For anyone who can't/read the article, it's nothing to do with NFT's specifically it's that the artists are using the PL trophy without permission. They'll be in similar problems with clubs if they take issue with using their branding without permission.


NFT's using copyrighted material and profiting off them and that's not legal? Who would have thought.


Also crypto bros not realizing that ownership and copyright are not the same thing.


There was a hilarious story recently about a bunch of idiots that bought a rare copy of *Dune* for €2.66M and thought that it entitled them to the rights to the book. https://interestingengineering.com/an-nft-group-bought-a-copy-of-dune-for-304-million-thinking-its-the-copyright


Also crypto bros realizing ownership of an url of an image, isn't worth money at all...


Lmao what? [Next thing your gonna tell me is that buying a book for concept art for an unmade film does not give me the rights to produce Dune IP?](https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a38815538/dune-crypto-nft-sale-mistake-explained/)


This Discord was so much fun. Oh lord the meltdown. For the uninitiated, [a more detailed and nuanced coverage](https://www.garbageday.email/p/the-anime-dune-dao-learns-about-copyright)


Everyone who paid money for that should legally have a guardian appointed.


Thank you for this link! I had seen a story of the aftermath and was really curious about it.


I think most of them realize it and are just hoping that they find someone who doesn't realize it yet.


Wasn't there a whole exploit going around where someone buys their own NFT from themselves for 20 ETH (essentially moving the ETH from two of their wallets) to create a fake valuation of 20 ETH and then "accidently selling" the NFT for about 5 ETH?


That is not an exploit, that is literally the standard practice. It's part of the business All NFT peddlers are expected to use sock puppet accounts to drive up the price of their tokens. It even has happened that their "investors"(the people that buy in first) get angry if the maker doesn't sock puppet show hard enough.


Jesus christ. So NFTs are snakeoil then? Thank god, I tried to understand the model behind it and figured I wasn't smart enough to see the value.


that is basically the majority of NFT trading, its not some new exploit, its a thing called wash trading and is extremely illegal when dealing with actual stocks.


Extremely illegal when dealing with next to everything in the non-digital realm. Quite likely in some countries under some current laws that practice is already illegal, it's just that noone is enforcing it in the blockchain realm yet.


Or that the gamble pays off and it is worth it in the future


oh yeah bro trust me this pic of a monkey with slightly different background colour is definitely top class art


I genuinely saw people on Twitter try to argue a stoned looking cartoon monkey will be just as desirable to an art collector as an original Picasso. These people have deluded themselves to the point of insanity.


Right but when it's worth more they're hoping to eventually sell. It's entirely based on speculation and flipping, nobody wants to own NFTs for their own sake. They have no inherent value.


> It's entirely based on speculation and flipping, Just like tesla stock


Yeah stock is similar, although at least theoretically you own something tangible there


Stock is normal priced with price earning ratio, but since amazon and co don't pay dividends due to bad tax laws, stock goes astronomical high, or the buy back stock.


Exactly. Bunch of neckbeards sitting around, smelling their own farts and telling each other how great they smell, and trying to convince newcomers of the same in order to increase the value of their shitty ape pictures or whatever. Total bullshit.


It’s interesting how NFT’s really could end up being the death of most blockchain technology, at least without heavy regulation which was one of the main selling points of it. It was one thing making some artificial currencies, it’s a completely different legal ballgame when you start stealing from the big IP holders like Disney and could pave the way for legislation.


People hail this as a great thing for deregulation and the little guy. Pretty much every use for it I've seen however requires a boring level of standardisation and regulation. Even a lot of DAOs are just companies with owners who pretend to be democratic.


What a great thing for the little guy that there's literally a unregulated market that can be freely manipulated by whales, Reddit astroturfing and billionaires with cult following.


