I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
But couldn't those add-ons be added to conventional digital tickets? Not being on the blockchain doesn't preclude you from providing ticket holders with digital benefits, surely?
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
What does a gig - or match - ticket sold as an NFT look like? What is the difference between it and a ticket whose “unique identity” is proven by a barcode or QR code? What kind of device checks it for authentication? Why is it more foolproof than the two aforementioned systems?
If someone could answer those simple down to earth questions in the same style, it might just move us all on a bit.
Your web3 wallet (in which the nft would be in) is far more secure than an email address or a login with email would ever be. Whoever is hosting the event would be able to connect to your wallet (say on your phone) to check that you own the nft ticket and you are whitelisted in their systems to enter. The blockchain is verifiable from anyone, anywhere with an internet connection. It's literally a decentralised database.
It would also allow you to do things like, loan your ticket to someone (if its something like a season ticket) for money and definitely have it come back to you. You could also sell your ticket on to the open market, the club or artist that the ticket is for, would get a cut from this - it would be another revenue stream for football clubs or artists. Those who wanted to use the ticket would probably have to KYC and whitelist their web3 wallet in order to use it - and to check they aren't malicious.
That makes sense. Not sure I agree with clubs getting a cut of, say, a season ticket being sold on. The club sold it at the price it was worth, why should they get any more from it?
There are NO useful applications for NFTs yet. They are ALL, without fail, a way for cryptobros to cash out. You might make some money in the short term, but as soon as they've managed to get what they can out, you'll lose everything - if you're holding the non-existent cards when that happens, you're fucked. It's no better than penny stock pump & dumps (worse, because regulators haven't caught up it yet - unlike with boiler rooms)
NFTs have some promise in future potential legitimate applications (gig tickets, for instance, as there's a practical application there) - but not as digital pokemon cards - and anyone who can't see the con is being obtuse, in on the scam, or delusional.
Are you suggesting that the club should pull the deal then? The stark reality is that money talks and whether we’re sponsored by a betting company, crypto exchange or NFT peeps, the club simply cannot turn this down. They do have value as digital Pokémon cards if people are prepared to buy them.
They can turn down any deal.
They have done so with betting firms in the recent past.
Whether they should is a different debate.
I respect Leroy's expertise and take on this.
Fair enough. As I said, I don’t know enough about NFT’s but I can’t see how we’re in a position to turn down sponsorship based upon peoples moral compass. And I found the pile on of the NFT fella this morning pretty poor.
It’s unacceptable. Web3 and NFT companies rely heavily on their community. Congratulations to all those scaring away commercial business from the club. It’s to the point I wouldn’t be surprised at some point some one contacts the club to complain about what’s going on here.
Well, I'm not sure I had 'tears for a cryptobro' on the cards for today - but 2022 has been a wild ride for sure
Why did I expect anything other than sea lioning and dog piling from this hellsite?
We’ve gone from “NFT’s are terrible for the environment” (debunked) “NFT’s are just jpegs” (debunked) “all NFT’s are run by scammers” (debunked) in the space of like 7 pages, so forgive me for being hesitant to say a club sponsor are scammers.
Kentaddick, what is your view now?
Kentaddick do you believe our short sponsor is something you will be investing in or Charlton fans should be investing in?
No and no - it doesn't make them scammers lol. It's the same reason i wouldn't invest in a local air conditioning company, but it doesn't mean i'm going to make a thread and call them criminals.
Thanks. So what do you make of the guy in sun glasses and handkerchief and why he won't identify himself or anything about the "company"? I ask you as you are perhaps the most/one of the most knowledgeable in these matters on CL.
because it's a DAO. People want to remain anonymous for all sorts of reasons. Especially in crypto. Bank accounts for DAOs is an interesting subject - something that the company i work for are now working on.
What are the most common reasons please?
- a core tenant of crypto is being your own bank, this is like stuffing cash into a mattress, if you were a malicious individual and you knew jeff bezos had a mattress full of his billions, you'd probably target him and get his mattress of unmarked cash.
- another core tenant is banking the unbanked, some people live in totalitarian regimes where wealth would otherwise be conviscated.
- until you KYC your crypto wallet is anonymous.
- people like privacy.
Understood, but if someone is saying “Come and buy my nice piece of schmutter”, I want to know who I’m buying from.
