I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
Could you name one that you would be happy for your children, or those in your close family, to 'invest" in?
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
Correct. The value is all in the artwork. The NFT is basically a reference to that artwork on the blockchain which holds the ownership, etc.
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.
Now that is an interesting real world application if it comes to fruition.
As others have said for now this whole space ie crypto / blockchain / NFT feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Maybe when it gets it’s killer app then it will become something tangible.
Agree with the tickets.
But when that happens the commodity is the ticket, a tangible asset that already exists in the "real" world.
I've found this thread very informative and it had made me read more and learn more.
As some have said the answers are there although they are less than reassuring.
I can see the potential value in NFTs but I'm struggling to see the benefit to me right now. I'm not an early adopter but neither am I a technophobe.
The sensible people (not the Sealion or the beard JohnnyB) on here who work in IT and financial services are dubious about this and that makes me the same.
I don't have an absolute negative on the club working with NFTs but I do worry that this particular company is dodgy as **** and that one we won't get paid and two it will cause reputational damage.
On a side point could you call Charlton Life a DAO?
We collectively sponsor the club through donations from the community but CL doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal entity.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
Could you name one that you would be happy for your children, or those in your close family, to 'invest" in?
A very topical question for me and I won’t go into the reasons why but isn’t Avon a type of pyramid scheme? I’ve been given the opportunity to invest in a renewable energy project. Whether I do or not is another is another question but if I do, the risks will probably be bigger than these NFT jpegs or whatever or they are. What your journo mate has uncovered is interesting but nothing more than that for me. Will be interesting to see the clubs comments on view of the faux outrage in the last couple of days.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
Could you name one that you would be happy for your children, or those in your close family, to 'invest" in?
A very topical question for me and I won’t go into the reasons why but isn’t Avon a type of pyramid scheme? I’ve been given the opportunity to invest in a renewable energy project. Whether I do or not is another is another question but if I do, the risks will probably be bigger than these NFT jpegs or whatever or they are. What your journo mate has uncovered is interesting but nothing more than that for me. Will be interesting to see the clubs comments on view of the faux outrage in the last couple of days.
Nope. Avon isn't a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes rely primarily on people recruiting other people. Avon has an element of that, but it's mainly door to door sales - which has its own regulations, of course, but isn't a 'get rich quick' scheme. The ones that REALLY sail close to the line are things like Amway (which my parents uses to do). They're pyramid schemes in all but name.
I'm not sure where you get 'faux outrage' from in any of the comments above, tbh. There are entirely legitimate concerns being raised - and I've seen nothing to suggest anyone is 'outraged'. Far from it - the thread has, I'm sure, been educational for a lot of people, and all that's really happened is people who were potentially thinking of 'investing' (🤣) in NFTs have probably had their eyes opened to the nonsense of it all.
Also - regarding your renewables investment opportunity - I'm guessing it's FCA regulated, yeah? And backed by FSCS guarantees?
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
Fair enough. I always thought Avon and Amway (as Leroy mentions) we’re regarded as pyramid schemes. Maybe I’m getting confused with pyramid selling.
I think theres a fine line between some of these schemes. But generally I think if someone actually gets something for their money - cosmetics, Tupperware, dildos - then that's on the right side of the law. But if you only get paid for introducing other people into the "investment" and there is no underlying product then that's where it all gets a bit smelly.
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
Correct. The value is all in the artwork. The NFT is basically a reference to that artwork on the blockchain which holds the ownership, etc.
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.
Now that is an interesting real world application if it comes to fruition.
As others have said for now this whole space ie crypto / blockchain / NFT feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Maybe when it gets it’s killer app then it will become something tangible.
We collectively sponsor the club through donations from the community but CL doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal entity.
There is one, set up in Bermuda. Harvests your data for massive profit. Lookie is a secret billionaire.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
Fair enough. I always thought Avon and Amway (as Leroy mentions) we’re regarded as pyramid schemes. Maybe I’m getting confused with pyramid selling.
I think theres a fine line between some of these schemes. But generally I think if someone actually gets something for their money - cosmetics, Tupperware, dildos - then that's on the right side of the law. But if you only get paid for introducing other people into the "investment" and there is no underlying product then that's where it all gets a bit smelly.
Exactly - and that's why Amway is so, so close to the line. For me, having first hand knowledge growing up of how Amways operates it's now relatively easy to spot a con. NFTs in their current form are a con. Anyone who can't see that is daft, or has skin in the game.
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
Correct. The value is all in the artwork. The NFT is basically a reference to that artwork on the blockchain which holds the ownership, etc.
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.
Now that is an interesting real world application if it comes to fruition.
As others have said for now this whole space ie crypto / blockchain / NFT feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Maybe when it gets it’s killer app then it will become something tangible.
We collectively sponsor the club through donations from the community but CL doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal entity.
There is one, set up in Bermuda. Harvests your data for massive profit. Lookie is a secret billionaire.
