TL;DR: The NFT market has drastically declined since its peak in 2021, with most NFT collections having no value. There’s an oversupply of NFTs, leading to a buyer’s market, and environmental concerns due to energy consumption. Top NFTs also struggle to maintain value, and the future of NFTs depends on utility and genuine value rather than speculation.
I hate the crypto market so much, but ESPECIALLY nfts.
Nfts were blatantly a scam. It 2as a very in your face scam, it was giving money to someone else for literally nothing. It was obvious time from day 1 that it was just an avenue for rich people to launder money and have it look legit.
But the media fell for the new trend hook, line, and sinker. Instead of telling people it was a scam from day 1, which it *obviously was," the major news networks (at least here in the US) talked about nfts as if it was a legit new type of cool investment. They stopped short of telling people to buy them so that they couldn’t get sued, but they hyped the fuck out of NFTs. CONSTANTLY. Any time I listened to any cable news for more than 30 minutes around mid 2021, I heard NFTs get mentioned at least once, and very rarely was that mention skeptical or a warning.
And now all the people who bought into the hype are left holding the bag, as always, a d the rich people who scammed them get to keep all the money, as always, and the media is facing no repercussions for their contribution to the scam, as always. It’s so frustrating to watch
I can assure you if you were watching a programme that was hyping nfts, you weren’t watching “news”
WTF is up with your media over there?!?
Once again, so many things currently wrong with the USA can be traced back to the Regan administration.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1]
In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine
The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States
After that news programs had no responsibility to be truthful in any real sense.
Thanks for this educational post, TIL I learned something interesting (and sad/infuriating).
Cheers.
I wasn’t joking when I wrote this:
What, like your education system is so bad you can’t even spell the names of your presidents? 😂
I am not american…
It is possible to know the history of another country but get something wrong occasionally.
Correcting spelling mistakes is the lowest rung of internet comments…
It’s a joke on the mess that Reagan made of the education system, chill out
Yeah. https://www.educationnext.org/remembering-nation-risk-reflections-politics-policy/
Abolish the Department of Education. School choice vouchers. Standardized testing. All these memes started with Reagan. Not Regan, his Secretary of Treasury, but a lot of people confused Ronald Reagan and Donald Regan, even at the time.
Nah, that was just a spelling mistake from a non-american, I have never heard of Donald Regan (and don’t know if that is a joke or not)
No sweat, friend. I was just using the opportunity to extend the “It’s all Reagan’s fault” train. And Donald Regan was a real guy appointed by Ronald Reagan. They didn’t have the diversity of names we do now, so a lot of them repeated, rhymed, or required a middle initial to differentiate. Like all the George Bushes - GWB, GPB, GHWB…
In the wise words of Killer Mike: “I’m glad Reagan dead”
Same.
It’s a shame his Alzheimers didn’t hit in 1981.
From some reports I have read about his time in the white house it had definitely started before he left office.
That’s probably likely, but I mean like… full-on, undeniable, this guy can’t run the country Alzheimer’s.
Not that it would have mattered a ton. Bush was just as corrupt, but who knows? All we know in retrospect is that Reagan was an absolute atrocity for the working class in this country.
I’m not convinced the yanks had anything in place to deal with that. Look at recent demented presidents.
I believe there’s an act covering presidential disability, dating from long before Reagan, due to a president’s wife having effectively run the country for a couple of years while her husband was too ill to get out of bed. That would probably cover obvious and serious dementia as well. (Not my country, though, so I may have it wrong.) Problem with the recent Republican presidents is that their insanity is plausibly deniable, if your worldview is damaged enough already.
I’m not convinced the yanks had anything in place to deal with that. Look at recent demented presidents.
Can’t speak for nfts, but mainstream morning news shows absolutely shilled for the metaverse. It was embarrassing. Cringe, even.
https://www.today.com/video/what-is-the-metaverse-get-a-look-at-the-internet-s-next-big-frontier-145223237790
They shilled for NFT’s too.
I couldn’t get over how silly it sounded to spend actual money for what amounted to a screenshot.
You mean the guy who owns of hundreds of local, national, and international publishing outlets around the world, including in the UK (The Sun and The Times), in Australia (The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, and The Australian), in the US (The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), book publisher HarperCollins, and the television broadcasting channels Sky News Australia and Fox News (through the Fox Corporation). He was also the owner of Sky (until 2018), 21st Century Fox (until 2019), and the now-defunct News of the World?
We shouldn’t of let him in, but we didn’t create him.
We shouldn’t have, never of
You’re wrong. People say “should(n’t) of” as well. You understand what they’re saying, and it doesn’t leave for reasonable lexical ambiguity.
Being wrong continuously doesn’t make it right.
“Have” is a transative verb and fits the same as “I shouldn’t go” or “I shouldn’t fuck this whole sentence up”
“Of” is a preposition and cannot go after “should”, and only after “of” in sentences like “He is not of this earth, so he doesn’t know basic grammar”
If non-native speakers are correcting you, you’re just too lazy to learn
Wrong? You wanna talk about wrong?
The purpose of language is to facilitate the exchange of information of various forms between two parties. So long as mutual intelligibility is maintained, there is no “wrong”. The exception however is that in taking the time to correct someone, you’re reducing information density, and making that exchange of information less or ineffective. If you want to talk about wrong, I’d say that’d be the person using language for ineffective communication, wouldn’t you?
Sit on your high horse all you want, but real living people speak how they speak, and generally write in a similar manner. Or maybe they don’t. Or maybe they vary from context to context. So long as the information communicated in a mutually intelligible way, it’s correct.
I will say, however, that I’m not the person you were replying to. Lexical prescriptionism is just annoying and both poor etiquette as well as a malicious use of speech.
NFT technology will not go away. It will be in a different form, not trading cards with shitty jpegs attached
NFT’s are nothing more than digital receipts. They do not stop copying what ever the receipt points to and they are nothing special at all.
If the web address your NFT points to disappears due to the site shutting down. Your NFT is beyond worthless.
From the Economist.
Quote:
To “own” one means having your ownership recorded on a digital ledger—nothing more.
Digital receipts are easy to do without mining crypto. Just send an email. Use a postgres database. There’s literally nothing offered by nfts that can’t be done less stupidly another way.
Is that like the 4 days of comments Beehaw lost the other day, or like when Amazon decided that people who bought certain ebook, had no longer bought it?
As in, going through data recovery, or through courts? Is that really smarter than having a proof of ownership 24/7 in perpetuity, that you can even sell to others?
They just stop the seller from claiming you no longer have the right to a copy.
Has an NFT as proof of ownership ever actually been tested in a court of law?
Until it does, the claims the NFT shills make mean zero.
I don’t think you understand: a DRM-locked digital content doesn’t need, or care about, “a court of law” to work or not with a given key.
Instead of listening to the shills of GIF NFTs, centralized app/media shops, or centralized governments, try to think about what the technology actually means.
Not even that. The NFT gives you ownership of the NFT itself and nothing more. It doesn’t give you ownership or copyright over whatever the NFT is pointing to. Furthermore the links in the NFT are public and everybody can access them, the NFT does not work as access token to the content.
You could build a system where the NFT acts as access token and where every NFT comes with a license agree that say “Whoever owns this NFT has copyright over work XY”, but nobody has done that yet or at least not at scale.
You’re right. It will evolve into a different even more stupid scam on the blockchain. And people will fall for it again.
Some crypto has legit use, but a lot of it is scams for sure.