Love losing my life savings because of a tweet


Whoever goes down that rabbit hole and comes back penniless, I have little sympathy for. Financial regulations can be harsh at times, but the little guy doesn't know enough to keep themselves safe without them


You act as if big companies like Disney aren’t heavily investing in NFTs. The people who are trying to scam them are idiots, but huge brands are making lots of money by creating NFTs of real world limited edition products and so are people who get in early.


they aren't 'heavily investing' in NFTs, at most some companies and celebrities pay a pitiful amount of money to generate some NFTs they can then sell on for extortionate amounts, they aren't 'investing' they are just trying to make a quick buck out of something they know won't exist for long and isn't worth making any long-term investment in


>It’s interesting how NFT’s really could end up being the death of most blockchain technology I don't think that will happen. Blockchain has many non-finance applications, a big one is medical data, where security is incredibly important.


Blockchain doesn't improve security. Blockchain only resolves the Byzantine Generals problem. It has been around for fucking ages and hasn't gone anywhere.


LOL. It appeared 14 years ago and is yet to solve any problems whatsoever. Give me a usecase and I'll tell you why it won't work or it isn't the best tool for the job.




You've just described the most basic description of a database that I've come across.


I mean good for them but the other guy is right that this use case does just describe a decentralized append-only data bank which is a viable but very limited use case and nothing revolutionary at all. Edit: It is also not tied to currency at all so it is only a databank really nothing special.


I see that someone else has gone ahead and done quite a bit more of a reply than I would have done, but I'll add that this is all beside the point. NFT is not going to be the end of blockchain tech, and I assume given that you seem moderately in the know about it that you would agree with that.


Blockchain tech will continue to be talked about for a while because people are financially incentivised to do so. If it was just tech and not related to finance, then almost nobody would care about it at all. The tech is the least interesting part actually. For 99%+ of tech projects, they don't even need decentralisation. For those that do, 99% of them are between trusted parties, so they don't need a blockchain and can share/track data other ways. They may still use cryptography to "sign" messages or changes or whatever but they don't need the inefficiencies of a blockchain. For the 1% of those where all parties are "adversarial", a blockchain becomes an option. Unfortunately nearly all of that 1% are things like enabling crime, money laundering, scams, ransomware etc. I've been a software dev for 15 years and will keep going for at least that again - and I'm almost certain that I'll never need to use blockchain tech for anything and most people never will. It's completely irrelevant to me professionally and irrelevant for anything else I do with my life, and will always be so. I'll still be hearing about it though when those that have drank the koolaid stumble into /r/soccer to pump their funbux.


Yeah, most of software developers won't need Blockchain to anything, as they won't need quantum computers, but labeling it as useless because you won't need it professionally is pretty short-sighted.


I've just realised that most of his arguments boil down to "I don't need it".


None of this has anything to do with what I said. > NFT is not going to be the end of blockchain tech, and I assume given that you seem moderately in the know about it that you would agree with that. Do you agree?




I cba wasting time on this so I'm answering in shorthand. "our global economy needs as the form of money changes to digital." money is already (mostly) digitial "Today, our financial infrastructure is centralized (difficult to move accounts), limits access (1.7bn unbanked), is inefficient (cross-border, settlement), lacks interoperability (proprietary applications) and lacks transparency (silos)." These tend to nearly all be political / societal problems, NOT technology problems. Crypto is not necessary for any of this. "and should provide services that are cheaper, faster, more secure and personalized " mindless nonsense. A world spanning decentralised system can *never* be faster than a centralised one. Also it cannot be cheaper due to those inefficiencies, and if you aren't paying the costs then that's because they are being externalised elsewhere. "Open-Access" unnecessary "Global computer networks are already global "Decentralized" Yes and this is not a pro. "The challenge is potential software code bugs with limited recourse" Yes, so you'll end up re-inventing the entire industry with centralised companies protecting against this. And forever they'll be stuck with a shitty broken inefficient "settlement layer". Your post has no interesting points and is just marketing crap. 14 years your precious blockchain has been here with all those same properties and has achieved nothing of value to the average person (NFTs lol)


Yeah, can't wait to be constantly invigilated and have everything I buy monitored through CBDC. But at least it will be centralized, thus faster!




