Adventures with Crypto and Comics 1 1

[gcstomp]

The big annual art fair here in south florida had a bit of a mind bender this past year with a piece that was sold. It was a banana taped to a wall with a piece of string dangling. I believe it sold for 50k.

To me, it was not art, and had no value. Nfts have value to many people. I know it is a growing thing. But to me it is scary silly, as in evidence of how some people have more money than they know what to do with, or worse, i am too old to wrap my head around this art.

[Jayman]

On 9/2/2021 at 10:46 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

A guy once bought imaginary "art" for $10k. No, seriously, "art" that doesn't exist in any way, shape, or form. IIRC it was in Europe. Financial transactions are indicative of worth for tangible assets, yes. Once you tread into ideas, all bets are off.

I think that "worthless" is similarly applicable to NFTs.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/2/2021 at 5:45 PM, gcstomp said:

The big annual art fair here in south florida had a bit of a mind bender this past year with a piece that was sold. It was a banana taped to a wall with a piece of string dangling. I believe it sold for 50k.

Yup. NFTs remind me of that, as well. Sure, art is subjective, but there must be objective limitations.

[bentbryan]

NFTs are here to stay but I think as art they are a fad. I think the use will more likely end up being birth certificates, wills, drivers licenses etc.   Basically any type of legal document. But as a store of value tread lightly as the ground can drop out beneath you before you even wake up in the morning. 

[Sam T]

Acting like a picture of a comic is a valuable or scarce asset makes no sense.

 

 This isn't FF #1. It isn't worth tens of thousands of dollars. It is worth less than $1 on ebay. This value of this trading card has zero connection to the value of a copy of Fantastic Four #1 even if they share the same image., ha

 

Folks trying to sell comic NFT's are doing something real dirty. They're just selling jpg's with a certificate of authenticity. But if the jpg is the product, who care about the cert?

[Sam T]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:02 AM, bentbryan said:

NFTs are here to stay but I think as art they are a fad. I think the use will more likely end up being birth certificates, wills, drivers licenses etc.   Basically any type of legal document. But as a store of value tread lightly as the ground can drop out beneath you before you even wake up in the morning. 

I dont understand how an NFT makes my drivers license more effective...I'm sure it'll make it more expensive but ya'll keep talking about NFT's in ways they don't work.

 

Acting like NFT and "the blockchain" are a product in an of themselves is kinda like saying if someone spray paints their name on a wall then they own the building. NFT's aren't some weird objective kind of tool. They are not "natural" and they don't have any kind of objective verification. Your NFT isn't "real or fake" any a global or national scale. That is determined by the person or commercial platform that is selling you the NFT. It's literally a guy saying "pay for this picture and trust me it's real because this expert said so" and he points to a picture of himself.

 

 

They invented a worthless "asset class". Smart collectors will continue to buy silver and gold books because supply and demand both need to be a factor. NFT's are infinitely reproducible and have no demand but the dealers keep telling us how rare they are...when EVERYONE has one. There will never be more Silver Age. There are a million more jpg's every day. NFT's aren't rare or useful.

 

[bentbryan]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:17 AM, Sam T said:

I dont understand how an NFT makes my drivers license more effective...I'm sure it'll make it more expensive but ya'll keep talking about NFT's in ways they don't work.

 

Acting like NFT and "the blockchain" are a product in an of themselves is kinda like saying if someone spray paints their name on a wall then they own the building. NFT's aren't some weird objective kind of tool. They are not "natural" and they don't have any kind of objective verification. Your NFT isn't "real or fake" any a global or national scale. That is determined by the person or commercial platform that is selling you the NFT. It's literally a guy saying "pay for this picture and trust me it's real because this expert said so" and he points to a picture of himself.

 

 

They invented a worthless "asset class". Smart collectors will continue to buy silver and gold books because supply and demand both need to be a factor. NFT's are infinitely reproducible and have no demand but the dealers keep telling us how rare they are...when EVERYONE has one. There will never be more Silver Age. There are a million more jpg's every day. NFT's aren't rare or useful.

