The sad thing is the concept wasn’t.
Selling NFTs with no physical existence is what is pointlessly stupid.
Before they came along i considered the idea of a blockchain linked video camera where metadata of footage gets written into the chain to combat fake news and misinformation.
The goal would be to create a proof and record of original footage, to which media publishers and people who share can link towards to verify authenticity/author.
If the media later gets manipulated or reframed you would be able to verify this by comparing to the original record.
It was never a finished idea but when i first read nft i thought this is the right direction.
And then capitalism started selling apes and what the actual disgusting money possessed fuck was that.
The certificate/signature part seems okay for verification.
It’s the transferable virtual deeds being sold that are the scam. I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn’t really mean anything.
Wait just a second! You have a bridge for sale? Tell me more.
Well first of all, it allows travel between point A and point B, usually above the ground
I’m in! Name your price.
And time travel! But you have to drive real slow for it to work
Or you could travel at any speed.
Well not 299,792,458 meters per second. The time travel effect becomes more effective the slower you are from that
Joke’s on you: I constantly time travel for free!
Granted, it’s always in the same direction and at the same rate of time change, but no fancy bridges are required.
at the same rate of time change
Not true! The faster you’re moving through space, the slower you’re moving through time.
Good point!
I could sell you a virtual deed to the Golden Gate Bridge right now, you could buy it but it doesn’t really mean anything.
Yeah, that’s possibly the most famous scam in history (people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge), enough to where “I’ve got a bridge to sell you” is a figure of speech for calling someone gullible or naive.
And then despite the world knowing about the Brooklyn Bridge scam, the cryptobros actually went and found a bunch of suckers to fall for the exact same scam, only with blockchains instead of notary seals.
It’s kind of like selling a website that redirects to Facebook, and thinking that therefore you own Facebook.
I mean we use fiat currency
the issue isnt that it is virtual
The virtual deeds would be great for game licences and trading second hand games online
That stuff already works just fine without NFTs or crypto bros.
How tf are you trading digital games you’ve finished
There’s not much difference between a government run land registry and a decentralized land registry
except that the government run land registry can deal with disputes in a flexible and fair manner. A blockchain with smart contracts cannot.
Enforcement of ownership must be off chain. You can still have a disputes procedure using blockchain.
What a smart contract registry allows is efficient notarisation of non-disputed ownership, which is 95% of the work.
Wouldn’t a code signing be a simpler way to achieve that? The video camera can produce a hash code with each video and you can always run the same hash function against the video file to confirm that it wasn’t tampered with.
With your scheme you can’t prove the timing of when the hash was made, nor who made the hash. At the very least the camera would have to include something that proves the time in the hash, and then sign the result with a private key that can’t be extracted from the camera.
Trusted, cryptographic timestamps exist, and have for some time. NFTs don’t add anything new.
Okay good. I thought it would, just didn’t know any specifically. I wasn’t trying to suggest a public blockchain would be the only solution or even the best of multiple solutions, only that they needed to consider more angles beyond just making a hash.
Those would probably be a part of it.
Comparing a hashcode implies you have a verifiable source for the original footage.
You can do this manually and dig for the author but thats not always that simple.
A second step would be to build In a reference to the record in each media file, expressed as a small clickable logo.
You grandma deserves to be capable to verify.
surely so does a block chain? at the heart of it a block chain is just a series of hashes too.
Exactly my point why i think they would be a part of it.
Too often information about original media and potential hashes get lost. A decentralised ledger is the perfect tool for the job.
buh, i mean, what would it add over just a single hash?
If i give you any video from online would you or your grandma be able to find the hash of the original footage which is not provided?
i thought we were talking about the opposite situation, archival.
so in this situation we’re not actually talking about using a block chain, as in a progressive hashing function, but the blockchain, as in a massive network of computers used to verify anything.
