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.
Again, blockchain and NFTs have a future, for sure. The potential for non-repudiation or ownership is massive for things like gig tickets, textbooks, proof of ownership of something of value etc.
These things, at present, either don't exist, or are incredibly niche.
What DOES exist, however - and this is what the vast majority of people understand as 'NFTs' - is an increasing number of absolutely worthless virtual things that exist simply as an investment - an investment with no intrinsic value whatsoever. In fact - to continue with the excellent analogy of the in-game unlocks so pervasive in gaming - at least those things have a 'value' to the player (bigger guns, faster players etc). A digital image of a robot that didn't exist until a week ago, and has no tangible value outside someone telling you it's valuable because it exists and they say it does is pretty much as close to pump and dump penny stocks as it's possible to get.
It stinks - and our club should have nothing to do with it.
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.
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?
Everything with value, from gig tickets to Art and eductational documents has/have and will continue to be faked. Tech, is what makes this harder to do, it's obviously not fool proof as people need educating.
As a collector of Art, I know that certain Artists have ways to prove work is legit... that still doesn't stop people thinking they've purchased a real Banksy off of Ebay for £200, when in a gallery it's 80k.
Going by the logic in this thread, you're a scammer because i could just right click save as a jpeg of a banksy, have it printed and put on my wall.
The mental gymnatics going on in this thread is mad. Maybe we should turn it into an NFT, so in 15-20 years time we'll have a good laugh - isn't that the most priceless thing of all?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But blockchain existed long before NFTs. People are conflating 2 separate things. The technology will have massive uses. NFTs are one use of the technology and they're pointless.
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.
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.
Stroll on 🤣
Don't buy into the bullshit above about it being this global force for good, helping the disenfranchised and under-represented billions in the third world. It exists almost exclusively to make the transferring of money and purchase of goods & services anonymous. You might thin that's a good thing - but don't insult peoples' intelligence about it being an unstoppable force for good. Regulations around fiat currencies exist to protect people - there are rules and regulations around money laundering, shady investments, insider trading and all sorts of other shit. Crypto is subject to none of these - making the whole sector rife with fraud and offering zero protection to the consumer.
Anybody who wants a primer on what the vast majority of crypto is used for, watch 'StartUp' on Netflix. It's almost a documentary...
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.
Stroll on 🤣
Don't buy into the bullshit above about it being this global force for good, helping the disenfranchised and under-represented billions in the third world. It exists almost exclusively to make the transferring of money and purchase of goods & services anonymous. You might thin that's a good thing - but don't insult peoples' intelligence about it being an unstoppable force for good. Regulations around fiat currencies exist to protect people - there are rules and regulations around money laundering, shady investments, insider trading and all sorts of other shit. Crypto is subject to none of these - making the whole sector rife with fraud and offering zero protection to the consumer.
Anybody who wants a primer on what the vast majority of crypto is used for, watch 'StartUp' on Netflix. It's almost a documentary...
So why are the likes of nigeria, vietnam, El salvador etc at the forefront of crypto adoption? You can post as many laughing face emojis as you want - but this is the reality. As @cafcpolo said, its almost as if people post on here just to confirm their own biases, rather than learn anything.
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.
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.
Stroll on 🤣
Don't buy into the bullshit above about it being this global force for good, helping the disenfranchised and under-represented billions in the third world. It exists almost exclusively to make the transferring of money and purchase of goods & services anonymous. You might thin that's a good thing - but don't insult peoples' intelligence about it being an unstoppable force for good. Regulations around fiat currencies exist to protect people - there are rules and regulations around money laundering, shady investments, insider trading and all sorts of other shit. Crypto is subject to none of these - making the whole sector rife with fraud and offering zero protection to the consumer.
Anybody who wants a primer on what the vast majority of crypto is used for, watch 'StartUp' on Netflix. It's almost a documentary...
Anonymous? I thought all Bitcoin transactions could be 100% traced in the publicly available ledger?
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.
Any reputable DAO should not be hiding behind anonymity. That is one of the biggest red flags.
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.
Stroll on 🤣
Don't buy into the bullshit above about it being this global force for good, helping the disenfranchised and under-represented billions in the third world. It exists almost exclusively to make the transferring of money and purchase of goods & services anonymous. You might thin that's a good thing - but don't insult peoples' intelligence about it being an unstoppable force for good. Regulations around fiat currencies exist to protect people - there are rules and regulations around money laundering, shady investments, insider trading and all sorts of other shit. Crypto is subject to none of these - making the whole sector rife with fraud and offering zero protection to the consumer.
Anybody who wants a primer on what the vast majority of crypto is used for, watch 'StartUp' on Netflix. It's almost a documentary...
Anonymous? I thought all Bitcoin transactions could be 100% traced in the publicly available ledger?
Yes. You can trace all transactions - you probably don't know who owns the keys to nearly all of the wallets, however.
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 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.
Precisely. I’m yet to see a use of NFT tech that solves a problem that exists and can’t be solved using other means.
The only people that tell you otherwise are those that have a financial stake in the game.
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.
Ticket touts are a massive problem, if they can be wiped out, numerous industries will benefit.
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.
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 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.
Great post fella, not because I agree (obviously) but given the majority on here it's nice to read something a bit more thought out. Shame I've become bored of the thread to do you the courtesy of writing a decent response.
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.
You do not need to use NFTs to achieve this, it's pretty pointless.
For season tickets again I can't see the real benefit personally. It's nothing that can't be achieved with other systems IMO.
Comments
These things, at present, either don't exist, or are incredibly niche.
What DOES exist, however - and this is what the vast majority of people understand as 'NFTs' - is an increasing number of absolutely worthless virtual things that exist simply as an investment - an investment with no intrinsic value whatsoever. In fact - to continue with the excellent analogy of the in-game unlocks so pervasive in gaming - at least those things have a 'value' to the player (bigger guns, faster players etc). A digital image of a robot that didn't exist until a week ago, and has no tangible value outside someone telling you it's valuable because it exists and they say it does is pretty much as close to pump and dump penny stocks as it's possible to get.
It stinks - and our club should have nothing to do with it.
The mental gymnatics going on in this thread is mad. Maybe we should turn it into an NFT, so in 15-20 years time we'll have a good laugh - isn't that the most priceless thing of all?
aforementioned systems?
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.
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.
- 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.
Don't buy into the bullshit above about it being this global force for good, helping the disenfranchised and under-represented billions in the third world. It exists almost exclusively to make the transferring of money and purchase of goods & services anonymous. You might thin that's a good thing - but don't insult peoples' intelligence about it being an unstoppable force for good. Regulations around fiat currencies exist to protect people - there are rules and regulations around money laundering, shady investments, insider trading and all sorts of other shit. Crypto is subject to none of these - making the whole sector rife with fraud and offering zero protection to the consumer.
Anybody who wants a primer on what the vast majority of crypto is used for, watch 'StartUp' on Netflix. It's almost a documentary...
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’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.
- 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.
@cabbles - Give this man one of Henrys promotes!
You do not need to use NFTs to achieve this, it's pretty pointless.
For season tickets again I can't see the real benefit personally. It's nothing that can't be achieved with other systems IMO.