“Haha there’s no use for blockchain. Stupid crypto bros. 14 years and you can’t show me one” “Here are several” “ROFL I cba reading that but it’s just marketing lmaooo” Pretty much how all the blockchain/nft related convos I see go at the moment. Web 3.0 is coming and blockchain is at the heart of it. Zkrollups on etherium L2 are gonna shake things up massively


> Web 3.0 is coming and blockchain is at the heart of it Sounds like a Bond villain line


When you know, you know


DeFi Supply chain Document authentication (will be used in India, country which banned cryptocurrency, so if there is a better solution I think it would be used) GameFi + in-game digital assets Web3


DeFi is just crypto to enable more crypto trading. Still 0 real world value. "Supply chain" has been debunked multiple times because blockchain does not solve the "garbage in, garbage out" problem. Documentation authentication doesn't require a blockchain and can already be done multiple ways. I honestly don't even see what a blockchain is even supposed to be doing here. Anything to do with gaming is straight wrong, because game developers are not incentivised to integrate your NFT items (or whatever) into their game. Zero upside for them so it will never happen (at scale), and the concept doesn't even make sense (a sword in game X is meaningless for game Y). Web3 is a buzzword that means literally nothing at all.


This whole "pay-to-earn" bullshit for gaming has been trialled in some places. As expected, the game turned into a job, and pyramid schemes are made to create essentially crypto farms. There is no fun or entertainment value in these games.


The whole gaming thing has got to be the best example of something that sounds good only if you have 0 clue on how games are made


Brilliantly put mate.


Are you saying that the blockchain will be used for medical data or that the blockchain cannot be used for medical data?


It already is being used for medical data.


Trademarked*, but yeah.


Ah is it trademarked in this instance? Basically every NFT I've seen has been infringing on some copyright or trademark which was my point. Surprised we've not seen more action over it yet.


Yeah, art is copyrighted, commercial symbols are trademarked. So an NFT artist copying someone else's art would be infringing their copyright, but using Nike's logo would be infringing their trademark.


Thanks, I was wondering how the Premier League would have any jurisdiction over the activities of retired players


I’m gonna get the Premier League trophy tatted on my ass without any written consent


If you don't plan on selling out your butt and using the tattoo to promote it then that's fine




He meant selling for profit not giving out free samples.


Homie has been selling his butt for awhile TBF


Mark Clattenburg has a tattoo of the European Championship cup on his arm and included the TM mark in the drawing.


That shit monkey cartoon thing?


They should


Didn’t think I’d still be finding new reasons in 2022 to think that John Terry is a cunt


Yeah. He was a great cb no doubt but he is just such a stupid person.


I suppose it's like the art comparison. Separate art from the artist. In this case it's separate the player from the knob head


I try to do that with Rio but he makes it difficult.


Ironically Terry has successfully separated himself from his sentient part of his head. Hence his decision-making.


Sounds like some supervillain origin story


Kevin Bridges made a great joke about if he wasn’t a soccer player he’d be on Ibiza chatting up random people and asking them “would you like a free shot tonight?”


Video: https://twitter.com/JM90x/status/950871518787055616?t=YIBwIuuCOEv2BBDv0w1sBw&s=19


You've done that joke no justice whatsoever mate


Terry Butchered the joke


To be fair, it's not really a punchline type of joke, so without the delivery and gestures it's not really easy to make it funny.


If I could understand him better I’d tell the joke better


I got downvoted in r/chelseafc for saying this basically lol


99% of people would advertise ‘art’ for tons of money.. including you. I’ll get downvoted for this but it’s true.


Except your not getting „art“ when you purchase an nft. You purchase proof of ownership that includes a pointer to a picture. There is no artwork stored on the blockchain whatsoever. No copyright is enforced and when the URL dies you‘re shit outta luck.


That’s not my point at all. If you were given £10k to advertise it you 100% would


£10k for me is life changing money. if £10k is life changing money for terry or cole, well, they are bigger wankers than i thought…


Justify it however you want, you’d still go down their road. Me too, but I’m not taking a moral high ground.


