Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8549091" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I hesitate to engage in this, given the multiple, "I don't care, but I'm going to keep insisting that I don't care" comments, but this is something I addressed in my first post in the other thread. In essence, whether you want to say NFTs are a "scam," or a "terrible idea," or a "blight to modern society" becomes a fool's errand, because you end up engaging in pedantic disputes over the exact definition of, for example, what exactly constitutes a pyramid scheme, or when an MLM is or isn't "legal" in the U.S., or the finer distinctions between people engaging is a knowing fraud and asset bubbles. In other words, I'm not sure it's productive to debate the distinction between a "scam" and a "terrible idea that takes advantage of people that we should try and make sure reputable companies aren't involved with." But I think it might help to concentrate on the following- there are people that are very, very invested in the idea of "disclosure." Right? In other words, these might be a terrible Idea (and investment), but since you can find out it's a terrible idea, it can't be a "scam," (which isn't really a defined term, but whatever). But think of some of the following scenarios-A. Someone cold calls your elderly mom and convinces her to sign paperwork they send her. Now, the call is recorded, and the documents disclose what she did, but she didn't actually understand that she engaged in a process that would mortgage her paid-for house in exchange for needless renovations and, because of her income, would lose the house. Scam?B. You click through on a shrink-wrap agreement. Buried somewhere in that agreement over 70 pages of legal-ese is a clause that does something you don't like. Maybe it compels arbitration in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Maybe it offers up your first born. At some point, even though it was disclosed, you'd probably feel that you were "scammed" because that's not something you expect, right?C. A casino in a remote location identifies problem gamblers. Once it identifies these gamblers, and they are on a losing streak, it stops them from playing the regular games and tell them that they can leave, or they can play separate games that allow them higher payoffs, but worse odds of winning. They disclose the odds (which are much worse). Scam?D. A person sells you property in a state you haven't visited. While the documents disclose the actual property details, the seller relies on the fact that your knowledge of the state is limited. (This was the primary basis of the great Florida real estate scams of the '20s, where sellers assumed they were getting beach-front property, but were in fact buying swampland in the middle of the state). There are a multitude of examples like this, but the point should be clear. We have long recognized that while disclosure and transparency are incredibly important, they are not the be-all, end-all of want constitutes a "scam," or, at a minimum, conduct that we should not approve of. There is an inherent tension in a civil society between allowing people to ruin their lives if they so choose, and understanding that some things are frauds, schemes, deceptive, unconscionable, wrong, need to be regulated, or just "scams." The boundaries are not always easy to see. So let's turn to the instant product (NFTs). As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not a solution for a problem that is not already solved in a better (and much more environmentally-friendly) way. Any claims of "decentralization," when it comes to NFTs are demonstrably false- the actual "products" are located elsewhere, and could simply disappear (which is likely a feature, not a bug, for scammers). Any real use of the product requires multiple third parties (aka, centralization). They don't have any inherent protection for artists and creatives- in fact, it is incredibly common for the people trying to make money off of these to have absolutely no knowledge of the relevant copyright laws and to simply be using other people's work in order to make themselves money. The people that are pushing this repeatedly refer to this as an asset- in other words, not really a cool object that you enjoy, but more an investment, like a stock or a bond (but not subject to the regulations that most real investments would have).Now, before getting into the real nitty gritty, let's address the point you raised. "What about that one example of the artist who made money?" Yes, there will be people who make money. But ... there are already a lot of artists who pay the mint fee and don't make any money. What about the artists whose work is bring ripped off because most of the people involved in this don't understand copyright? I am happy for the very people (like those early ones who made memes and got paid out ... in questionable circumstances) who made a little bank, but that pales in comparison to the people who lose money. Which ... you know, that's pretty much how a lot of "scams" works; you trumpet the winners in order to bring in the suckers.Jump down to here for the "Big Deal."What is the big deal, anyway? Well, think about why people are pushing these NFTs. If you follow the news at all (or looked at the links provided) you are more than aware that NFTs are rife with outright scams already (not just lack of disclosure, but pump and dumps, outright fraud, malware, theft, etc.). But theoretically, if you have "trusted central authorities" then maybe it will work. But.... you don't need NFTs if you have those trusted central authorities dealing with digital collectibles, do you? What does it do, then? Well, it does make more common people "get into" NFTs, and "get into" crypto ... which, as we have repeatedly seen, is rife with hacks and scams, and has no real consumer protection or recourse. It's almost as if there is a drive to get people to pump more money into this so that current large stakeholders can cash out leaving the new entrants holding the bag. But I know you don't care. So I will say that you are right, in a way. NFTs are not necessarily a scam, in the same way that Napster (the original) was not necessarily about sharing music unlawfully- after all, you could have a distributed copy of a cookie recipe, amirite? Instead, it might be better to say, "If you truly don't care about the underlying e-waste and power problems, and you have a real understanding of the technology (such that you aren't a victim of hacks, etc.), and you've done real due diligence on the product, and you want to get involved in this either because you have the disposable money that you're willing to lose, or because you think it's an asset bubble and you intend to flip it to a bigger fool, knock yourself out. Just be aware that if it goes south, no one is going to be looking out for you, no consumer watchdog is going to help you, and your money is gone, likely so someone in Russia can enjoy their mini-giraffes. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> "Personally, I feel strongly that I don't want reputable companies being involved with this and encouraging this, in the same way I don't want them involved in other activities I find harmful. YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification