Lost money on NFT

in Savings & Investments
123 replies 8.3K views
2456713

Replies

  • edited 10 January at 12:01AM
    Scottex99Scottex99 Forumite
    593 Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 10 January at 12:01AM
    Based on what? 

    Someone just offered me 3 ETH for one of mine. I better not sell it though, wouldn’t want to look muggy
  • NanpyNanpy Forumite
    100 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    People have been saying BTC is a fad for years now, yet it's still going strong and isn't even close to sustainable, like objectively a failure at what it was supposed to do (be a replacement for fiat currency), indefensible as an energy sink and probably about to be eclipsed by ETH when/if the switch to proof of stake happens which will drastically reduce the energy sink for ETH.

    I have some BTC, but I'd probably buy ETH going forward as a safer bet. You can take a punt on it through Paypal even. It's like buying a lottery ticket that doesn't expire but which may become completely valueless over time. 

    NFTs are a digital equivalent to fine art in many respects, insofar as they're probably mainly a vehicle for money laundering or other malfeasance.

    The famous example is, say you have $200k in Ethereum, you create an NFT and, through proxies, sell it to yourself for $200k in Ethereum. Now you have an NFT will a recorded value of $200k and also your original ETH, less transaction fees (which are pretty significant, but even so...).

    People like to gamble. Buying NFTs is gambling, not investing. Crypto-currency is here to stay in some form or another because it has a valid use (paying hitmen and buying weed), it remains to be seen if widespread NFT collecting sticks around. For games and certain platforms like digital card collecting (Panini is into NFTs - they're the guys who do the footie sticker books. Are those still a thing?) it'll almost 100% be around for the foreseeable future. That's not the same as an unregulated open market, which NFT purists want. The NFT future is definitely going to be curated in some way.

    So people like to collect things. You can buy and sell completed or part-filled Panini sticker books on eBay. I doubt anyone is making a fortune off them, except middle-men selling to collectors. That's NFTs, except with NFTs there is literally no scarcity except that which is artificially imposed, and if the server gets switched off, that link you bought (an NFT is generally nothing more than a link to a server where your digital item resides -  some are clever insofar as you can actually completely encode the artwork in the link if it's eg an small 8bit image) is still yours but you'll need to have right-clicked and hit save to still have access to the image file. 
  • darren232002darren232002 Forumite
    270 Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    gavin7 said:
    I bought a NFT through Opensea from a well know collection, but the next down opensea took it off. 
    I'm not sure why this is and didn't get notifications about it. How can you purchase theses and know they are going to take it down? 
    Tx #? Provide some info and someone might be able to help you. If what you've said is correct I'm going to suggest that you may have bought a scam collection (one made to look like a popular one that is a copy).

    -------

    As to the rest, in 1998 the internet was a scam, in 2005 Google was worthless, in 2010 Facebook wasn't worth $40BN and in 2012 Bitcoin was a tulip bubble. People never learn...
  • NanpyNanpy Forumite
    100 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Photogenic Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    See also, Beanie Babies. 

    In 2005 Google was worth $120 billion. But if you want to go back to when they actually started, you could say what is Ask Jeeves, Hotbot or Altavista worth now?

    In 2010 FB was valued around 40 billion so I don't understand your point. What's MySpace worth now vs then though? What about Bebo or Friendster?

    Arguably Bitcoin is still a tulip bubble, that hasn't burst yet.

    99.9% of NFTs will revert to zero value. The 0.1% that will thrive probably represents 99% of the current legitimate investment value, and that's mainly trading cards.

    I'm 100% a believer that NFTs have a future, just not one I have any interest in. Crypto-currency, but probably not BTC, is also around for the longterm. The crypto-currency that eventually gets adopted will likely be backed by multiple governments and NOTHING like the ethos that spawned BTC in the first place. It'll be a way to kill black-markets, remove the need to print physical money and make it easier to track people.
  • darren232002darren232002 Forumite
    270 Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Beanie Babies & Tulips - If you don't get why these and digital assets are different you're missing a fairly fundamental point in your analysis.

    Probably meant more 2002 for Google but it doesn't affect the point. 
    Nanpy said:

    In 2005 Google was worth $120 billion. But if you want to go back to when they actually started, you could say what is Ask Jeeves, Hotbot or Altavista worth now?

    In 2010 FB was valued around 40 billion so I don't understand your point. What's MySpace worth now vs then though? What about Bebo or Friendster?

    Thanks for making these excellent points for me. You don't seem to be aware; Bitcoin has won its category as its competitors died off over the last 5 years. Bitcoin is the Google & Facebook of its class.

    Nanpy said:

    Arguably Bitcoin is still a tulip bubble, that hasn't burst yet.

    Ah, yes - that tulip bubble which popped and reinflated multiple times over a period of decades. Wait... Did it? Maybe there's something in that...

    Its probably worth diving in to a history lesson on tulips rather than just presuming you know what happened. Voidable option contracts resulted in a leverage bubble rather than a tulip bubble.

    Nanpy said:

    99.9% of NFTs will revert to zero value. The 0.1% that will thrive probably represents 99% of the current legitimate investment value, and that's mainly trading cards.

    I've already said here that most NFTs are worthless. That doesn't mean they all are. And 'trading cards' are just proof of concept before the main use cases get implemented.

    Nanpy said:

    I'm 100% a believer that NFTs have a future, just not one I have any interest in. Crypto-currency, but probably not BTC, is also around for the longterm. The crypto-currency that eventually gets adopted will likely be backed by multiple governments and NOTHING like the ethos that spawned BTC in the first place. It'll be a way to kill black-markets, remove the need to print physical money and make it easier to track people.

    Governmental co-operation hilariously over estimated for decades now. Unsure why you believe people would adopt a controlled privacy-less currency over a decentralised one with some level of privacy. Market currently proving you very wrong on this too.

  • MalthusianMalthusian Forumite
    9.8K Posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Scottex99 said:

    For me a huge utility is in gaming, items and property etc in game. Skins already trade for millions. Imagine your gun in COD or your player in FIFA is now and NFT and it’s very rare. Suddenly it has value to other players…
    I'd pay quite a few OneCoin to see the expression on a bro's face when they pay thousands of pounds for a gold AK47 with double fire rate, and then EA rebalance the game, nerf the gold AK47 and it immediately becomes worthless.
    Nobody is going to buy a football game if only one player in the world gets to have Ronaldo on their team.
    Bitcoin at least has an advantage over World of Warcraft gold in that its developers can't press a button and generate more of it. The value of items in a multiplayer game by contrast is totally up to the whim of the developers.
    Gamers have traded virtual items for real money since Ultima Online and probably earlier. No problem to solve here.
  • Scottex99Scottex99 Forumite
    593 Posts
    Sixth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Nobody would play that game you’re right, just an example.

    What about the normal fifa game but there’s 100 gold Ronaldo’s and they are NFTs. Players can trf them directly between each other and EA takes a 5% fee of each trade? 

    Just speculating. I think there will be huge utility in gaming, maybe in Art too.

    Doesn’t mean it has a future but I just spent 5 mins on Twitter and realised that the Fluf I have entitled me to an airdrop of another NFT. Claimed it and the floor is 0.95 ETH so basically just found $3k in an old pair of jeans. Happy Monday.

  • darren232002darren232002 Forumite
    270 Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Forumite

    Does anyone want to tell him that there are pictures of rocks selling for millions of dollars?

    dunstonh said:

    The dutch tulip comparison is valid.  There are differences but you effectively have something that some people believe has value and could make money on and lasts until the collective get a dose of realisation.


    Go back and read a history book. The tulip bubble wasn't just caused by some people believing a thing had value. 

    Too many critical differences make the comparison fatal.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest News and Guides