I mean if I was given 10k rn I would 100% do it, but if I earned around 150k a week in the prime of my career and kept that for a good few seasons, not to mention wages as assistant coach, I wouldn't do it then. Also just because most people would do it doesn't make it less shitty


Whoops. I agree on that one.




Someone explained what it is. How are people stupid enough to invest in something that has no physical ownership and can be freely used by others anyway? I don't get it. Than again I think modern art is money laundering. Look at this huge campus with a red dot on it. Beautiful. Worth XX million. Why?


It's a pyramid scheme. Celebrities think they can invest and then publicise their NFTs / crypto to pump up their value


[Great video on this](https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g) if you have 2 hours and 18 minutes to spare


Seconding this - I normally have a shite attention span but I watched this all the way through and it really is a fascinating watch. A deeply-researched and thorough ripping apart of NFTs and crypto-bros for 2 hours


Same, I was thinking “this is way too long, I’ll just watch the first bit” then before I realised I’d watched the whole thing. Very good


Cannot more highly recommend a video than this one. If you're scrolling by, click and save this


Dan is so great


Thirding this. Never heard of this guy but it appeared on my feed. Explains without mansplaining.


Honestly the thing that pisses me off is the celebrities think they're hot shit for making lots of money off it. The value from nearly all of these things come from trends and popularity, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, but celebrities act like they're playing the same game as their fans are, and that is bullshit. We've all seen that Jimmy Fallon interview by now, but I've seen clips from dickheads like Logan Paul and KSI who are super proud of their savvy investments. They don't realise the projects that they invest in that blow up are blowing up because of them/other influencers. Even if they don't plug it themselves publically, if they get pitched some new ape bullshit thing, they know that same thing is gonna be pitched to all the other influencers. It's not a skill, and acting like it is is bad for their young fanbases. Every dumbass influencer thinks they're an investing hotshot now because they changed their profile picture to a monkey.


I'm sure they realize it, these guys are very, very good at making money.


Just need to watch the Paris Hilton and Jimmy Fallon last night basically spending their time flogging this Ponzi scheme to the masses, it's disgusting and really fucking dangerous


I have an ex that now sells NFTs to people on IG. I don't really get her angle, but our relationship was terrible anyway, so...


Say I pick up a stick from the ground. Someone then offers me £10,000 for the stick and I take it. Is the stick worth £10,000? No. But because someone paid £10,000 for it, some will argue it's now worth that much. And because someone paid £10,000 for the stick, someone might think it's worth more and offer £15,000 for the stick. But then someone finds a stick with a bit of moss on it, so if my plain stick was sold for £10,000, that's surely worth £20,000. Basically this keeps happening until everyone suddenly realizes they're spending thousands on sticks and they'll become worthless. Replace "sticks" with pictures of apes and other stupid drawings and you have NFTs. They're fucking dumb and anyone who defends them is dumber.


Add in that those first purchases/bids that majorly overinflate the value can be made by the owner using an anonymous wallet filled with cryptocurrency, and baby you got a ~~stew~~ scam going


Lisa, I want to buy your rock.


Let the bears pay the bear tax, I pay the Homer tax.


NFTs are not pictures




What they are is essentially a unique identifier i.e. a 20 or so random digit name, that identifies who 'owns' something digital. Not necessarily pictures, though the comment you are replying to wasn't relevant as it doesn't really add anything to or debunk the example that u/itsrainbowz gave. Where NFT's could potentially see *some* use is other scenarios in which identifying the one true owner of something digital could be useful. An example I've seen used before that I don't necessarily agree with is for Ticketing, a unique identifier for that could have some uses and many speculate it would push Ticketmaster into irrelevance. Unfortunately I suspect it's a solution to a problem that the ones who benefit from said problem don't want to fix. Someone above said it could be used medically. I don't know enough about that to speculate if it's realistic or not.


