That is quite a cynical view. Someone hacking a hardware wallet that is stored offline only happens if that person manages to get hold of the owners seed phrase, which is no different to a hacker draining your bank account if they get your login details/PIN. If you are a person susceptible to a phishing attack in crypto, then you are susceptible to a phishing attack in TradFi as well. If no one ever clicked on the links in scam bank texts, then we wouldn't keep getting them.
Cryptocurrency mega-thread
- Thread starter DapperJong
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I didn't write that, and did not intend to imply it. The point I was trying to make is that in my opinion the financial system as it is locks people out of participating for arbitrary reasons (for example, you're in Angola so we can't sell regular company shares to you, or, you're in Angola so money transfers will be expensive, and so on). So instead someone produces an NFT which the Angolan dude can purchase and which confers similar benefits to shares. I have no idea if buying NFTs is illegal in Angola, maybe it is in which case the Angolan dude should not do it, obviously.
Yeah I know, that's what I was trying to express - unsuccessfully it seems.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 30,543
- 48,406
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #14,180
You can just right click and save the booby gifs Chief.
- May 5, 2006
- 65,641
- 74,812
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Who said it's $1000? 6,000 x $1,000 = $6m. So if they "mint" 6,000 NFTs and pocket $6m in funding without giving up equity.
How can you say the bolded? If you purchase one NFT what do you think you are getting?
Is the dude in Angola really getting in?
I don't think you are understanding how NFTs work if you're asking this question. As I've said a few times now, please listen to that Freakonomics podcast when you get some time, it's the most informative discussion you will hear about crypto blockchain technology.
Is this beer company solving a real world problem? No, I can have shares in beer companies and they pay me out dividends. However, every project in crypto doesn't need to replace a traditional form, they can co-exist. This project is a fun concept that allows me to effectively invest into the ground level of a new brewery, try out some new craft beers and benefit from that investment immediately with the beer allowance (save me from going to the bottle-o to buy beer) and revenue sharing (passive income).
Hmmm, good luck with that process, this is not as simple as just giving your money back next day. OpenSea filter out any scam airdrops on their website, a person practicing good security would understand to never click on those.
Not intending to have a dig at you Chief by any means,
But why is it that all crypto haters always hate on crypto, saying it's a scam blah blah blah, but none of them ever seem to have the balls to go short?
That pesky regulation always getting in the way of everything. What happened to a good old fashioned capitalism free-for-all?
So you're essentially saying it's like a crowd funding campaign, but with NFTs and the blockchain provides evidence of ownership and it's more 'fun'. The trade off being though that you're giving up more of the recourse you'd have investing in a brewery on the stock market (e.g. LRK), or a crowdsourcing campaign (e.g. the one Bridge Road recently completed).
Side note I went to Burnley Brewery on Monday night which is just down the road from Bridge Road Brewing, Bridge Road is vastly superior.
Last edited:
Was gonna say it's probably a bit difficult for the average Joe to find a convenient mechanism to go against even bitcoin but it looks like there is at least now this.
Bitcoin sinks again as bears get a short fund to bet on new declines
Bitcoin sinks again as bears get a short fund to bet on new declines
Yes, it is effectively crowd funding, but they have already raised $3M from traditional investors as well. NFTs are opening up the concept of shares to people that have traditionally been prevented from doing so, I only see that as a good thing. How are you giving up more recourse and does my investment on the stock market entitle me to any additional benefits beyond dividends?
There's plenty of established means for remediation and historical precedence in the event of shareholders being mislead or a company going bust, and there's laws around it. Likewise there's fewer examples for crowdfunding, but there's enough there that there's a precedent to rely on. There's very little, if any, in the crypto space, and even less in the NFT space. That the Mt Gox issue is still playing out 8 years later demonstrates just how hard it is to navigate in a space without like-for-like precedent where there's multiple jurisdictions.
Regarding additional investor benefits there's very few companies that offer shareholders additional benefits though there is a handful on the ASX, such as TWE, that do. I'd argue that's similar to the current NFT market, where there's no tangible benefits for the vast majority of NFTs.
beez
A*mazing
I was listening to a podcast the other day and in the discussion re a Bitcoin ETF there was the argument put forward that a short ETF was allowed because it enables Bitcoin's price to be kept artificially low, whereas a spot ETF means that institutions (namely governments) cannot control the growing price and thus being bad for fiat and governments.
I understand that short-sellers are an integral part of market forces and add a bit of integrity to bubbles, so it'd be really interesting to be a fly on the wall with the SEC and how they are approaching everything.
I'm not as cynical as the average Bitcoiner, but the more I listen to Libertarian whack jobs (kidding), the more fascinated I am with government levers of money supply.
That actually makes a lot of sense, it's insane that the riskier form of trading in shorting is allowed before spot (I think there is already a futures ETF as well). The SEC seem to look out for the SEC, not the consumer.
Good question - my understanding is that when you buy an NFT what you actually get is an entry in a database (blockchain) which identifies your wallet as the owner, with a URL pointing to "your" NFT which is a picture on some server somewhere. Could be wrong about that, happy to be corrected, I saw a YT interview on the coffeezilla channel discussing it.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Actually it's pretty easy to short on platoforms such as Binance and FTX.
Speaking of which, I opened a BIG BTC long position earlier today. Seems like sellers are fully exhausted for now, and I'm smelling a long overdue rally within this bear market downtrend. Probably get another big leg down in a few months is my gut feel (one more big capitulation before the end of year).
Feel free to short it Kram Chief Seeds and others. My liquidation price is $3,550
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,697
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Whether or not you support Bitcoin, it's not a Ponzi scheme.
You know this.
If only one of the two is a Ponzi, I'd pick USD as a closer fit.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,697
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I know someone who bought a bored ape early on for a couple k's. I doubt they regret their decision.
I doubt the seller of this punk regrets their decision either.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,697
- AFL Club
- Essendon
It's a large part of the overall financial landscape because crypto has been accepted as legitimate by the public, business world, and regulators.
I've been all in on crypto a couple times, and will hopefully go all in again within the next two years.
Am I insane? Don't answer that.
- May 5, 2006
- 65,641
- 74,812
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yeah, you've said it a few times. If I was investing in a business and their response to a straightforward question about their ownership structure was "you don't understand, go watch a podcast" I'd run for the hills.
The bolded is my clarification. The website literally says "Regulation prevents us from selling real company shares to our NFT holders outside of the regulated financial markets and platforms. Therefore, we chose to define a virtual ownership...".
You said you are entitled to a share in company revenue for as long as the brewery exists. This is not mentioned at all under 'virtual ownership'. This is pretty important information considering we're talking about an actual business producing an actual product.
Do you believe owning 1 NFT gives you a legal 1/6000th ownership share of the brewery? If I go and buy all 6,000 do I own it outright? Far too much flowery language for my liking. IMO it comes across like a bet each way. NFT spruikers go on about how their token is unique and special and that's what gives it value. A share is a share, and a crypto token is a crypto token. If an NFT represents an ownership stake (i.e. effectively a share) who cares if it has some unique art attached to it?
That's my understanding also. Where I disagree with BACCS is what owning the particular NFT described above precisely means.