This still fundamentally suffers from the oracle problem like all blockchains solutions. You can always attack these blockchain solutions at the point where they need to interact with the real world. In this case the camera is the “oracle” and nothing prevents someone from attacking the proposed camera and leveraging it to certify some modified footage. The blockchain doesn’t add anything a public database and digitally signed footage wouldn’t also achieve.
This is correct.
This is a flaw i had considered and never found a solution for. Hence the idea is unfinished.
The only further argument i have is that manipulating camera techniques is as old as film yet it’s the digital tools that are causing the most harm and allow any troll to partake. Staging a scene takes at least some dedication and effort.
If such would be considered on the blockchain than it would also bring in questions all other footage by the same recorder device. “Wallets” from established authors, anonymous or not would have their own reputations of trustworthyness.
You don’t have to stage a scene, you can use modern displays, optics, and sensors to inject ‘digital’ strategies into the ‘analog’ approach.
This is a very legit concern. But to my understanding, it is possible to make the the camera that’s very hard to crack, by putting security enclave or whatever it is that makes phones hard to unlock, right inside the CCD chip. Even if somebody manages to strip off the top layer, chart out the cryptographic circuit, probe the ROM inside, etc and extract the private key, it should be possible upon finding it to revoke the key to that camera or even the entire model and make it even more painful in further models.
Another concern is of camera being pointed to the screen with a fake image, but I’ve searched and yet to find a convincing shot that doesn’t look like, well, a photo of a screen. But for this concern I think the only counter-measure would be to add photographer and publisher signatures to the mix, so that if anyone is engaging in such practice is caught, their entire library goes untrusted upon revocation. Wouldn’t be completely foolproof, but better than nothing, I guess.
That’s security by obscurity. Given time, an attacker with physical access to the device will get every bit data from it. And yes, you could mark it as compromised, but then there’s nothing stopping the attacker from just buying another camera and stripping the key from that, too. Since they already know how. And yes, you could revoke all the keys from the entire model range, and come up with a different puzzle for the next camera, but the attacker will just crack that one too.
Hiding the key on the camera in such a way that the camera can access it, but nobody else can is impossible. We simply need to accept that a photograph or a video is no longer evidence.
The idea in your second paragraph is good though, and much easier to implement than your first one.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
You’re falling for the classic paradox of security: it has to work for someone. OF COURSE if you get all of the keys and every detail of the process you can crack it. That’s true of ALL CRYPTOGRAPHY. If someone knows everything including the keys, it’s too late for any ‘secure’ device.
No, it is not security through obscurity. It’s a message signature algorithm, which are used in cryptography all the time.
Yes it is. The scheme is that when you take a picture, the camera signs said picture. The key is stored somewhere in the camera. Hence the secrecy of the key hinges on the the attacker not knowing how the camera accesses the key. Once the attacker knows that, they can get the key from the camera. Therefore, security hinges on the secrecy of the camera design/protocol used by the camera to access the key, in addition to the secrecy of the key. Therefore, it is security by obscurity.
And how do they get the camera? You could make the same exact claims about SSH being useless because “if an attacker gets the key, it’s over!”
NO SHIT!!
They buy it at a store.
There are decentralized oracles. That’s how DAI tracks the price of USD.
The blockchain is distributed.
For example, you might use it as a trademark registry or to certify a chain of legal evidence. You can validate a presented copy matches the original and what the chain of ownership was. And you can do this without the single point of failure of a nationwide database
Who holds and validates the original you’re comparing to?
That’s the point, a use case where no one has to. It’s only the record of ownership.
And clearly you’d still need to make arrangements to prevent multiple chains of ownership for a copied artifact
NFTs make the mistake of assuming that somehow makes it unique, forgetting you can just copy the original. However these use cases work from the opposite direction: given an accused infringement, does that match?