Medical record on a public block chain is a horrendous proposition dude violates privacy laws abound. It isnt actually hard to match people to wallets irl. Also block chains are append only which means if it is on the blockchain you are not getting it off again which is even more horrific ffs.


for tickets, there is nothing a NFT does that QR codes can’t do. ticketmaster would also be using NFTs if they were actually better than the existing options, as no other company has the infrastructure to even make NFT tickets useful, let alone artists. as for medical stuff, the only thing they could do is decentralized medical records, the issue being that there is no need for decentralized medical records as hospitals already have systems to send your records between hospitals, and you can actually just ask for paper copies of your medical record, or go online and look at them. there is no actual use to make it decentralized.


They can also be used for decentralized land ownership register. Especially in developing countries where there is little trust in the government.


But if you want everyone to be on the same chain and make sure this is enforced don't you need to trust the government or another authority? Genuine question, not trying a gotcha or anything.


Oh dear.


> Someone explained what it is. I know it is a huge ask, but if you are really interested in [NFTs a recently released video covered them](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g) their problems and the "scam" behind it pretty thoroughly. It's 2 hours long, so that's why I said it is a big ask, but it's really well made.


Money laundering probably




Except in these games you can actually display the skins when you play. For a NFT anyone can display the image even if they don't own it on the blockchain.


Can some ELI5 how they could be used for money laundering? My understanding of money laundering is, for example: I sell £5000 worth of drugs. I take that £5000 and buy a car. I then sell that car to someone else for a bank transfer of £5000. Hey ho the drug money is in my bank under the innocent disguise of a car sale. How would buying an NFT be used for money laundering?


I guess in the same way that real art is used for money laundering purposes. Person has dodgy money -> buys art/NFT with said dodgy money -> resells the art/NFT in what is seen as a legitimate business purchase and avoiding the taxes in the process


How do you buy an NFT with dodgy money? You can't buy with cash right?


Speculation mostly. They think it will be worth more money in the future, and it will be but not for the average person buying them. They're not massively different to collectors items, stamps, toys etc... they're all speculation too. Obviously they are physical items and so have at least some inherent worth but they can easily be worth almost nothing too.


Atleast you own the painting.


Hey man. Wanna buy a jpeg of me taking a shit? You'll be the only one allowed to use it.


> Than again I think modern art is money laundering. Look at this huge campus with a red dot on it. Beautiful. Worth XX million. Why? As you said money laundering aswell as tax evasion. You have some artist paint some shit, some art expert clowns say it's worth x€, you now own a piece of canvas worth x€ even though everyone knows nobody is going to pay a cent for it. Now you donate this painting to a museum or some shit and can write those x€ off your taxes.


NFT itself isn't a scam, its just proof of ownership. People think the NFT is the picture/art/collectible itself which is very misinformed. The scam/money laundering side is around the creation and selling of art which is exactly what happens in real life. Like with most things, the problem is the application, not the technology. An NFT is just the same as getting a certificate of authenticity/ownership when you buy art.


the NFT is not proof of ownership of anything, it doesn’t convey ownership of the image in question. the person who made the image still retains all image rights over it


Also it's not like in real world items where owning the equivalent would mean having the original. All images online are copies of the original creation, the only difference between an NFT owners copy and someone who print screens a version is likely the meta-data. Unless you literally buy the creators hard drive the creator will always have the 'original'.


Except that that certificate represents actual ownership that would stand up in the court of law. NFTs don't represent anything at all.


Almost all art collectors are money laundering. NFTs are ways for younger rich people to launder money. That’s all it is


I get your point, but I don't think most modern art is just a white canvas with a dot in the middle. It is crazy how average joes fall for the nft scam though. Like it's just another level of celebrity and wealth worship.


Most are going to 0. Many will have incredible value. They are the first real digital collectible. Digital scarcity wasn’t a thing before NFTs




They aren't expressing a problem with NFTs in general, only with the improper use of the PL's intellectual property in the specific NFT brands that these people are promoting. It should be obvious that you can't illegally use trademarks without permission and expect to profit without the trademark holder coming after you.