This is the first time I've gone back to this threes since it started as naysayers are dismissed and characterised as dinosaurs who don't understand the digital world.
The software geniuses who create crypto currency only understand what they create but are ignorant of the systems they are trying to make redundant. Those who think they understand crypto currency loaned from those with a financial interest in nothing more than maintaining as high a level of transactions as possible, may not want to listen to reason, but for what it's worth here is my take after following both sides of the story for a few years.
Crypto currency/NFTs are worthless assets. Apart from drugs, there is little use for cryptos as a currency as the value can change between the time you start a transaction and the time you finish. This problem is purportedly solved by ever more creative software and illusions of being backed by "real"money, that cryptos were supposed to replace.
Crypto can only be sold if someone else is prepared to by at a higher price than you did. It has the same characteristics as Ponzi and Pyramid schemes i.e "a Bigger Fool scam".
It is a zero sum game, potentially a negative sum gain. It is only a store of value if you assume an infinite chain of investors willing to pay for a worthless asset at any irrational price for ever.
The people making money out of crypto currency are not investors, instead of paying fees to banks you pay fees to intermediaries in the marketing and selling/conversion of crypto currency. Only wealthy investors can afford to run the crypto currency processes that reward them with crypto currency and the myth that crypto currency can create wealth for the poor man is just that, a myth.
NFTs are simply another digital scam variation. Don't waste your time trying to get your head around what they really are. Like financial institutions and software creators, the more attractive are the promises and the more esoteric is the product that only the product provider understands, a simple idea that has no worth can more easily be sold to the punter looking for an easy profit. New scams have to be created all the time because the only realisable value is from the original adopters able to cash in on an initial pool of "Bigger Fools".
So for all the people saying they don't understand cryptos or NFT don't worry, there's nothing to understand that will provide a rational reason to get involved.
I noticed an earlier post recommending hanging on to Bitcoin as a store of value because they are finite and will become rare and increase in value. Apart from missing the point that rarity has nothing to do with the value of a worthless asset, the remaining 2m bitcoins will (as well as using up ever more energy, currently more than some whole nations consume) take over 100 years to create them as the complexity and cost of the validation process grows exponentially.
There are NO useful applications for NFTs yet. They are ALL, without fail, a way for cryptobros to cash out. You might make some money in the short term, but as soon as they've managed to get what they can out, you'll lose everything - if you're holding the non-existent cards when that happens, you're fucked. It's no better than penny stock pump & dumps (worse, because regulators haven't caught up it yet - unlike with boiler rooms)
NFTs have some promise in future potential legitimate applications (gig tickets, for instance, as there's a practical application there) - but not as digital pokemon cards - and anyone who can't see the con is being obtuse, in on the scam, or delusional.
Are you suggesting that the club should pull the deal then? The stark reality is that money talks and whether we’re sponsored by a betting company, crypto exchange or NFT peeps, the club simply cannot turn this down. They do have value as digital Pokémon cards if people are prepared to buy them.
They can turn down any deal.
They have done so with betting firms in the recent past.
Whether they should is a different debate.
I respect Leroy's expertise and take on this.
Fair enough. As I said, I don’t know enough about NFT’s but I can’t see how we’re in a position to turn down sponsorship based upon peoples moral compass. And I found the pile on of the NFT fella this morning pretty poor.
It’s unacceptable. Web3 and NFT companies rely heavily on their community. Congratulations to all those scaring away commercial business from the club. It’s to the point I wouldn’t be surprised at some point some one contacts the club to complain about what’s going on here.
Well, I'm not sure I had 'tears for a cryptobro' on the cards for today - but 2022 has been a wild ride for sure
Why did I expect anything other than sea lioning and dog piling from this hellsite?
We’ve gone from “NFT’s are terrible for the environment” (debunked) “NFT’s are just jpegs” (debunked) “all NFT’s are run by scammers” (debunked) in the space of like 7 pages, so forgive me for being hesitant to say a club sponsor are scammers.
Kentaddick, what is your view now?
Kentaddick do you believe our short sponsor is something you will be investing in or Charlton fans should be investing in?
No and no - it doesn't make them scammers lol. It's the same reason i wouldn't invest in a local air conditioning company, but it doesn't mean i'm going to make a thread and call them criminals.