Consider the current use case for trademark. Someone creates a trademark and registers with an authority. At some point they may renew modify, or sell. After some time, that authority has a database containing the original and a chain of ownership. Blockchain could serve this identically, with the potential advantage of the chain being self contained and distributable
That is not how the chain has worked or could ever work. There is a reason after over fifteen years people are still speculating how blockchain can be useful.
This is actually a pretty decent idea considering what’s coming now with AI video. I have no idea if it could be implemented, or if media even cares anymore, but I sure would appreciate it.
A private key would be built in to the camera. It would be stored in a way that’s hard to get at, physically or in software (like the secure enclaves in phones).
The pics or videos are signed using the private key (again, this process needs to happen in a secure way without revealing the secret key).
The camera manufacturer publishes the matching public key. Anyone can use it to verify that the file matches the signature. But no one can sign a fake image unless they can get at the private key.
This would work even if the camera manufacturer no longer existed. The camera does need to ever be online.
The public/private key pairs are also part of what makes blockchains work, but for this process blockchains would add nothing.
still a solution in search of a problem, unfortunately.
We can still tell when something is AI and it’s not at a stage where it can fool mainstream news or the legal system.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
The problem is “misinformation” and has been since before nft/genai became a thing.
Gen Ai makes misinformation worse but the event that sparked this was a gop shared video of a democrat which was slightly speed up to seem more aggressive.
Also simple framing to cut off context from the original has been a very common form of misinformation for decades.
to be more clear: block chain for images is a solution in search of a problem because no one is looking for mass-verified images, they are looking for source-verified images, because you can still fake something on the block chain at point of creation. In 2025 the main concern about faked images is with AI, but more sophisticated and more convincing images can be made with older, even analog technology like airbrushing.
Your example of a sped up Democrat could still be disseminated on the block chain and it would do nothing to confirm or deny its veracity.
It would but it would be much easier to find/link and compare with the actual original.
Of course i have mentioned this was never a complete finished idea, just some thoughts i had for years.
Nowadays i can conceptualise ai tools that detect near duplicates but those obviously were not a thing when i first came up with this.
I would hope that it would be considered very damning if an official publishers referred to false footage while having all the tools to find and refer to the original. So would it Be damning for the uploader and all footage recorded with their device.
isn’t the entire concept just trying to side step journalism though? The block chain is just replacing journalistic standards for something that is more easily corrupted with no guarantee of a better outcome.
And often in tricky journalism such as exposés, you don’t want your source to be trackable. That’s why Robert Maxwell was such a piece of shit as a newspaper journalist, he would shop his sources to Mossad.
Not at all. I consider journalists the best potential of early adapter.
As a consumer i don’t care if i have to copy or screenshot or need to list sources if i am Just sharing to friends.
Publishers however have a responsibility towards the public to provide fair information. And if i post publicly i also try to pay a bit more attention. (Ignoring i failed exactly that just earlier today)
There would be nothing stopping anyone to ignore the system and keep sharing unverified pixels but its a real flex be able to provide open and transparent information about your sources almost upfront.
If enough established organisation start doing this then the ones that don’t will stick out like they have something to hide.
The exposé is an interesting example I had not yet considered but again i think nothing is stopping publishers from publicly stating they cannot provide sources but have the means to get it independently verified.
I also believe its possible for a camera/recorded to exist anonymously on the blockchain, just like you don’t know the owner of a crypto wallet.
Had thoughts like that before, someone pointed that it already exists and is called C2PA - no blockchain necessary. It’s not yet widespread, though.
As for NFT, when it came out I had thoughts that it could be used for completely transparent and automated businesses. Something like an AirBnB with a digital lock on the front door and you could buy an NFT for a daily stay that you could use to unlock said lock. But then if there’s only one company that accepts said NFT’s then there’s zero reason for it to be on blockchain, they can just send you the code, and if they scam you there’s no use for either NFT or the code. There could be real estate ownership certificates, but then again, there would always be only one authority issuing them - zero reason for blockchain. There could be like crowdfunding NFT, but then again, there could only one party managing the funds. There were tons of ideas for practical usage of NFT’s, but all of them hinge on there being some party linking the zero-trust crypto and the real world, and if there’s only a single trusted party then it always makes more sense for that party to deploy a normal database in place of blockchain and just provide an API endpoint to verify ownership.