Please do for the love of God, NFTs are so blatantly a scam. Also, if you haven’t seen Terry’s tweet announcing that Willian had joined his NFT scheme please see the link, South Park would be proud to say the least. https://twitter.com/johnterry26/status/1485616387057987591?s=21


Putting aside the first obvious issue, this is an NFT kids club. NFTs being marketed to children. What in the ever loving fuck.


Fucking hell that is spectacularly misjudged for anyone to create, but for a man with his history to publish it is a major woof


Fuck NFTs


Sad to this stuff creep into football. Seen ads for Socios during the Palace v Liverpool match, which is just a more dressed-up version of this nonsense.


I love that it's exactly the two you would expect to be into NFT's that are selling NFT's


Reece James is too... and I'm sure he's someone you hold with affection


It's that Chelsea gene in him


I’m just gonna cross post this here since I posted it a few days back on r/Chelseafc JT just posted on IG that he’s become the co-founder and “head coach” of a fictional, NFT football team called AKFC (Ape Kids Football Club). That’s some Mickey Mouse Clubhouse level bullshit. I mean, If you look at the page he’s promoting for this Ape Kids nft group, it looks like shit you find on YouTube Kids. Maddening how athletes are using their influence to promote the dumbest pyramid scheme of all time and get many impressionable, dumbass fans to buy into it so that they can profit off their early buyer/promotional status Edit: and that post actually gets A LOT weirder. Looking through the comments and I see a user named @tennismessage comment this: “That’s 🔥 I am happy to be part of @apekidsclub and to merry you @johnterry.26”. One like on that rather strange comment and it’s Mr. Chelsea himself. If you check out the page for @tennismessage, it’s literally a 15 year old girl in Chicago, Illinois who posts a lot of tennis content as well as pictures of herself and has @apekidsclub in her bio. She has 20k+ followers, which is already weird for a 15 year old girl but what’s weirder is she is followed by John fucking Terry. Lads, this NFT nonsense posted by the likes of JT is already fucking weird and reeks of bullshit. But why is our club’s most famous player liking comments made by 15 year old girls and why is he following a 15 year old girl from the US? Take a look at @tennismessage for yourself. when I first looked at it I thought, based off some of the photos, she was a young adult (18+) but she posted a 15th bday post half a year ago. Am I reading into this too much or is that not fucking bizarre that JT follows this young girl?


this is actually fucking weird


Nothing that strange (in the edit part), it seems obvious that they both were paid to promote it (and probably more people with lots of followers too) and part of it is liking and commenting on each others posts.


fuck NFT




I think gaming skins are fucking stupid thing to waste money, but they are still infinite times more reasonable thing to buy than NFTs. At least it makes the game look better for you. Owning NFTs only loses you money unless you are actively scamming people with them.


So a Fortnite skin or whatever makes the game look better for you. Flexing a profile pic of some expensive nft is the new age version of a rolex in a photo. Both are probably stupid, but it's just a form of a flex.


That's not a flex when everyone can get the same profile picture literally for free.


Fortnite skins are straight up purchases of digital assets. In this context it's not really a good comparison vs items like CSGO skins, which have specific floats, wear values and patterns which makes them *almost* unique. But like most commodities, unless they have a specific use or purpose, it's based on perceived value and a whole load of hopium branded speculation.


“I like artwork but I don’t like you, spend a whole lotta money not to own you”


Would love a drawing of a monkey slipping while taking a penalty


Full Ape Wanker


Get fucked. Fuck nft


I seriously do not understand what an NFT is


Remember the scam decades ago where people would sell you a certificate that says you own a star, and you could "name" it what you wished? Same concept instead of a star you have no claim to it's a jpg that you "own" but anyone can copy like any jpg. Also it burns a ridiculous amount of energy.


Why does it burn energy?