It turns out that ‘sea lioning’ is supposed to be asking questions in bad faith. It begs the question how is bad faith established, the court of public opinion?
Those who accuse others of sea lioning seem to be those who can’t answer legitimate questions.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
Not wishing to add to the pile on, but the literal use of the word 'whale' is to describe... A whale. 😬
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
Correct. The value is all in the artwork. The NFT is basically a reference to that artwork on the blockchain which holds the ownership, etc.
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.
Now that is an interesting real world application if it comes to fruition.
As others have said for now this whole space ie crypto / blockchain / NFT feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Maybe when it gets it’s killer app then it will become something tangible.
Agree with the tickets.
But when that happens the commodity is the ticket, a tangible asset that already exists in the "real" world.
I've found this thread very informative and it had made me read more and learn more.
As some have said the answers are there although they are less than reassuring.
I can see the potential value in NFTs but I'm struggling to see the benefit to me right now. I'm not an early adopter but neither am I a technophobe.
The sensible people (not the Sealion or the beard JohnnyB) on here who work in IT and financial services are dubious about this and that makes me the same.
I don't have an absolute negative on the club working with NFTs but I do worry that this particular company is dodgy as **** and that one we won't get paid and two it will cause reputational damage.
On a side point could you call Charlton Life a DAO?
We collectively sponsor the club through donations from the community but CL doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal entity.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
Not wishing to add to the pile on, but the literal use of the word 'whale' is to describe... A whale. 😬
'Context' is a word I've used every single time I've posted.
Linguistic analysis is a recognised activity of value. Very much related to Philosophy. It is not semantics, or relying on a dictionary, but about exploring the notion of what do we mean by what we say.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
Fair enough. I always thought Avon and Amway (as Leroy mentions) we’re regarded as pyramid schemes. Maybe I’m getting confused with pyramid selling.
When they are schemes involving big brands, or perhaps less big brands too, they are often dubbed "multi-level marketing". Gives them a respectable veneer in the business world. If that was the kind of thing you referred to, then I can see why you wrote the remark I picked up on. But if you meet a proponent of a lot of these schemes (a lot of them in the Health and Beauty retail category), you quickly find that they are less interested in explaining the competitive advantages of the products than in "recruiting" people to sell under them. And those recruited will be sold on the idea that they too can recruit people. So the dream is that you sit back and watch the money rolling in because the people below you are trying to sell the products, you just supply them the gear which they pay you for. So it's pretty much shaped like a pyramid. When they are FMCG products a legit. question is, why does the company not want them stocked in Boots or Superdrug, if they are so wonderful?
At least with Avon and Amway you know all about their basic business identity. Generic Robots seem very keen on keeping it out of the public eye. Whether its NFT or ice lollies, that ought to be a red flag for us.
Skin so Soft is an Avon product reputedly bought by SAS soldiers to protect themselves against Scottish midges. More effective than looking at a picture of the product.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
You have not addressed the legitimate and pertinent questions about Gemerous Robots by Martin Calladine. A company which the club apparently endorses to its fanbase, especially the younger ones.
This is no longer about the value or otherwise of NFTs. It is about transparency of ownership. It has the same whiff about it as ESI. Fake sheikhs with fake bookcases, sooper dooper phone deals, bent lawyers and dental accountants.
Lets drop the tribal warfare and focus on that!
I'm still trying to explain what 'whale means' to the crypto world. Tbh I've not even looked at the GR whitepaper or road map
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.
You've really reacted poorly to people disagreeing with you. I'm sorry that the hellsite doesn't like NFTs. One thing I'd like to point out is you absolutely did not 'debunk' NFTs being terrible for the environment. They are, have been and continue to be terrible for the environment. There is the opportunity for that to change, which is great, but it's not currently the case. It's supposed to change this year, but then it was also supposed to change in 2019 and 2021 and didn't. Let's hope in September it really does. All that doesn't change the fact that NFTs are currently bad for the environment, and to my knowledge there hasn't been a moratorium on NFT transactions until the changes come in. In the meantime based on the average amount of carbon emissions NFTs create and the number of transactions taking place in a month they put out and have put out more emissions than Burundi. I think the major issue here isn't that there's dogpiling on about NFTs, it's that you've decided NFTs are good and you're getting terribly upset that people don't agree regardless of what you hear. That's a you problem.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
Not wishing to add to the pile on, but the literal use of the word 'whale' is to describe... A whale. 😬
'Context' is a word I've used every single time I've posted.
It's just confusing, is all. I mean - the term 'whale' as it's used by the crypto world is a derivation of the term 'whale' used in the gambling world. Nobody would say a gambler was 'literally a whale'. Possibly it's because of over-use of the word 'literal', to describe things when they aren't 'literal' at all. In fact, it's 'literally' wrong to do so...😬
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
Not wishing to add to the pile on, but the literal use of the word 'whale' is to describe... A whale. 😬
'Context' is a word I've used every single time I've posted.