EDIT: Fixed wrong link
The conceptual issue here is that most attempts at denying the legitimacy of content are not by people who actually operate the given equipment.
If a celebrity claims some third party footage is fake, that celebrity is not the one that would vouch/not vouch for it. If a paparazzi does something wrong, they’d sign it and say “yes it’s authentic”.
Now maybe you can say “Canon genuine” to say it’s not the person, but the camera vendor, but again, with the right setup, you can good old analog feed doctored stuff into a legitimate sensor and get that signature.
Since the anchor for the signature almost never rests with the person who would ever contest the content, it’s of limited use.
Traditional signing is enough to say “If I trust the AP, then I trust this image that the AP signed”, no distributed ledger really suggested in this use case, since the trust is entirely around the identity of the originator, not based on consensus.
Iain M. Banks had a similar idea in The Player of Games. In the book AI is so realistic that all real photos and videos have to be logged and timestamped for authenticity.
I initially thought they were like numbered art prints, with a more robust way of guaranteeing authenticity.
That was the marketing hype.
They were actually selling numbered receipts of art prints.
I had an idea sort of like that - media for your camera or cell-camera that was write once, could not be erased or changed, did not forget (you know ssd’s and thumb drives forget as the stranded charge leaks away) - Each picture cryptographically signed with GPS and date and time and author/photographer.
Yes, exactly! People were easily misled to think that provable attribution for a thing is the same as ownership.
FWIW, I think that a blockchain registry for attribution would be invaluable for combating misinformation. The problem is to get content providers (media) and browsers to cooperate over a standard. If you could get a few certificate registrars onboard, it would work even better, since they have the secure infrastructure to seed this whole thing and help manage identities for the parties involved.
One would assume that journalism would be more then motivated to proof authenticity of the images they show.
Of course such assumptions fail to consider the events at cern that fucked up any chance of reasonable reality.
Yeah. Crypto bros ruined crypto with their greed.
Crypto is still really cool but now when people read that word they just think scam. So it’s never going to happen
Bitcoin is currently at all time highs
Whats your point?
That it’s currently happening and belief that it’s a scam is going down.
Yes, people vehemently hate when you point this out because to the general public NFT = stupid overpriced digital art, and they don’t care to be convinced otherwise. My personal conspiracy theory is that the two were purposefully conflated to keep the technology from ever being taken seriously.
I was actually going to note that i feel similar about this conspiracy but i left it out in the end.
Glad not to be the only person to conceive this. Kill it before people discover a good use.
It’s so funny looking back at it (though it was funny while it was happening too), these new-flavor cryptobros tried so hard to convince themselves that they were in the right, they made “cartoons,” games, I think they even planned like an island resort or something around their monkey pictures.
The national news media got behind it big, which I really don’t understand.
It never made any sense.
Pump and dump deep state. It’s still happening. New sucker born every minute.
Explanation: Money.
Whenever you see a headline or article and don’t understand why they’re lying or pushing something. The answer is that it makes someone money. And a large chunk of modern media is owned by a handful of people who’s goal is to make money, not tell the truth.
deleted by creator
When my these first arrived my brother was all about them. Dude was stoked and thought he was the next billionaire. I then asked him what’s to stop someone from copying the image? He shrugged and idk man man but im going all in. It was on that day that I knew my brother was tarded
Tbh I get it from a certain point of view. We all made fun of bitcoin at first but now it’s pretty common for people to wish they could tell their younger self to get as much as they can afford.
I get the idea of not wanting to miss out on the next thing that did that.
Bitcoin is still fucking shit. That just amounts to “I wish I was there first in this this pyramid scheme”. It doesn’t change what it is.