Thanks. So what do you make of the guy in sun glasses and handkerchief and why he won't identify himself or anything about the "company"? I ask you as you are perhaps the most/one of the most knowledgeable in these matters on CL.
because it's a DAO. People want to remain anonymous for all sorts of reasons. Especially in crypto. Bank accounts for DAOs is an interesting subject - something that the company i work for are now working on.
What are the most common reasons please?
- a core tenant of crypto is being your own bank, this is like stuffing cash into a mattress, if you were a malicious individual and you knew jeff bezos had a mattress full of his billions, you'd probably target him and get his mattress of unmarked cash.
- another core tenant is banking the unbanked, some people live in totalitarian regimes where wealth would otherwise be conviscated.
- until you KYC your crypto wallet is anonymous.
- people like privacy.
This is the big thing I still can’t get my head around and I am conscious I have queried before.
The digital wallets get lost or stolen so I don’t see how it offers more or better security than existing banks etc.
Privacy in this context implies some level of wrong doing of desire to hide assets. It is associated with money laundering. Why is that?
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
Seems like I can't help myself.
Why the now obsession with NFTs solving problems (not necessarily directed at you but easiest post to quote). How much technology solves problems these days?
Did the latest iPhone solve any problems over one from 5 years ago?
Did the PS5 solve any problems over the PS3?
Did moving sat navs from TomToms to infotainment system solve a problem?
Did Windows 11 solve a problem Windows 10 had?
I could go on...
Technology and software these days are more evolutionary than anything. They enhance, speed up, make things more convenient, etc etc. NFTs will drive this in places.
Creating accounts to do certain things may be a ball ache to some now but it's naive to think it'll always be that way.
I wonder when bank notes came in, the Charlton life equivalent back then we’re saying “it’s just a bit of paper, it’s worthless. It’s just another scam”.
I wonder when bank notes came in, the Charlton life equivalent back then we’re saying “it’s just a bit of paper, it’s worthless. It’s just another scam”.
Probably not as banknotes we’re issued by a bank rather than clicking a few buttons and keeping your fingers crossed
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
I agree.
It's new technology and there appear to be a lot of POTENTIAL positive uses.
But most of the positives are POSSIBLE uses that MAY come about BUT HAVEN'T YET.
but the sponsor we have is offering none of this to the club or we fans.
There are no options to buy season tickets as NFTs via generous robots
They are as dodgy as f*** in every way as is the investment model they use.
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
There can be plenty of ways that ticketing ownership via NFT can be enhanced. As an example for football, clubs could choose to add video clips real time of pre/post match interviews with manager/players etc team talks, match highlights, that can all be accessed via the NFT from your mobile wallet...... all sorts of things that can enhance the match experience....... it might be anything in fact that markets the club and or appeals to the customer...... way beyond my imagination...... but a technology nonetheless that should not be written off before it has really taken off.
I agree.
It's new technology and there appear to be a lot of POTENTIAL positive uses.
But most of the positives are POSSIBLE uses that MAY come about BUT HAVEN'T YET.
but the sponsor we have is offering none of this to the club or we fans.
There are no options to buy season tickets as NFTs via generous robots
They are as dodgy as f*** in every way as is the investment model they use.
I wonder when bank notes came in, the Charlton life equivalent back then we’re saying “it’s just a bit of paper, it’s worthless. It’s just another scam”.
Well, to an extent, they’d have been right. Bank notes only have a value if enough people believe they do. That bit where the governor of the Bank of England promises to pay you the value of the note? If you take one in to the Bank of England and ask for your £5 in exchange for your £5 note, all you’ll get will be another £5 note in exchange.
I wonder when bank notes came in, the Charlton life equivalent back then we’re saying “it’s just a bit of paper, it’s worthless. It’s just another scam”.
Well, to an extent, they’d have been right. Bank notes only have a value if enough people believe they do. That bit where the governor of the Bank of England promises to pay you the value of the note? If you take one in to the Bank of England and ask for your £5 in exchange for your £5 note, all you’ll get will be another £5 note in exchange.
When I did that I got three £1 coins and four 50ps (they'd run out of pound coins)
I think people need to take a step back. This isn’t and ponzu scheme, and it’s unlikely to be an investment. Part of the problem is that everything around digital currency is being conflated with NFTs, and everyone is stuck on the NFT being a digital image.
