Lee DunaThe vast majority of NFTs are now worthless, new report shows
Lettuce eat lettuceGee, if only there was some way to have seen this coming before hand…
FlashMobOfOneYup.
Could have put the money in stock instead and they’d likely have made a profit since then.
Hell, they could have stuffed it into their mattress and it would have been a better investment lol.
GormadtInflation can’t even loose this much money is such a short time
The first tweet nft sold for $2.9mil and is not “worth” less than $4.
Like it was worth anything at all in the beginning anyways
Might a a good idea to buy it, I’m sure it will sell for 10$ with some haggling.
Beautiful edit.
- lose
kubicaActually I didn't have many hopes in humanity when it started to happen. It's a bit comforting, not much though with other things around.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Tens of thousands of NFTs that were once deemed the newest rage in tech and dragged in celebrities, artists and even Melania Trump have now been declared virtually worthless.
NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, are a form of crypto asset that is used to certify ownership and authenticity of a digital file including an image, video or text.
The report comes nearly two years after the craze for NFTs swept up celebrities and artists alike, with many rushing to purchase NFT collections of the Bored Ape Yacht Club and Matrix avatars.
The drastic downward market shift surrounding such crypto assets “underscores the need for careful due diligence before making any purchases, especially one of high value”, the report said.
Researchers identified 195,699 NFT collections with no apparent owners or market share and found that the energy required to mint the NFTs was comparable to 27,789,258 kWh, resulting in an emission of approximately 16,243 metric tons of CO2.
In order to survive market downturns and have lasting value, NFTs need to be either historically relevant such as first-edition Pokémon cards, true art or provide genuine utility, they said in the report.
The original article contains 650 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
watsonOf no surprise to anyone.
Black AOCBut y’know, everyone who rightfully decried those fuckin things were just FUDing, right?
Guess not!
🌍👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Grass is green…
neo (he/him)and nothing of value was lost
Well a lot of money transferred to grifters that's for sure.
Wait. They were actually worth something!?
To be real, even cryptobros would tell you the vast majority were useless as soon as they were minted.
It’s why they pushed them so hard. They hoped we were stupid enough to buy into it and make them richer.
TheImpressiveXThey always were.
pleasemakesenseIf value is completely dependent on speculation how the fuck do people expect to make money?
Crypto Booms: "This is the future of money. You can't lose."
Crypto Busts: "I'm just interested in the tech it's not about money."
Crypto Busts: "I'm just interested in the tech it's not about money."
gndagrebornThat is some high grade cope. Highly refined. 99.99% pure cope.
Those are two different communities that are interested in crypto. Some of the crypto bros used the pro-decentralized peoples logic to cope… but there are both.
I’m surprised there aren’t more of the decentralized endorsers here, amongst a community of technically literate people using FOSS software.
I mined for years, 2011-2014 or so. I don’t need a lecture on crypto culture lol
Yeah it’s almost like software-freedom ultranerds don’t buy the claims. Weird. What could it mean, for a technically-literate community with no financial interest to reject the technical claims of people who’ve bought in? Which conclusions might we possibly infer, from people who obsess over the details of decentralized systems, when they treat an allegedly decentralized ledger like pointless garbage? Who among us could theoretically derive elucidating information from the eventuality wherein diehard open-source coders dissent against conservative-adjacent libertarians tech bros vis-a-vis the merits of the latter’s supposedly relevant magic beans? Whence springs any hint of insight, whereupon a community collectively obs
Greater fools.
This kind of nft is like slot gambling: you might win something small but in the end if y
Always have been
FaceDeerGiven that they can be generated effectively for free, this is hardly surprising or particularly meaningful. I can generate ten thousand new images with my AI art generator for basically zero cost and I don't expect any would be economically valuable, but that doesn't mean there aren't some images that are valuable.
magnetosphere I can imagine being desperate to hit it big, but at least but a lottery ticket or something. That way, the school system (or whatever) gets a few bucks, instead of the fucking Trumps.
davel@[email protected]: I think we really missed an opportunity a couple of years ago when we didn’t call NFTs “grift certificates”.
Chris is. (@[email protected])
I think we really missed an opportunity a couple of years ago when we didn't call NFTs “grift certificates”.
It must have been really hard for the underpaid researcher to put this report together while doubling over in laughter.
What??!
Nooo!!!
squibletPerhaps they’d have retained value if they had been attached to quality art rather than awful-looking algorithmically generated complete trash.
Dr CogNo, they wouldn’t have. Because owning a link to a thing doesn’t mean anything, no matter what that thing is. They were only valuable because people didn’t understand NFTs and wanted to get rich quick.
The concept of a certificate of authenticity for digital goods that can be traded isn’t inherently terrible.
The concept isn’t, I agree. But it also isn’t a useful idea, either. There really doesn’t appear to be any benefit to using NFTs in any meaningful application, or at least nobody has pitched one that isn’t either a grift or a way to appear “trendy” by reinventing the wheel.