Sure, never said otherwise, so you can see how someone could theoretically think maybe nft is the next bitcoin and want to get in early.
There were enough layers in that pyramid and enough years in construction to have room for more people to make a buck.
What’s the difference between a scam and a bubble, and is the bubble more legitimate or just a bigger, longer scam?
- NFTs were a misuse of blockchain giving no real value. Plus it was very short term and really only rewarded scammers and manipulators. A true scam.
- Crypto is better thought out and actually could serve as a currency. It has a bit more staying power and even enriched a few non-scammers. Does that make it a “bubble” ?
Did we make fun of bitcoin? It was a cool currency for buying drugs on the black market at first.
I made fun of it immediately, despite also recognizing and using its ability to facilitate online purchases of contraband.
The “next Bitcoin” has just been Bitcoin every time. Right now is its umpteenth bubble.
My first wife was tarded. She’s a pilot now.
She pilots the Tardis.
My one regret is that I will never be able to find all the really stubborn, dimwitted assholes on reddit who were screaming bloody death-threats at me for warning people that NFT’s were a scam, and be able to just verbally ream them out, fucking rub their faces in their own shit.
I bet some of them are out there, reading this maybe, maybe they even recognize me.
If so… hi. How you doin? 😊
a Mitch Hedberg variant
NFT’s used to be stupid.
They still are, but they used to be, too.
How do you know a crypto scheme is a scam?
You already know, the answer is “yes”. It’s always “yes”.
The only question is, can you hold the tiger’s tail just long enough to make a mint and still let go in time that you aren’t the last one holding it.can you hold the tiger’s tail just long enough
The answer to this is also usually “no” because the people who set up the scamcoin usually don’t like to leave things to chance and have a plan for when to time their rug-pull.
Trying to get in on these grifts is like spotting a bank-robbery in-progress and trying to join the crew and get paid. Sure it can happen, but you’re not exactly playing with the best odds of success.
That’s the big question: do you recognize the scam in time to take advantage of it, and have the awareness to get out in time when there are still suckers?
I know a few people who made money on crypto in the early stages this way: recognize the scam but take advantage.
It was probably possible to take similar advantage of the Trump bribe laundering crypto scam, even without the benefit of the insider trading and market manipulation
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
I very briefly considered it but don’t trust my awareness to get out in time, plus participating in the scam would eat me up.
Ya, one of the best pieces of advice I got was, “never gamble money you can’t afford to lose”. This is what keeps me out of trying to chase that tiger. Sure, it could be possible to make some money by jumping on one of these scams early and trying to ride sell the bump. But, it’s also likely that be the sucker losing out in the end. I’d rather not waste my money that way.
I get the impression that most of the people who are swindled by crypto nowadays are aware of the scam and jump into it thinking they’re going to make money by finding a greater fool to dump their participation the scheme on for a profit.
Such people are really trying to be scammers in the scam.
That explains them invariably rushing to defend whatever scam token they’re holding whenever it gets criticized in social media: if outsider are generally made to suspect the true nature of the scam and hence become unwilling to jump in, these wannabe scammers aren’t going to find a greater fool to take those tokens out of their hands and give them a nice profit.
Of course as @ameancow@lemmy.world pointed out, these scams are done from the very start for maximum profitability of those starting the scam, not for the profit of the first ones to buy into it, so often those wannabe scammers end up being the greater fools of that scam themselves.
You are absolutely right, just look at the popular investment subreddits, they don’t talk about long-term goals and successful investment strategies for retirement, etc. They talk about what the latest fast-buck is going to be, what the newest short or pump-and-dump is doing, they report on when a rug gets pulled or a bubble bursts so that their buddies can stop working in inflating it.
It’s an entire industry of scams and cons, from crypto to the stock-market broadly, it’s all about short-term rewards at any cost.
