If you bought a NFT from a club, let’s say City tweeting “Agueeerrrooo” or whatever, could you then get it deleted? 
1 Like
The way most NFT’s are being used commercially is just pure speculation. Look at the garbage John Terry was pumping out. People buy in, not because the thing is actually worth anything, ultimately his are a bunch of really poorly illustrated monkey’s in football kits, but in the hope they might be worth something in the future.
The value of a crap digital picture of a monkey in a football kit is zero. However, the promise of it possibly being worth something in the future is what gets people buying in. To drive the demand you have to hype it up and Terry has done that by trying to rope in other players by “gifting” them a picture of a monkey based on them. So now it’s “you too can own your own picture of a monkey just like Ashley Cole and Tammy Abraham”.
Once the hype dies down or they give up pushing it as it’s not making any money for them the artificial price they’ve pumped will plummet and those that are left holding them will either sell them off for a fraction of what they paid or be stuck with it. John Terry is just one example of a celeb backed project that has gone south very quickly.
Bascially, you can take a crappy JPEG (or steal a really good one off an actual artist and don’t pay them for it). Mint it on one of the NFT exchanges for a few hundred quid. Then buy it from yourself for £10,000. Now you have an NFT that is valued at £10k and the £10k you bought it for is still yours. Rinse and repeat at ever increasing amounts until either, some other sucker thinks “wow, if that many people think it’s worth that much money i’ll buy it for even more as it’s going up in value so much” or you get a celeb on board to hype it up for you.
I’m very very disappointed to see the club doing this. It’s no better than those crappy Fan Tokens being sold by Socios and promoted by clubs all over the world.
3 Likes
Ummm…what?
Renowned racist has been producing pictures of monkeys in football kits and giving them to black players saying its based on them?
Did he get the idea from Bernardo Silva?
Is this real? It can’t be real, surely?
2 Likes
You got in there before me, but was going to ask if he made one for Anton Ferdinand?
1 Like
1 Like
or if you donate all of it, we could afford Mo’s new contract plus buy Mbappe and Haarland.
Don’t hold back on us know mate
How else are we going to afford Mo’s new contract. NFTs are the future you bunch of Grandads and the sooner you all get on board the better.
2 Likes
Wtf.
He’ll be doing ones of players wives next.
If you’d have put £1000 into bitcoin at the start, you’d now almost be able to fill your car. £50 odd million value now. That’s why people are buying in. Take your pick stamps, coins, toys, books etc. The first ones can be crazy money.
1 Like
Don’t you have to pay him royalties for these? Isn’t that the point?
Please. I am a capitalist, not a socialist ok.
I think you just buy them like any other NFT. If NFT’s are proof of ownership of something, why would you have to pay royalties on top?
The real question is why you’d be stupid enough to buy one in the first place? Smacks of pump and dump stock trading where the suckers that buy into the hype are the ones that get stuffed. John Terry is just one example of an athlete running these “collections” and then seeing the price crash or the entire project fold.
1 Like
True, but the value is in either their scarcity or because of who produced it originally. You buy a stamp or a coin, you own it, it’s tangible and it has value due to scarcity. You buy art, it’s worth something because of the prominence of the artist that produced it. They also all generally serve a purpose beyond being something that is beyond “value for values sake”.
Sure, a few genuine artists creating NFT’s of their work might mean they carry some value but it’ll never be as valuable as a tangible original in the long term. Some footballer or crypto bros churning out thousands of digital pictures of monkeys is not producing anything of actual value. They aren’t renowned artists, there’s no craft in what they do and unlike physical assets, there’s no real scarcity as they can just churn out another. The perception of scarcity is artificially created by saying it’s the original but really, it’s no different to saving a copy of it. You can’t do or say the same when it comes to art, coins, stamps etc.
The bitcoin and cryto-currency success is partly what is driving this NFT market. People are scared of missing out on the next big thing and that is a key ingredient of the hype machine.
4 Likes
I have been trying to think of an equivalent activity that I do. I collect CDs. I have done since around 1990 when I first bought a CD player. Since then, download services like iTunes streaming services like Spotify have come along but I still prefer to have a physical artefact. There are some advantages in that the sound is better and there is usually some artwork and sleeve notes that come with it but generally I just like collecting the things.
I do occasionally use steaming services to try out new stuff but I have never seen the attraction in paying for a digital file, Maybe it’s an age thing but they just appear to me to have much less utility. Having said that, when I moved to Germany I sold all my old vinyl records because I was sick of them taking up space and I rarely played them. I was told I was mad as vinyl is the thing to collect but I honestly saw no utility in them.
Where can see a difference to Bitcoin is that the cryptocurrencies do have some utility. I’ve never used them because the main utility is money laundering and criminal transactions. For what I want to do Visa, SEPA or even Paypal offer the same services in a much more secure environment. Are people ever going to accept payment in NFTs?
3 Likes
Yep, it’s already happening.
1 Like
Tech bros yeah…
Suppose Beanie Babies we’re the NFT of the 90s
2 Likes
Certain Swatch watches were worth a bomb in the day. Trainers can be crazy now. Not mine though, they’re all worn out from treading down the underclasses.
4 Likes
I watched the club video on NFTs and was under the impression you could do something with them, like a game or whatever. Is that assumption incorrect?
From reading the thread further, it seems it is just digital art. It can be reproduced and copied, like prints of a Monet in one of the articles linked above, but you own the original Monet.
Is that about it?
You just own a picture, stored digitally in a file?
Where do you display it? What do you do with it?
I still don’t get it, but I’ve heard enough to know it’s a bunch of balls. But if people pay for it, and the club gets money for it, I’m not overly bothered. The carbon footprint argument was interesting, as I didn’t realize the amount of electricity being used, but I read there was some debate as to where that can be rightly apportioned. Still, there’s no debate that NFTs will add to environmental problems, and probably building in the price of offsetting the carbon at the outset might be a good idea. Just thinking out loud…
1 Like
No, it isn’t digital art. You own nothing other than your space on a server. The picture is just a symbolic representation of the place you occupy. You don’t own it.
Undoubtedly.
Here are two more problems.
-
It’s a haven for criminal activity like insider trading scams. It’s too easy for someone to set up multiple digital wallets, artificially hike the price by trading with themselves, before waiting for a sap to jump in wanting a piece of this ‘growing’ asset
-
Because it’s currently unregulated NFTs are use extensively for money laundering.
4 Likes