in dark glasses, a mask and a hoodie.
Not everything you buy has to be a tangible object for it to exist. The telegraph are reporting that school and university textbooks are to be turned into NFT’s. I know your going to double down by saying that Generous Robots are dodgy! Interesting that something so tangible and mainstream as schoolbooks is going down the unregulated route tho 😉
Rather proves my point
Textbooks are an useful commodity, they have a function.
You buy them to aid your studies NOT as an investment.
And they MAY in the future be sold in an NFT format but they still have functionality.
And if it happens (it hasn't yet) they will be sold by publishers just as they sold paper books, then Ebooks.
Just as we could consume music as sheet music, shellac, vinyl, 8 tracks, cassette, CDs MP3 and digital.
The format changed not the commodity you were buying.
But Generous Robots has no functionality. It is purely sold as an investment. An unregulated investment with a new, opaque "organisation".
As said, there could be a lot of useful uses of NFTs in the future. Books might be one, concert/sports tickets another.
Would you say that you’re about stage 4 of the Kubler Ross then Henners? 😘
No, but you're trying to make a "joke" and change the subject rather than address the point or admit your analogy was completely flawed
My analogy?? What’s my analogy then? We both agree that NFT’s have their uses. I caveat that comment with an admission that I know little about NFT’s. I think where we differ is that I couldn’t give a monkeys whether generous robots are an investment, a DAO or whatever. The crypto world is opaque by definition.
Almost all computer games now days have items to buys, whether its a gun, footballer, kits etc. Its been going on for a while and your kids are already living in the NFT world
Comments
This particular NFT is clearly in digital form as an investment vehicle and looks on the face of it to be of a very dubious nature, which is why there is a clear need for those being targeted (Charlton Fans) to be protected from getting involved. Unless of course, they have a clear understanding of what they are investing in. I can't imagine there will be many who do invest if any.
£20 for old school physical pics and £500 for an NFT
There are good, potential, uses of NFTs but a lot of the current ones aren't cost/benefit effective at the moment.
Textbooks are an useful commodity, they have a function.
You buy them to aid your studies NOT as an investment.
And they MAY in the future be sold in an NFT format but they still have functionality.
And if it happens (it hasn't yet) they will be sold by publishers just as they sold paper books, then Ebooks.
Just as we could consume music as sheet music, shellac, vinyl, 8 tracks, cassette, CDs MP3 and digital.
The format changed not the commodity you were buying.
But Generous Robots has no functionality. It is purely sold as an investment. An unregulated investment with a new, opaque "organisation".
As said, there could be a lot of useful uses of NFTs in the future. Books might be one, concert/sports tickets another.
Also had a look at the comments under the video. Loads of people going on about "being onboard", showing "loyalty" and what a "great community" they had going in their discord server (presumably once they'd all stopped playing CoD for 5 minutes).
All sounded very evangelical. All about believing and trusting and waiting for the "bullrun" , etc.
But not a word about what you would actually be "investing" in, other than the "scheme" itself.
I'm open to new ideas, but if nobody can tell you what youre "investing" in they why on earth would you give them any dough?
Who are these processions of corporate nauses who think they can talk as an authority on such matters as football passion?
Wouldn't know authentic football passion if it walked up to him.
All about rinsing as much dosh out of our local football institutions by globally marketing them and pretending watching a stream in a replica shirt on the other side of the world is equivalent to season ticket attendees from Moss Side.
They'll never get it in the same way as a club that's in your blood.
Re NFT textbooks, it was nagging at me all night so I gave up waiting for an explanation from the cultists and found this reasonable article - it sort of makes sense, especially the bit about the difference with e-books.
None of it has any relevance to Russian Tim and his…whatever it is…though
https://www.secutix.com/articles/uefa-euro-2020-role-mobile-blockchain-ticketing
Personally i prefer a paper ticket….
but I don't think that paying to 'own' the supposedly 'digital original' of that image is that much worse than all those other things I mentioned.
I think (I could be wrong) people like to have that sort of thing for bragging rights, which is an impulse not be underestimated.
So back to the point of whether we should be morally comfortable with Generous Robots being the sponsors on the back of the shorts of our players: to be honest, I still can't work out what Generous Robots sell, and I would not invest in them, but as things stand (for the club and the world), I would rather we concentrated our lobbying efforts on giving the crossbar challengers two attempts 😉
Like what Everton have just launched.
NOT!
WTAF? I’m very very very fecking old 😩😩😩😩😂😂😂😂