I used to work in Tech back in the late 90s, during the first bubble and up to the Tech Crash. I also worked in both Investment Finance and Tech Startups much more recently.
I can’t even begin to describe just how angry, disgusted and dissapointed this unholly intersection between Tech and Hyperspeculative-Finance of the XXI century makes me.
The whole spirit in pretty much the entire domain of Tech back in the 90s was completely different from this neverending bottomless swamp of crap we have in the supposedly innovative parts of Tech.
Ever since the sleazy slimeballs who saw from the first Tech bubble that there were massive opportunities to use Tech-mumbu-jumbo to extract money from suckers started (immediatly after the Crash) trying to pump the Net bubble back up (they even called it Web 2.0) that the old spirit of innovation for the sake of improving things of the old days in Tech was crushed and replaced by the most scammy, fraudulent, naked greed imaginable.
After my time in Finance (which, curiously, also involved a Crash in the Industry I was working in) I started describing Tech Startups as “The Even Wilder Wild West of Speculative Finance”.
Yeah it’s such a degeneracy……
When I worked in investments, it was all about finding the best statistical model to balance returns against risk. It was fascinating how complex the models could be, and even included currency hedging to reduce the risk of exchange rates. And most importantly to also minimize trades to control costs and tax impact. This was before lightning trading: plenty of the funds were monthly trading. Those were the good old days when a better algorithm could shave points enough to stand out but everyone was on similar footing
Fuck. Yup. I was working in industrial automation in the late 90s, and then transitioned to network engineering at a global scale. Around 2000, the entire vibe seemed to shift. I walked out just before 9/11 and am so glad to be in an entirely different industry now.
After my time in Finance (which, curiously, also involved a Crash in the Industry I was working in)
A-ha! We’ve found the cause of the market crashes.
Joking aside, I was around for the dotcom bubble burst and the 2008 crash. Both were caused by wild speculation and we seemed to have learned nothing from them. I have little doubt we’re headed for another recession and it will again, be driven by speculation. We also have a problem with private equity (I call them “vulture equity”) which likes to capitalize on businesses which are struggling . They swoop in, buy up the company in a leveraged buyout, and then start extracting as much value from the company as possible. Usually this is in the real estate that the company owns. Once all of the value is extracted, the company is spun back off, saddled with the debt used to buy the company in the first place, and then it flounders until it ultimately collapses. This was the fate of companies like Sears or Red Lobster. Once a vulture equity company engages in a leveraged buyout of a company, that company is doomed.
Yeah, well, Asset Owners and the Speculators who caused the 2008 Crash got saved by Governments all around the World with public money and that was done by taking money away from those whose income comes from their Work (notice how salaries keep getting less and less able to cover living costs all the while asset prices keep beating records).
What I learned from the 2008 Crash - being right smack in the middle of the Industry which made it happen and spending the subsequent years observing what Governments were doing to “recover” from it and trying to figure out “how did this happen” - was that politicians don’t work for most people, they work for a handful of people, and when push comes to shove they’ll sacrifice the rest to make sure those few keep on accumulating riches.
The fishy speculation that played around the line separating Legal from Fraud has in the aftermath of the 2008 Crash fully became Fraud and more, once the industry figured out that politicians from the main parties had their backs, which is why we find ourselves were we are now. This was especially so in places like the US and UK were power is a duopoly which just alternates between two groups of politicians who all frequent the same social circles and send their children to the same private schools.
It’s a big group and we ain’t in it.
That’s a big part of knowing when to get out. They don’t. …… or maybe they do: I don’t know if that scam is still finding enough suckers.
Unfortunately for them that ship has sailed. It’s not hard to get in on a scam like this of you do it early enough, i probably would have done it if i had enough money when this started (don’t judge, much, money is important when you don’t have it) and i probably would have gotten out like a bandit. Now though, it’s mostly targeting them.
Nobody is going to judge a cute and awkward baby trans girl needing cash on my watch. That’s for sure.
