TL;DR: The NFT market has drastically declined since its peak in 2021, with most NFT collections having no value. There’s an oversupply of NFTs, leading to a buyer’s market, and environmental concerns due to energy consumption. Top NFTs also struggle to maintain value, and the future of NFTs depends on utility and genuine value rather than speculation.

  • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate the crypto market so much, but ESPECIALLY nfts.

    Nfts were blatantly a scam. It 2as a very in your face scam, it was giving money to someone else for literally nothing. It was obvious time from day 1 that it was just an avenue for rich people to launder money and have it look legit.

    But the media fell for the new trend hook, line, and sinker. Instead of telling people it was a scam from day 1, which it *obviously was," the major news networks (at least here in the US) talked about nfts as if it was a legit new type of cool investment. They stopped short of telling people to buy them so that they couldn’t get sued, but they hyped the fuck out of NFTs. CONSTANTLY. Any time I listened to any cable news for more than 30 minutes around mid 2021, I heard NFTs get mentioned at least once, and very rarely was that mention skeptical or a warning.

    And now all the people who bought into the hype are left holding the bag, as always, a d the rich people who scammed them get to keep all the money, as always, and the media is facing no repercussions for their contribution to the scam, as always. It’s so frustrating to watch

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can assure you if you were watching a programme that was hyping nfts, you weren’t watching “news”

      WTF is up with your media over there?!?

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        WTF is up with your media over there?!?

        Once again, so many things currently wrong with the USA can be traced back to the Regan administration.

        The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1]

        In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine

        The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States

        After that news programs had no responsibility to be truthful in any real sense.

        • gaael@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for this educational post, TIL I learned something interesting (and sad/infuriating).

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cheers.

            I wasn’t joking when I wrote this:

            so many things currently wrong with the USA can be traced back to the Regan administration.

            • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What, like your education system is so bad you can’t even spell the names of your presidents? 😂

              • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I am not american…

                It is possible to know the history of another country but get something wrong occasionally.

                Correcting spelling mistakes is the lowest rung of internet comments…

                • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nah, that was just a spelling mistake from a non-american, I have never heard of Donald Regan (and don’t know if that is a joke or not)

                  • tburkhol@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No sweat, friend. I was just using the opportunity to extend the “It’s all Reagan’s fault” train. And Donald Regan was a real guy appointed by Ronald Reagan. They didn’t have the diversity of names we do now, so a lot of them repeated, rhymed, or required a middle initial to differentiate. Like all the George Bushes - GWB, GPB, GHWB…

            • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              From some reports I have read about his time in the white house it had definitely started before he left office.

              • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s probably likely, but I mean like… full-on, undeniable, this guy can’t run the country Alzheimer’s.

                Not that it would have mattered a ton. Bush was just as corrupt, but who knows? All we know in retrospect is that Reagan was an absolute atrocity for the working class in this country.

                • Thisfox@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not convinced the yanks had anything in place to deal with that. Look at recent demented presidents.

                  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I believe there’s an act covering presidential disability, dating from long before Reagan, due to a president’s wife having effectively run the country for a couple of years while her husband was too ill to get out of bed. That would probably cover obvious and serious dementia as well. (Not my country, though, so I may have it wrong.) Problem with the recent Republican presidents is that their insanity is plausibly deniable, if your worldview is damaged enough already.

                • Thisfox@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not convinced the yanks had anything in place to deal with that. Look at recent demented presidents.

        • FIash Mob #5678@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          They shilled for NFT’s too.

          I couldn’t get over how silly it sounded to spend actual money for what amounted to a screenshot.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You mean the guy who owns of hundreds of local, national, and international publishing outlets around the world, including in the UK (The Sun and The Times), in Australia (The Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, and The Australian), in the US (The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post), book publisher HarperCollins, and the television broadcasting channels Sky News Australia and Fox News (through the Fox Corporation). He was also the owner of Sky (until 2018), 21st Century Fox (until 2019), and the now-defunct News of the World?

        We shouldn’t of let him in, but we didn’t create him.

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        NFT technology will not go away.

        NFT’s are nothing more than digital receipts. They do not stop copying what ever the receipt points to and they are nothing special at all.

        If the web address your NFT points to disappears due to the site shutting down. Your NFT is beyond worthless.

        From the Economist.

        Quote:

        To “own” one means having your ownership recorded on a digital ledger—nothing more.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Digital receipts are easy to do without mining crypto. Just send an email. Use a postgres database. There’s literally nothing offered by nfts that can’t be done less stupidly another way.

          • jarfil@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Use a postgres database.

            Is that like the 4 days of comments Beehaw lost the other day, or like when Amazon decided that people who bought certain ebook, had no longer bought it?

            There’s literally nothing offered by nfts that can’t be done less stupidly another way

            As in, going through data recovery, or through courts? Is that really smarter than having a proof of ownership 24/7 in perpetuity, that you can even sell to others?

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They do not stop copying what ever the receipt points to

          They just stop the seller from claiming you no longer have the right to a copy.

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Has an NFT as proof of ownership ever actually been tested in a court of law?

            Until it does, the claims the NFT shills make mean zero.

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think you understand: a DRM-locked digital content doesn’t need, or care about, “a court of law” to work or not with a given key.

              Instead of listening to the shills of GIF NFTs, centralized app/media shops, or centralized governments, try to think about what the technology actually means.

          • lloram239@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not even that. The NFT gives you ownership of the NFT itself and nothing more. It doesn’t give you ownership or copyright over whatever the NFT is pointing to. Furthermore the links in the NFT are public and everybody can access them, the NFT does not work as access token to the content.

            You could build a system where the NFT acts as access token and where every NFT comes with a license agree that say “Whoever owns this NFT has copyright over work XY”, but nobody has done that yet or at least not at scale.