 

You misunderstand me. I’m not saying NFTs have a monetary value. What I’m saying is they could be used as a kind of receipt to verify specific ownership since they are non-fungible. Instead of a piece of paper as your birth certificate you could also have it as an NFT. Nothing to do with value for the NFT itself.  I very much downplayed them as a store of value in my post.  

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:52 AM, bentbryan said:

What I’m saying is they could be used as a kind of receipt to verify specific ownership since they are non-fungible. Instead of a piece of paper as your birth certificate you could also have it as an NFT.

Is this the key phrase?

[bentbryan]

On 9/3/2021 at 8:28 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Is this the key phrase?

I think it’s exactly the key phrase. 

[Sam T]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:52 AM, bentbryan said:

 kind of receipt to verify specific ownership

Okay.

 

Give me an example...lol.

 

 

There is literally no actual use-case that makes any sense. I mean we already had databases of real estate ownership so folks just started buying things under an LLC. NFT's are the flawed premise that we don't have an "ownership database" for technical reasons. Who cares if there's an "accurate list of ownership" in the blockchain if the all the names are something like XxBongFiend420xX? Anyone can build a database and charge access to it, that doesn't mean the data reflects anything in the real world.

 

We don't have ownership databases because rich folks are dirty and broke and in debt so they need to hide what they own. Look at the whole WATA blow up. They're gonna get investigated by the SEC just like the 1980's coin fraud that the same folks did. NFT's don't actually have a practical use. They don't solve a problem anyone actually has. The entire pitch for NFT's is a whole lotta vague "could be useful" kinda stuff but no one ever finishes the thought.

[OuterBanks]

You gotta be careful with NFT’s.  Some of these companies are very shady - I also like Blockchain/Crypto but there is a lot of fraud in the space right now.

I have found some use in having an online sub to Marvel (get to read whatever I want, whenever I want - right there at my finger tips) but for collecting and heavy duty reading - it’s always physical for me.

[Namtak]

On 8/28/2021 at 12:38 PM, SxG said:

Over the course of the past few years I've gotten interested in the cryptocurrency space. Over the past week I got inspired (no idea why) and decided to see what happened if I combined crypto with my personal comic collection.

What resulted was a NFT (Non-Fungible Token) of the copy of Werewolf by Night 32 that @Rich_Hennassisted with in getting signed. Thought I would share since I'm curious if anyone had any feedback or thoughts on how I can make it look better. Here is a link to the NFT. 

Once I figure out how to potentially build some automation I may try to digitize my entire graded comic collection as NFT's just for fun.

A few items of note:

1) I am not a developer (amateur coder at best)

2) I am definitely not an artist (this was a best effort of what I thought might look cool)

3) Getting a good image of the cover is ridiculously difficult

 

 

 

 

With title i tought it was about superman s dog ho well.....

[davet75]

NFTs have no inherent value besides the labor required to code the 0s and 1s, but can serve to validate or authenticate something that does/may have value.  Just like a plastic case with a printed slip of paper and a number (9.8) has no intrinsic value besides the production and material cost of producing the case and slip of paper.  Now, when you link that plastic case and slip of paper to something of value... say a highly desirable and rare key comic book, then that plastic case and slip of paper have some significance and can increase the value and liquidity of said comic book. 

We're now seeing this in the art world, with unprecedented sales of entirely digital art. One of the most notable being Beeple's "Everydays—The First 5000 Days", which sold for $69 million in March 2021.  The art purchased was ENTIRELY digital and the NFT attached to the digital art file uniquely authenticates it as the only original copy by the artist, and thus the "real" copy.  Everyone else can enjoy the art for free by simply googling it and downloading/viewing a high-res image.  Keep in mind this is very different from owning a digital image of a comic book that already exists with an NFT attached to the image. The few instances I could see this having any value would be, as OP stated earlier, to confirm ownership of an existing comic and allow for digital transfer of ownership.  i.e a pedigreed Action 1, Marvel 1, AF15 could have a digital image created by the owner with an NFT attached, verifying that digital image to be a unique image of the actual comic and used as a token of ownership while the actual books sits safely in a vault.  Another possible use is a limited run of digital images could be created with NFTs attached and sold as a "limited print run" to collectors.  This is already happening in the sports collectibles market.  NBA Top Shot has sold digital images of famous dunks/shots with unique NFTs for $$ millions to deep-pocket collectors.  I could easily see someone trying to develop this in the comics market, where there is a "limited official print run" of 50 digital images with authenticated NFTs of a famous pedigreed ultra-high value comic, and you can be a proud owner of 1 of 50 authenticate images for the bargain price of $xx,xxx. This is related to, but not the same as, the trend we are seeing with "fractional ownership" of high value comics and collectibles, where your ownership is virtual/digital.  This also has some loose correlation with the extended and heated discussion on WATA graded games. Something is only as valuable as what someone else is willing to pay for it, whether there is one buyer or 1 million buyers.