It's just confusing, is all. I mean - the term 'whale' as it's used by the crypto world is a derivation of the term 'whale' used in the gambling world. Nobody would say a gambler was 'literally a whale'. Possibly it's because of over-use of the word 'literal', to describe things when they aren't 'literal' at all. In fact, it's 'literally' wrong to do so...😬
To be fair, even my 3 years old says 'he's literally doing X' so you do have a point 🤣
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
Not wishing to add to the pile on, but the literal use of the word 'whale' is to describe... A whale. 😬
'Context' is a word I've used every single time I've posted.
It's just confusing, is all. I mean - the term 'whale' as it's used by the crypto world is a derivation of the term 'whale' used in the gambling world. Nobody would say a gambler was 'literally a whale'. Possibly it's because of over-use of the word 'literal', to describe things when they aren't 'literal' at all. In fact, it's 'literally' wrong to do so...😬
I have seen kraken, whale, dolphin, minnow used in any context that involves spending money.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
I mean, they didn't happen did it. I tried explaining what whale means in the context of crypto and got criticism for my use of the word 'literally'.
Not wishing to add to the pile on, but the literal use of the word 'whale' is to describe... A whale. 😬
'Context' is a word I've used every single time I've posted.
It's just confusing, is all. I mean - the term 'whale' as it's used by the crypto world is a derivation of the term 'whale' used in the gambling world. Nobody would say a gambler was 'literally a whale'. Possibly it's because of over-use of the word 'literal', to describe things when they aren't 'literal' at all. In fact, it's 'literally' wrong to do so...😬
I have seen kraken, whale, dolphin, minnow used in any context that involves spending money.
My missus calls me tiddler but I've never bought crypto in my life so no idea what she means 🤔
Edit... links in the "Description" section of the above video to the sponsor
Thank-you. Personally, it describes a pyramid scheme to me. You encourage people to invest (Charlton fans), you pay out some of the investments and some think it's great and others put money in. It looks good until all the money is gone and the "holders" hold a bunch of worthless robots/gear, whatever fancy name you call it to suck people in.
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.
To be fair, it looks like a pile of shit to me, and I'd like to think I have a decent understanding of the space. Is it a scam? Probably not. But it does look like a firm trying to capitalise on the NFT hype-train categorising itself as a DAO to give a bit more credibility. If they are giving the club cash for a small logo on the home shorts I couldn't care less, noone is forcing fans to buy the nfts
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
You have not addressed the legitimate and pertinent questions about Gemerous Robots by Martin Calladine. A company which the club apparently endorses to its fanbase, especially the younger ones.
This is no longer about the value or otherwise of NFTs. It is about transparency of ownership. It has the same whiff about it as ESI. Fake sheikhs with fake bookcases, sooper dooper phone deals, bent lawyers and dental accountants.
Lets drop the tribal warfare and focus on that!
I'm still trying to explain what 'whale means' to the crypto world. Tbh I've not even looked at the GR whitepaper or road map
Comments
But when that happens the commodity is the ticket, a tangible asset that already exists in the "real" world.
I've found this thread very informative and it had made me read more and learn more.
As some have said the answers are there although they are less than reassuring.
I can see the potential value in NFTs but I'm struggling to see the benefit to me right now. I'm not an early adopter but neither am I a technophobe.
The sensible people (not the Sealion or the beard JohnnyB) on here who work in IT and financial services are dubious about this and that makes me the same.
I don't have an absolute negative on the club working with NFTs but I do worry that this particular company is dodgy as **** and that one we won't get paid and two it will cause reputational damage.
On a side point could you call Charlton Life a DAO?
We collectively sponsor the club through donations from the community but CL doesn't, as far as I know, have a legal entity.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pyramid-selling-advice-for-the-public-and-communities
I'm not sure where you get 'faux outrage' from in any of the comments above, tbh. There are entirely legitimate concerns being raised - and I've seen nothing to suggest anyone is 'outraged'. Far from it - the thread has, I'm sure, been educational for a lot of people, and all that's really happened is people who were potentially thinking of 'investing' (🤣) in NFTs have probably had their eyes opened to the nonsense of it all.
Also - regarding your renewables investment opportunity - I'm guessing it's FCA regulated, yeah? And backed by FSCS guarantees?
It begs the question how is bad faith established, the court of public opinion?
At least with Avon and Amway you know all about their basic business identity. Generic Robots seem very keen on keeping it out of the public eye. Whether its NFT or ice lollies, that ought to be a red flag for us.
More effective than looking at a picture of the product.
Personally, it describes a pyramid scheme to me.
You encourage people to invest (Charlton fans), you pay out some of the investments and some think it's great and others put money in.
It looks good until all the money is gone and the "holders" hold a bunch of worthless robots/gear, whatever fancy name you call it to suck people in.