An NFT simply says you own something, and obviously the most popular version is an image. The image has no value - all you’ve effectively getting is an electronic ownership document. It’s no different to owning a painting - you own it, but you don’t own the copyright. If you buy Van Goghs Starry Night, that doesn’t give you the right to sell copies.
Somebody gave a good analogy earlier of trading cards, you buy them, you own the copy you have, you can trade it, sell it, but ultimately it’s worthless unless someone is willing to pay to complete their set. It might be an investment in 50 years time, but it’s probably not. As long as these are not sold as investments, I have no problem if someone wants to pay for owning an image they can display on their phone. Whatever you want to spend your money on.
At the same time, the NFT may offer benefits - buy an NFT and maybe the club holds a reception for NFT holders, or you get priority on some other offering. It could be anything.
The technology is interesting, but it constantly looks like a solution desperately looking for a problem. Someone mentioned season tickets being NFTs. Why? What benefit does it offer? Just because it could be done doesn’t mean it should be.
This is harmless as long as it’s not marketed as an investment. It’s just stuff you can buy.
Our sponsor exclusively speaks about them as investments. That is the problem.
Why is it? Do you just plough your money into anything else that's classed as an investment? No, you research it and decide if its right for you
There is no age limit on these. Kids can see it on charltons shorts and plough money in without considering risks. Its unregulated and there are no rules/protections. this is the issue
someone mentioned about games earlier in the thread. Where you can buy players and shirts (Fifa/EA to mention one) to suggest this is something similar but as you say kids can plough money into it and kids have been known to plough money into Fifa/EA which has caused their parents grief and money problems. I have a real issue with microtransations in games in general. You pay a full price for a game but have to spend extra for dlcs and what not which i believe to be wrong. but thats where the money is so it wont stop anytime soon, in fact it will probably get worse.
I agree that all the additional purchases in games is a joke and I dont agree with it. But as has been outlined on this thread you would be buying a thing in the game whether a gun or a kit or whatever. You are able to get use and enjoyment out of the purchase. With NFT's they are being sole purely as an investment you get nothing from it while you have it. the sole purpose is solely to make money when you sell it.
Comparison doesnt work.
Wrong. Again.
NFTs are not just digital images!!! Do people actually bother reading opposing views on this thread or just spam the like button with no knowledge on whether it's true just because they think they agree with it?
Lazio are selling season tickets as NFTs. There are computer games where you can purchase in game content as NFTs. They are not being sold purely as investments.
The latter is still an utterly pointless utilisation of NFT technology and I'm not sure the former is worthwhile either personsally. They're currently nothing more than a solution without a problem.
is it? Imagine owning an item in-game nobody else online can have except you - that's worth something.
As for tickets, I already outlined at least 2 - one allows you to permisionlessly loan your ticket to some one, for money, the other is the club gets a cut of all transactions - so increase of sales.
I like this discussion, as it’s about the potential uses of NFTs , rather than how the term seems to be used everywhere as a conflation of the digit art market.
I’m neither pro and anti NFT. I worked in the financial industry before I retired, and these things were often discussed. Although potential uses were seen, they didn’t offer an obvious improvement on what was there today, although that was because it was a highly regulated environment. Going to a decentralized model created challenges which ultimately made most decide any benefit was insignificant compared to the potential costs and risks.
So, back to season tickets - my Boston Bruins ST is all electronic. They don’t issue paper tickets at all. It’s managed through Ticketmaster. I have the option to - - display a game ticket in Bruins app - pull the ticket into my phones wallet and display from there - assign the ticket to anyone via Ticketmaster - no fees involved - sell the ticket via Ticketmaster. I get the price I ask for, TM adds their fees and charges the buyer.
As an end user, I don’t see that an NFT approach adds much. Sure I can take TM out of the loop, but nothing the do directly impacts me. Maybe I could sell for more on the market, by bumping up the price to incorporate what they end up charging the buyer, but that about it.
The Bruins could make money, by demanding a share of any resale over the purchase price, or even restricting my ability to sell below their ticket office price as ST prices are significantly discounted. But that is a benefit to them, not me.
Neither benefits are really significant. And that to me is the real issue. There’s no single convincing argument to do any of this. There may be some benefits, there may be some downsides/risks. Most uses appear to be trying to reengineer some that that already works to do the same thing using different technologies.
New entrants into various markets may try this, which is why we see digital art so often, but established players will need to see a real return for their investment, and regulators will want to see control. Those are going to be big issues hindering adoption.
an intelligent, balanced post. Quick, admins, do something!