I personally would never buy a piece of digital art, as I prefer physical and tangible art / collectibles.  The notion of paying for something like digital art, that I can enjoy an identical copy for free (minus the invisible NFT), is frankly mind-boggling to me.  I feel the same way about other digits "commodities", whether of sports or of other rare collectibles.  That is me speaking as a collector who enjoys tangible, fragile, old, fun stuff.  As an investor, if you can show me a solid business plan and financials, with a history of significant above-market returns and upwards growth, then I'm interested and I don't really care what product you're selling (as long as it's legal). However, regardless of how I personally feel, the digital/virtual market already exists with huge money at stake, and the trend is inevitably going to grow.  For just how long this market will have sustainable growth is anyone's guess.  There will be huge fortunes made by a few, some non-life-changing disposable income lost by many, and catastrophic losses by a handful.  Like almost every new and innovative market, there will be early adopters, speculators, investors, train-riders, suckers, and bag holders.  In all of these niche markets, transparency and information is limited, regulation is virtually non-existent, and insider dealing and market manipulation are rampant (but sadly is it rarely illegal or easily provable).  Anyone venturing into these arenas would be well advised to learn themselves up before testing these shark-infested waters.

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 9/5/2021 at 5:10 PM, davet75 said:

NFTs have no inherent value besides the labor required to code the 0s and 1s, but can serve to validate or authenticate something that does/may have value.  Just like a plastic case with a printed slip of paper and a number (9.8) has no intrinsic value besides the production and material cost of producing the case and slip of paper.  Now, when you link that plastic case and slip of paper to something of value... say a highly desirable and rare key comic book, then that plastic case and slip of paper have some significance and can increase the value and liquidity of said comic book. 

We're now seeing this in the art world, with unprecedented sales of entirely digital art. One of the most notable being Beeple's "Everydays—The First 5000 Days", which sold for $69 million in March 2021.  The art purchased was ENTIRELY digital and the NFT attached to the digital art file uniquely authenticates it as the only original copy by the artist, and thus the "real" copy.  Everyone else can enjoy the art for free by simply googling it and downloading/viewing a high-res image.  Keep in mind this is very different from owning a digital image of a comic book that already exists with an NFT attached to the image. The few instances I could see this having any value would be, as OP stated earlier, to confirm ownership of an existing comic and allow for digital transfer of ownership.  i.e a pedigreed Action 1, Marvel 1, AF15 could have a digital image created by the owner with an NFT attached, verifying that digital image to be a unique image of the actual comic and used as a token of ownership while the actual books sits safely in a vault.  Another possible use is a limited run of digital images could be created with NFTs attached and sold as a "limited print run" to collectors.  This is already happening in the sports collectibles market.  NBA Top Shot has sold digital images of famous dunks/shots with unique NFTs for $$ millions to deep-pocket collectors.  I could easily see someone trying to develop this in the comics market, where there is a "limited official print run" of 50 digital images with authenticated NFTs of a famous pedigreed ultra-high value comic, and you can be a proud owner of 1 of 50 authenticate images for the bargain price of $xx,xxx. This is related to, but not the same as, the trend we are seeing with "fractional ownership" of high value comics and collectibles, where your ownership is virtual/digital.  This also has some loose correlation with the extended and heated discussion on WATA graded games. Something is only as valuable as what someone else is willing to pay for it, whether there is one buyer or 1 million buyers.

