NFT sponsorship

valleynick66 said:

cafcpolo said:

SuedeAdidas said:

cafcpolo said:

SuedeAdidas said:

So.....if I understand correctly......

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. 

PragueAddick said:

stop_shouting said:

Off_it said:

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?

Off_it said:

stop_shouting said:

Off_it said:

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. 

Pretty sure they are, according to this anyway!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pyramid-selling-advice-for-the-public-and-communities

stop_shouting said:

Off_it said:

stop_shouting said:

Off_it said:

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. 

Pretty sure they are, according to this anyway!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pyramid-selling-advice-for-the-public-and-communities

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.

Off_it said:

stop_shouting said:

Off_it said:

stop_shouting said:

Off_it said:

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. 

Pretty sure they are, according to this anyway!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pyramid-selling-advice-for-the-public-and-communities

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.

seth plum said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

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?

Henry Irving said:

valleynick66 said:

cafcpolo said:

SuedeAdidas said:

cafcpolo said:

SuedeAdidas said:

So.....if I understand correctly......

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.

kentaddick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

kentaddick said:

stop_shouting said:

Henry Irving said:

stop_shouting said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

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. 

Leroy Ambrose said:

shine166 said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

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...😬

Cafc43v3r said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

shine166 said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

shine166 said:

seth plum said:

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.

kentaddick said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

kentaddick said:

stop_shouting said:

Henry Irving said:

stop_shouting said:

Leroy Ambrose said:

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.