The actual infrastructure was horribly inefficient, but that may have improved with ETH’s move to proof of stake.
There’s other issues, but the idea of using the digital receipt as an “investment” seems fundamentally flawed.
Some established, legitimate artists have been selling NFTs with their originals. But sure, overall, like crypto in general, the field is filled with scammers and get-rich-quick schemes.
I know someone who is a painter who for some reason decided to try selling NFTs a couple of months ago (I pointed out it was a bit late…). The only responses on opensea and Instagram she received were from scammers, trying to pull a “my payment didn’t work, you need to manually approve it” scheme to try to steal her credentials.
I know someone who is a painter who for some reason decided to try selling NFTs a couple of months ago (I pointed out it was a bit late…). The only responses on opensea and Instagram she received were from scammers, trying to pull a “my payment didn’t work, you need to manually approve it” scheme to try to steal her credentials.
SpaceCowboyShe could also simply write down the name of the person who bought the painting from you. And ask them to let her know if they sell it so she could update her records.
Sure it’s possible someone might not let her know they sold the painting. But it’s equally possible someone sells the painting without transferring the NFT along with it.
Sure, and instead of credit cards, the store can just write down on an index card that I owe them $60. Anyway, the idea is a level of automation exceeding what they had in Sumeria 7,000 years ago.
O rly! 🦉
Altima NEOWere they worth anything to begin with?
Hundreds of millions, when people were dumb enough to buy them. The problem is that eventually dumb people ran out of money and the worth plummeted to zero.
Sterile_TechniqueCost vs worth. Their pricetag may vary; but they’ve been worth nothing since their inception.
Elon musk is worth 250B
He’s like a piggy bank - gotta break it open to make a withdrawal.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆They have no intrinsic value, but they’re worth what people will pay for them I guess. The only problem is that entire thing was a hype bubble conjured up scammers. The insane thing is that for a brief moment they even had famous auction houses buying into the scam.
www.christies.com/lot/lot-6316969?ldp_breadcrumb=…
That shitty set of randomized pixel art sold for more than anything else in that particular show, aside from a Basquiat.
No one will convince me that there isn’t money laundering going on there. There’s just no way an actual person looked at that and thought it is worth that kind of money
Yeah, $17M USD. It would be interesting to see the real bidders and their history
Well, no piece of art has an intrinsic value. And auction houses exist to make money, not because of some divine purpose to connect true art to its worthy new owner. Of course they’re going to jump on the hype train if they think it’s worth it. I fully agree that NFTs are a scam, like almost all crypto crap. But so is the current art market. Money laundering and investments for the rich.
It’s crazy how interlinked black market dealings and money laundering have been to the art world. I shudder to think the amount of artists careers that were made because a couple guys needs to pay each other millions of dollars for something worthless to easily make some clean money on illicit exchanges.
I’d love to print out that shitty pixel art and wave it at the person who spent $17M on that garbage… Unfortunately I’m sure it’s someone $17M doesn’t mean much to.
chickenA better question would be, did anyone ever even buy them to begin with?
This means that 79% of all NFT collections – otherwise known as almost 4 out of every 5 – have remained unsold.
That is, most of the NFTs included in the OP statistic were listed for sale by their creators, and never recorded a sale. Another important detail is that even for the ones that did record sales, there’s no real way of knowing if those sales were real. You can easily make another crypto wallet and buy an NFT from yourself. For more elaborate wash trading, you can find someone with an established wallet to collude with. There are obvious reasons to do this too; building up a history of increasing sale prices could potentially dupe someone into thinking an NFT is a good investment, or you could launder money by selling an NFT to a ‘dirty’ wallet you also control.
Probably some portion of the market was “real”, but the volume is almost certainly much lower than anyone is reporting. Statistics like what the OP article is quoting are just about totally meaningless.
pomodoro_longbreakI knew people (well one person; in my developer meetup group) that went deep on the NTF craze, like has an spe avatar unironically, spent a bunch on NFTs, and if they’re telling the truth made bank off of them.
It’s pretty disappointing. I wonder whose money they took.
Again, probably some of it is real, and that’s the segment people who made money dealt with. I think of it as a sort of gambling; your acquaintance won a gambling game, someone else lost. Possibly there were some overly wealthy people buying them for status, or maybe that’s just a myth. But the point is, most NFTs themselves aren’t part of that at all, were never a part of any real market, so doing analysis on them is going to be misleading.
Just because something is unique doesn’t mean it’s valuable.
Some people are just discovering this.
It’s not even that it’s unique. It’s just one particular system associates you with something. It’s basically those star registry scams. Except you’re not associated with a star by one particular scam organization. You associated with an image of a cartoon ape by a scam organization! But there’s a trendy technology involved so idiots think that makes it somehow legit.