I personally would never buy a piece of digital art, as I prefer physical and tangible art / collectibles.  The notion of paying for something like digital art, that I can enjoy an identical copy for free (minus the invisible NFT), is frankly mind-boggling to me.  I feel the same way about other digits "commodities", whether of sports or of other rare collectibles.  That is me speaking as a collector who enjoys tangible, fragile, old, fun stuff.  As an investor, if you can show me a solid business plan and financials, with a history of significant above-market returns and upwards growth, then I'm interested and I don't really care what product you're selling (as long as it's legal). However, regardless of how I personally feel, the digital/virtual market already exists with huge money at stake, and the trend is inevitably going to grow.  For just how long this market will have sustainable growth is anyone's guess.  There will be huge fortunes made by a few, some non-life-changing disposable income lost by many, and catastrophic losses by a handful.  Like almost every new and innovative market, there will be early adopters, speculators, investors, train-riders, suckers, and bag holders.  In all of these niche markets, transparency and information is limited, regulation is virtually non-existent, and insider dealing and market manipulation are rampant (but sadly is it rarely illegal or easily provable).  Anyone venturing into these arenas would be well advised to learn themselves up before testing these shark-infested waters.

Great post 

 

Helped me finally gain some understanding of what a NFT is, and how it can be used.

[Xenosmilus]

I will never in a billion years spend 1 cent on a NFT.  That being said my biggest question for these is what happens if an upgraded operating system doesn't recognize the file type anymore? You are SOL I guess...

[Sam T]

On 9/5/2021 at 5:16 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

Great post 

 

Helped me finally gain some understanding of what a NFT is, and how it can be used.

I dunno it kinda seems like he just rambled a bunch of on-brand, pro-nft vagueries for 2 paragraphs before saying "yah they're selling folks jpg's that can be copied infinitely while arguing that they're scarce."

 

 

People who sell NFT's are grifters. It's that simple. If someone can't sell a product to a customer in a way that BOTH parties benefit then they aren't a businessman, they're a fraudster.

 

[davet75]

On 9/6/2021 at 10:34 AM, Sam T said:

I dunno it kinda seems like he just rambled a bunch of on-brand, pro-nft vagueries for 2 paragraphs before saying "yah they're selling folks jpg's that can be copied infinitely while arguing that they're scarce."

 

 

People who sell NFT's are grifters. It's that simple. If someone can't sell a product to a customer in a way that BOTH parties benefit then they aren't a businessman, they're a fraudster.

 

Wow.  just. wow. 

You've managed to misread and take my entire post out of context, and then conclude by ascribing motives and intentions to my post that are completely unsubstantiated AND completely contradictory to my actual position.  I get that you're completely anti-NFT, but don't automatically assume that anyone that knows anything about them is a shiller for them. 

The first paragraph explains in simple terms what an NFT is and how it is/can be used, while also clarifying that it has no intrinsic value. How this explanation is "on-brand and pro-NFT" is beyond me.  unless.. you know... facts...bad...

The second paragraph explains how NFTs have and are being currently used in other collectible markets. These are objective facts.  Using the sports and art examples, I hypothesize how NFTs might be used to authenticate ownership of high-value comic via ownership of a unique digital image.  I also made a tongue-in-cheek example of how someone might try to make a profit off images w/NFTs:

On 9/5/2021 at 5:10 PM, davet75 said:

I could easily see someone trying to develop this in the comics market, where there is a "limited official print run" of 50 digital images with authenticated NFTs of a famous pedigreed ultra-high value comic, and you can be a proud owner of 1 of 50 authenticate images for the bargain price of $xx,xxx.