It uses Blockchain technology, which is basically a crowdsourced write-only database. Blockchains generally take a fair bit of energy to actually use, because all the different parties need to validate any entries, and often end up doing a lot of unnecessary work compared to a centralised database. NFT business is also generally conducted using Crypto, which again usually use blockchain technology and have the same inefficiencies.


blockcahins don't necessarily have to burn a lot of energy to function, its just that without the extremely complex calculations that use up the energy the blockchains just become SUPER easy to hack into because they are dumb and stupid. their supposed 'security' is literally just burning up tons of energy to prevent an exploit most database systems don't actually suffer.


I see believers who talk about blockchain like it's some sort of a noble, "for the greater good" kinda thing. The energy waste seems incredibly shortsighted for a supposed future vision of democracy or whatever they like to label it as.


I guess because if fuels bitcoins or sumthinglidah


It doesnt burn energy nor it fuels bitcoin. The energy burn is actually people mining Ethereum because those NFTs are on the Ethereum chain but such NFTs can be found on other chains who do not need proof of work therefore not using a lot of energy. And it has no connection to bitcoin whatsoever.


> Remember the scam decades ago where people would sell you a certificate that says you own a star Still exists. Along with buying land on the moon/mars or something like that.


I strongly recommend this video on the topic. It's fantastic. https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g


Non fungible token. This means that its the only one. But jpg can be copied, which means they are paying a ton of money for a link that says that it's theirs. The problem is that generating NFTs is consuming a lot of energy, like a ton of energy which is bad for the environment. Creating ugly art, stealing from artists, it's a pyramid scheme, environmental damage, energy consumption just so Rakitić and John Terry can have their own monkey jpgs. Fun times...


What I don't get is how shit all of the pictures are. I kind of get why it could be interesting to prove ownership of a piece of art, even if there are copies of it around (like some museums put up high-res scans of their masterpieces, but the real thing still hangs in the museum). But all of the NFT art I've seen is absolute shit. And not even in a "I don't get modern art" way. It's just mass produced garbage.


The picture are shit because an AI is chugging them out. The AI also steals from other artists, so basically it steals parts of real art from other artists and incorporates in a NFT picture. So a pirate hat is actually made by someone but the bot steals it crops it and is now part of an NFT. Then it changes it colour or something. Anyway these thing is stupid and only makes rich people more richer and these things don't get taxed so they can use it as a tax write off.


its shit because its cheaper to generate art with an AI than actually make it by hand, and since the real reason to make NFTs is to try and make money off of idiots you just spam out as many as you can sell.


You’re the perfect target audience for these scams, then!


Righ bc I buy stuff I don’t understand..


You might not, but other people in your position might


Don't they have other stuff to buy


The other stuff isn't being promoted by (ex-)players they feel positive towards.


Ugly ape pics


Semi-unrelated but the art style of the NFTs that Terry is pushing is just hideous.


Please do


Link to article without paywall https://archive.ph/ERA12




I'm disappointed by anybody who promotes NFT scams.


Good. These players (or the people paying them to do what they’re doing) are hoping that their fans are idiots who can be fleeced of their money. This is among the most immoral things it’s possible to do.


Good, fuck that shit


This was the dumbest fucking thing. No idea how he thought he’d get away with it


That Willian one must be where they drew the line lmao


*John Terry in tweeting monkey pictures football scandal* seems right


Once you read about "wash trading" the whole nft setup looks so insidious


Cashley Cole for a reason


I still don’t understand what an NFT really is


It's a record on a blockchain, usually pointing to a file. You don't own the file, but the *reference* to it. It's a way for greedy cunts to create artificial scarcity by claiming to be selling a unique digital asset. This has led to a gold rush of sorts, with the aforementioned cunts selling glorified links to wealthy idiots who are scared of missing out on the trend of the moment. tl;dr? A way for Jake Paul to sell links to screenshots of himself opening up a pack of Pokemon cards.


A thing for cunts by pricks.




Once a greedy cunt always a greedy cunt




Fuck sarcasm tags


I still don’t understand what NFTs are


This guy is an absolute embarrassment of a human being, so he is very fitting as a Ch*ls** icon.


Terry, a forever asshole.