C-cute!? (~\\~)
Very cute and very pretty
Scam or not some of them are very useful to pay for some not so legal things
Investing in currency is already dumb, in cryptocurrency? Doubly so
When they were first blowing up, I thought sure, I’ll turn a couple old unreleased tracks of mine into NFTs. I signed up to some site I forget the name of, uploaded the tracks, and then then found out I had to pay something like $500 a track to turn them into NFTs. It was a pretty duh moment for me. Of course the content doesn’t mean shit, it’s just the money. I never paid them a dime and deleted my stuff.
When I first heard of NFTs I thought the media was encoded within the blockchain - in that case sure, I wouldn’t necessarily buy one but I understand how that’d be interesting.
Ten minutes later when I was told they are just proof of purchase that points to a URL hosting your monkey image somewhere, I knew they were a total scam
Okay but how are nft’s different from the deed to a house? Checkmate, filthy commie.
Now that i have defeated you in single combat, you must tell me the seed phrase for your largest bitcoin wallet.
hunter2
wtf why isn’t it starred out for privacy
guys help
deleted by creator
Is it over? I stopped watching.
Fifa is selling world cup nfts right now…
Fifa is pretty fucked up and behind the times. I am not surprised.
You’ve heard of landlords, but have you heard of NFT-Land landlords? 🤭
“Kids, if you really want to piss off your parents, buy real estate in an imaginary place.”
For real cash ofc.
Gonna need a bank loan, naturally.
I remember reading a proposal how music artists could somehow use nfts as digital record keeping so when digital tickets are resold they could get a percentage of the sale each time it was resold. Making more money for artists and disinsentivising resale but you know ticket places would never let it happen. I’m sure you could do it without nfts but it seemed like a really great idea.
Every ticket scheme for NFTs fails because of a simple reason: contract law. Venues don’t stick with TicketMaster because they like it. TicketMaster’s store front doesn’t have any magic technology; a room of overcaffinated fresh CS grads could recreate it in a weekend of binge coding.
Venues stick with TicketMaster because they are contractually obliged to do so. NFTs do not and cannot change that legal reality.
Pretty much all crypto bro stuff, honestly
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla in posts criticising Musk and Tesla, and similarly lots of people who are clearly cryptocurrency owners coming out of the woodworks to defend cryptocurrencies in posts critical of them.
Under this post we seem to be getting a lot of NFT owners doing the same: “selling their book” as they say in Finance.
People will say any old bollocks and dissemble like pros to keep up interest in the “investment” assets they own until they find a greater fool to dump them on.
Makes me think of the difference in the discourse around Bitcoin back in the early days vs latter stages: NFTs were created from the very go as way of separating fools from their money so the talk around them has always been swindlers’ talk - or if you want to describe it in a positive light, “the grifters grift” - but Bitcoin did not start as a vehicle for money making, and I remember back in the beginnings of Bitcoin how the talk was very different - mainly naive idealism - and how it changed over time as greedy types became a greater and greater part of those who had bought Bitcoin.
There use to always be a crowd of TSLA stock owners (fewer now) defending Tesla
Seems like a resurgence now, plus I’m seeing a lot more misleading videos.
This time it’s worse: all scam and manipulation.
Before there were a lot of true believers and the bubble went on too long to be just a scam
Hahaha
Amazing.
For me it’s usually the Bitcoin guy from the “If Google was a guy” sketches
I actually would say it’s harder to say now.
It was easy at first because it was obvious.
But NFTs are still a thing… so even though it’s still a scam, it now makes you question humanity.
Pyramid schemes are still a thing too.
Amway and Herbalife should have been shut down decades ago. But the DeVos family made a lot of money on Amway.
The SEC should have intervened on crypto and NFTs, but again, it’s qui bono. Things that help rich people grift are always allowed.
Had Hillary won they might have. Was never going to happen with Trump 1.