Sorry if my sarcasm is lost on you, and you thought I was actually encouraging or promoting such an idea.  Next time I will preface such statements with [ / INCOMING SARCASM-PREPARE TO THINK AND BE AMUSED BY MY WIT] and conclude with [ / END SARCASM - NOW BACK TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING AND SERIOUS DISCUSSION]

In my final paragraph I make it very clear that I myself would never pay for digital NFT images/collectibles.  Again, I'm baffled at how you arrive at the conclusion that my post is "on-brand and pro-NFT" especially with concluding statement:

On 9/5/2021 at 5:10 PM, davet75 said:

There will be huge fortunes made by a few, some non-life-changing disposable income lost by many, and catastrophic losses by a handful.  Like almost every new and innovative market, there will be early adopters, speculators, investors, train-riders, suckers, and bag holders.  In all of these niche markets, transparency and information is limited, regulation is virtually non-existent, and insider dealing and market manipulation are rampant (but sadly is it rarely illegal or easily provable).  Anyone venturing into these arenas would be well advised to learn themselves up before testing these shark-infested waters.

I have basically described a Ponzi scheme.  If you don't understand my stance by now, then i'm afraid I can't really simply it any further for you. 

 

[bronze_rules]

On 9/5/2021 at 2:10 PM, davet75 said:

NFTs have no inherent value besides the labor required to code the 0s and 1s, but can serve to validate or authenticate something that does/may have value.  Just like a plastic case with a printed slip of paper and a number (9.8) has no intrinsic value besides the production and material cost of producing the case and slip of paper.  Now, when you link that plastic case and slip of paper to something of value... say a highly desirable and rare key comic book, then that plastic case and slip of paper have some significance and can increase the value and liquidity of said comic book. 

We're now seeing this in the art world, with unprecedented sales of entirely digital art. One of the most notable being Beeple's "Everydays—The First 5000 Days", which sold for $69 million in March 2021.  The art purchased was ENTIRELY digital and the NFT attached to the digital art file uniquely authenticates it as the only original copy by the artist, and thus the "real" copy.  Everyone else can enjoy the art for free by simply googling it and downloading/viewing a high-res image.  Keep in mind this is very different from owning a digital image of a comic book that already exists with an NFT attached to the image. The few instances I could see this having any value would be, as OP stated earlier, to confirm ownership of an existing comic and allow for digital transfer of ownership.  i.e a pedigreed Action 1, Marvel 1, AF15 could have a digital image created by the owner with an NFT attached, verifying that digital image to be a unique image of the actual comic and used as a token of ownership while the actual books sits safely in a vault.  Another possible use is a limited run of digital images could be created with NFTs attached and sold as a "limited print run" to collectors.  This is already happening in the sports collectibles market.  NBA Top Shot has sold digital images of famous dunks/shots with unique NFTs for $$ millions to deep-pocket collectors.  I could easily see someone trying to develop this in the comics market, where there is a "limited official print run" of 50 digital images with authenticated NFTs of a famous pedigreed ultra-high value comic, and you can be a proud owner of 1 of 50 authenticate images for the bargain price of $xx,xxx. This is related to, but not the same as, the trend we are seeing with "fractional ownership" of high value comics and collectibles, where your ownership is virtual/digital.  This also has some loose correlation with the extended and heated discussion on WATA graded games. Something is only as valuable as what someone else is willing to pay for it, whether there is one buyer or 1 million buyers.

I personally would never buy a piece of digital art, as I prefer physical and tangible art / collectibles.  The notion of paying for something like digital art, that I can enjoy an identical copy for free (minus the invisible NFT), is frankly mind-boggling to me.  I feel the same way about other digits "commodities", whether of sports or of other rare collectibles.  That is me speaking as a collector who enjoys tangible, fragile, old, fun stuff.  As an investor, if you can show me a solid business plan and financials, with a history of significant above-market returns and upwards growth, then I'm interested and I don't really care what product you're selling (as long as it's legal). However, regardless of how I personally feel, the digital/virtual market already exists with huge money at stake, and the trend is inevitably going to grow.  For just how long this market will have sustainable growth is anyone's guess.  There will be huge fortunes made by a few, some non-life-changing disposable income lost by many, and catastrophic losses by a handful.  Like almost every new and innovative market, there will be early adopters, speculators, investors, train-riders, suckers, and bag holders.  In all of these niche markets, transparency and information is limited, regulation is virtually non-existent, and insider dealing and market manipulation are rampant (but sadly is it rarely illegal or easily provable).  Anyone venturing into these arenas would be well advised to learn themselves up before testing these shark-infested waters.

