NFT sponsorship

to be a DAO do you not have to be transparent? so why does the representative or whatever he is of the company wear a balaclava and sunglasses? he looks as if he is explaining to the media why his organisation have taken hostages and are not willing to negotiate with the west. 

kentaddick said:

SELR_addicks said:

If you want to support an artist by buying a JPG and computer code be my guest. 

The idea that they hold value and are an 'investment' is a con. 

What exactly is the difference between owning some art and owning an artist’s NFT? Art is a respectable, but can be risky investment. Nft art is similar.

the technology and ideas behind NFT’s are very much the future. We will buy tickets as NFT’s, the deeds to our homes will be NFT’s. 

Not unless the market is properly regulated. Which it wont be for a very long time.

cafcpolo said:

SELR_addicks said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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

cantersaddick said:

cafcpolo said:

SELR_addicks said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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. 

Karim_myBagheri said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcpolo said:

SELR_addicks said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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. 

In all likelihood it won’t get worse. Somebody with a spreadsheet can work how much money can be made if they charge for all and sundry but in reality they either won’t get people to actually pay, somebody will find a way around having to pay and somebody else will sell an inclusive package for a basic price and totally destroy the spreadsheet model.

Billy_Mix said:

AFKABartram said:

I’m not down at all to be honest, it’s like a whole world I have no idea how it works. Crypto, NFTs, my brain seems to have a digital block to it all. 

The Solana Blockchain sounds like a 2 star Magaluf hotel filled with on the cheap Northerners 

Your money's better invested in a damp 2 star back street Magaluf timeshare with a cockroach problem dodgy electrics and bad plumbing

At least then you can go see your money collapse into a hole in the ground rather than it just evaporating into the pockets of the virtual vendors

Accepting sponsorship money off unregulated entirely speculative startups is right down with gambling, alcohol and tobacco sponsorship
It's desperately unhealthy and should be nowhere near minors.  Bad move Charlton

cafc999 said:

Would be interesting to see if GR have actually paid any hard currency to CAFC 

Nope but we have a really nice JPEG of a monkey up in the boardroom

Karim_myBagheri said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcpolo said:

SELR_addicks said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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.

cantersaddick said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcpolo said:

SELR_addicks said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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.

cantersaddick said:

cafcpolo said:

cantersaddick said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

cantersaddick said:

cafcpolo said:

SELR_addicks said:

SomervilleAddick said:

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.

Yes obviously. I should have said NFT's in this context. i.e. the "company" we are talking about that is sponsoring our players right bum cheek. they are selling NFT's purely as an investment. That is where I have an issue with it. I said i see the tech being used for voting and other uses. Thats fine. But what this "company" uses it for is not fine in my eyes.

Gotcha! Aye, agree with that. Hard to distinguish when previous posts have been so generalised.

As for the edit...No, no I'm absolutely not.

A bit late to the party, and have only browsed this thread so not to aware of all the arguments put forth.

There is definitely scope for NFT's to have a really useful contribution to society, and indeed I read yesterday that some educational institutions in the USA have started giving out their certificates as NFT's which I thought was a pretty cool idea.

For me though stuff such as Generous Robots are just the next gold rush exploitative money grab, and I'd much rather the club went no where near them. 

Karim_myBagheri said:

FishCostaFortune said:

A bit late to the party, and have only browsed this thread so not to aware of all the arguments put forth.

There is definitely scope for NFT's to have a really useful contribution to society, and indeed I read yesterday that some educational institutions in the USA have started giving out their certificates as NFT's which I thought was a pretty cool idea.

For me though stuff such as Generous Robots are just the next gold rush exploitative money grab, and I'd much rather the club went no where near them. 

see this makes no sense to me. The one who passed their course and given the certificate are the only person who would see value in it. Unless i'm being completely stupid which i most likely I am being, there is no value in it for others or maybe its just done that way to save paper? is that right? idk. 

Why does value always have to be about money ? It proves authenticity of the certificate. The value is knowing the person actually has the qualifications they say they have.

Karim_myBagheri said:

FishCostaFortune said:

A bit late to the party, and have only browsed this thread so not to aware of all the arguments put forth.

There is definitely scope for NFT's to have a really useful contribution to society, and indeed I read yesterday that some educational institutions in the USA have started giving out their certificates as NFT's which I thought was a pretty cool idea.

For me though stuff such as Generous Robots are just the next gold rush exploitative money grab, and I'd much rather the club went no where near them. 

see this makes no sense to me. The one who passed their course and given the certificate are the only person who would see value in it. Unless i'm being completely stupid which i most likely I am being, there is no value in it for others or maybe its just done that way to save paper? is that right? idk. 

Could be a system used by employers to ensure the candidate has the qualifications they say they have on their CV? I chucked my degree certificate out a long time ago so if a future client asked me to prove it, fck knows what I'd do.

shine166 said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

FishCostaFortune said:

A bit late to the party, and have only browsed this thread so not to aware of all the arguments put forth.

There is definitely scope for NFT's to have a really useful contribution to society, and indeed I read yesterday that some educational institutions in the USA have started giving out their certificates as NFT's which I thought was a pretty cool idea.

For me though stuff such as Generous Robots are just the next gold rush exploitative money grab, and I'd much rather the club went no where near them. 

see this makes no sense to me. The one who passed their course and given the certificate are the only person who would see value in it. Unless i'm being completely stupid which i most likely I am being, there is no value in it for others or maybe its just done that way to save paper? is that right? idk. 

Why does value always have to be about money ? It proves authenticity of the certificate. The value is knowing the person actually has the qualifications they say they have.

couldn't an email with the certificate attached do just the same thing? 

or is it because it can be put into the public domain? 

edit: forget it. Its more about authentication than anything else. I hope thats right.  

shine166 said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

shine166 said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

FishCostaFortune said:

A bit late to the party, and have only browsed this thread so not to aware of all the arguments put forth.

There is definitely scope for NFT's to have a really useful contribution to society, and indeed I read yesterday that some educational institutions in the USA have started giving out their certificates as NFT's which I thought was a pretty cool idea.

For me though stuff such as Generous Robots are just the next gold rush exploitative money grab, and I'd much rather the club went no where near them. 

see this makes no sense to me. The one who passed their course and given the certificate are the only person who would see value in it. Unless i'm being completely stupid which i most likely I am being, there is no value in it for others or maybe its just done that way to save paper? is that right? idk. 

Why does value always have to be about money ? It proves authenticity of the certificate. The value is knowing the person actually has the qualifications they say they have.

couldn't an email with the certificate attached do just the same thing? 

or is it because it can be put into the public domain? 

edit: forget it. Its more about authentication than anything else. I hope thats right.  

People are far too wrapped up with NFTs being about jpegs of animals and making more money than the previous person, to see the bigger picture. Blockchain technology, which separates NFTS from jpegs is the future and is proof of authenticity/ownership and why a right clicked ape, is never going to replace the 'real' thing.

being a bit devils avocado but completely out of interest what happened before NFTs were invented? did that mean anyones photo could be copied by someone else and passed as their own?