I have read all 17 pages of this thread, and I am still non the wiser as to what an NFT is !!!
In any event, I have no interest in the stock market, let alone electronic money - to be honest I wish the world stopped in 1988, when I was 18, Charlton were in Div 1, the music was better, no internet, hardly any mobile phones and my sexual performances were much better than they are these days !!
Comments
I think this is why I empathise with people that see current use of NFTs as a solution looking for a problem. Digital tickets, media content can all be provided off blockchain. And for most customers, getting yourself a presence on the blockchain is a massive ballache. I can see why clubs are buying into doing things with crypto etc, because it opens up a quite dedicated customer base, but I can't see why anyone would look to make this the main way of operating at least for the forseeable future?
https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/wizards/future-your-nba-tickets-virtual-and-non-fungible
The software geniuses who create crypto currency only understand what they create but are ignorant of the systems they are trying to make redundant. Those who think they understand crypto currency loaned from those with a financial interest in nothing more than maintaining as high a level of transactions as possible, may not want to listen to reason, but for what it's worth here is my take after following both sides of the story for a few years.
Crypto currency/NFTs are worthless assets. Apart from drugs, there is little use for cryptos as a currency as the value can change between the time you start a transaction and the time you finish. This problem is purportedly solved by ever more creative software and illusions of being backed by "real"money, that cryptos were supposed to replace.
Crypto can only be sold if someone else is prepared to by at a higher price than you did. It has the same characteristics as Ponzi and Pyramid schemes i.e "a Bigger Fool scam".
It is a zero sum game, potentially a negative sum gain. It is only a store of value if you assume an infinite chain of investors willing to pay for a worthless asset at any irrational price for ever.
The people making money out of crypto currency are not investors, instead of paying fees to banks you pay fees to intermediaries in the marketing and selling/conversion of crypto currency. Only wealthy investors can afford to run the crypto currency processes that reward them with crypto currency and the myth that crypto currency can create wealth for the poor man is just that, a myth.
NFTs are simply another digital scam variation. Don't waste your time trying to get your head around what they really are. Like financial institutions and software creators, the more attractive are the promises and the more esoteric is the product that only the product provider understands, a simple idea that has no worth can more easily be sold to the punter looking for an easy profit. New scams have to be created all the time because the only realisable value is from the original adopters able to cash in on an initial pool of "Bigger Fools".
So for all the people saying they don't understand cryptos or NFT don't worry, there's nothing to understand that will provide a rational reason to get involved.
I noticed an earlier post recommending hanging on to Bitcoin as a store of value because they are finite and will become rare and increase in value. Apart from missing the point that rarity has nothing to do with the value of a worthless asset, the remaining 2m bitcoins will (as well as using up ever more energy, currently more than some whole nations consume) take over 100 years to create them as the complexity and cost of the validation process grows exponentially.
Privacy in this context implies some level of wrong doing of desire to hide assets. It is associated with money laundering. Why is that?
Why the now obsession with NFTs solving problems (not necessarily directed at you but easiest post to quote). How much technology solves problems these days?
Did the latest iPhone solve any problems over one from 5 years ago?
Did the PS5 solve any problems over the PS3?
Did moving sat navs from TomToms to infotainment system solve a problem?
Did Windows 11 solve a problem Windows 10 had?
I could go on...
Technology and software these days are more evolutionary than anything. They enhance, speed up, make things more convenient, etc etc. NFTs will drive this in places.
Creating accounts to do certain things may be a ball ache to some now but it's naive to think it'll always be that way.
And his house, which is still there, is beautiful.
It's new technology and there appear to be a lot of POTENTIAL positive uses.
But most of the positives are POSSIBLE uses that MAY come about BUT HAVEN'T YET.
but the sponsor we have is offering none of this to the club or we fans.
There are no options to buy season tickets as NFTs via generous robots
They are as dodgy as f*** in every way as is the investment model they use.
Generous Robots 🤖 is a ponzi scheme.
NFTs aren't, as a thing, bad.
Oxford City football club to accept Bitcoin payments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62399371Needs a new virtual mattress I guess.
When I did that I got three £1 coins and four 50ps (they'd run out of pound coins)
Everton and Fancurve offer digital shirt NFTs to wear in the metaverse