 

I'm in the whole crypto is pretty much worthless except when you sell it to someone else who's crazy enough to think it will keep going higher (think dutch tulips).

That being said, I found it kind of interesting the comment of the 'digital original' from the author.

But, I really don't see the value other than mental. Every copy is identical -- he could make a million and you couldn't tell them apart. I guess you could add value by having certain additional elements on that original copy that are unique. Like a video of the artist composing the piece.

Edited September 6, 2021 by bronze_rules

[Sam T]

On 9/6/2021 at 2:46 PM, davet75 said:

Wow.  just. wow. 

You've managed to misread and take my entire post out of context, and then conclude by ascribing motives and intentions to my post that are completely unsubstantiated AND completely contradictory to my actual position.  I get that you're completely anti-NFT, but don't automatically assume that anyone that knows anything about them is a shiller for them. 

The first paragraph explains in simple terms what an NFT is and how it is/can be used, while also clarifying that it has no intrinsic value. How this explanation is "on-brand and pro-NFT" is beyond me.  unless.. you know... facts...bad...

The second paragraph explains how NFTs have and are being currently used in other collectible markets. These are objective facts.  Using the sports and art examples, I hypothesize how NFTs might be used to authenticate ownership of high-value comic via ownership of a unique digital image.  I also made a tongue-in-cheek example of how someone might try to make a profit off images w/NFTs:

Sorry if my sarcasm is lost on you, and you thought I was actually encouraging or promoting such an idea.  Next time I will preface such statements with [ / INCOMING SARCASM-PREPARE TO THINK AND BE AMUSED BY MY WIT] and conclude with [ / END SARCASM - NOW BACK TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING AND SERIOUS DISCUSSION]

In my final paragraph I make it very clear that I myself would never pay for digital NFT images/collectibles.  Again, I'm baffled at how you arrive at the conclusion that my post is "on-brand and pro-NFT" especially with concluding statement:

I have basically described a Ponzi scheme.  If you don't understand my stance by now, then i'm afraid I can't really simply it any further for you. 

 

Do you think NFT dealers are scammers? Select one: yes/no

 

Do you think NFT's have actual, practical use cases? select one: yes/no

     If yes, can you give an example of a use case? This should take the form of a simple noun.

 

 

Seriously, you keep doing this word salad thing when the question is real easy: scam or not.

 

Make your stance obvious or keep mumbling.

[davet75]

On 9/6/2021 at 5:17 PM, Sam T said:

Do you think NFT dealers are scammers? Select one: yes/no

 

Do you think NFT's have actual, practical use cases? select one: yes/no

     If yes, can you give an example of a use case? This should take the form of a simple noun.

 

 

Seriously, you keep doing this word salad thing when the question is real easy: scam or not.

 

Make your stance obvious or keep mumbling.

Ok, while I don't really think the world fits well into your 2 dimensional, black and white world view, i'm going to attempt to answer your answers.  These answers will likely require a real-world or realistic example to go along with said answer.

1. Do you think NFT dealers are scammers? Select one: yes/no

"I am going to sell you this random NFT block chain coding that proves you own absolutely nothing except this block chain coding connected to nothing, please pay me $1000."  Yes, this is a scam.

"I am an artist, I have created a unique piece of art on a digital medium.  I will sell you the original art, uniquely identified by NFT as my original work, which will grant you ownership of all legal rights to the work."  No, this is not a scam

"Hi i'm Logan Paul, a famous Youtuber.  I'm selling NFT pokeman likeness of me looking obnoxious for the bargain price of $2,000 for these pieces of internet history." (real story).  No, this is not a scam but all involved parties should be severely beaten.

2. Do you think NFT's have actual, practical use cases? select one: yes/no

Yes, see art example above.

3. scam or not.

This question is on par with asking if the internet is good or bad.  Some use the internet for criminal acts, others waste their lives away on the internet, some make a living via the internet, some keep in touch with family across the worldl via the internet.  NFTs will be the same: Some will scam with it, some will do incredibly stupid krap with it, and others will use it for legitimate and beneficial purposes

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by davet75