FTX exchange collapses sending "seismic" shockwaves throughout the crypto industry

umbala

Posts: 768   +1,474
Bitcoin is no different than a fiat currency.
I stopped reading right after your first sentence. Anyone who thinks Bitcoin is the same as fiat currency has already drank the Koolaid and nothing anyone says will change their mind. To you I suggest investing everything you own into bitcoin. People like you need a very very rude awakening where they lose everything, maybe that will knock some sense into you.
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 183   +341
The financial pyramid collapses, at last, as they all do, sooner or later.

Actually, it is just about $6,000 now, and more to come. It is around 15.5k now.

All important support lines have been broken, and the next one is at 10k, and so probably to be seen soon, possibly very soon, by the looks of things.

Still ''worth'' more than 1000$ when many bitcoin whales jumped on board .. it needs to drop below 5000$ to really start driving a stake through this nonnsense bs fake money scam
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 183   +341
Bitcoin is no different than a fiat currency. It is an abstract concept of wealth that people buy and sell. And the ups and downs are so high I see it no different than trading on margin with a brokerage.

I'm not telling people to buy bitcoin, don't buy crypto unless you understand the risks. Don't buy anything unless you understand the risks, but it's not a ponzi scheme.

If people need clarification about what a ponzi scheme is read about Bernie madoff.

It is more like digital beanie babies. Except when it finally fails .. you do not have a cute little stuffy you paid 100$ for to give your kids.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,783   +5,957
I stopped reading right after your first sentence. Anyone who thinks Bitcoin is the same as fiat currency has already drank the Koolaid and nothing anyone says will change their mind. To you I suggest investing everything you own into bitcoin. People like you need a very very rude awakening where they lose everything, maybe that will knock some sense into you.
by definition, Fiat currency isn't backed by anything. It's money simply because we say it in. It's value comes from a belief in it's value.
So I'd like to propose an idea to you. Countries are proposing their own state run crypto currencies and going cashless. If crypto is indeed not equivalent to Fiat currency then why is the US, EU and China considering replacing paper currency with Crypto. The e-CNY (digital Yuan) is already being used in China.
In the US, only about 10% of US dollar are actually printed. That serial number you see on bills? There are so many digital transactions that fed just creates new serial numbers and transfers them to a back. That is literally what happens when they "print" money. 90% of the dollars in circulation do not physically exist, they are just numbers in a bank somewhere.

It has value because someone says it does. People keep reading my posts and reading what they want to read. I'm not promoting crypto, it's getting really exhausting trying to explain finance to people when they keep putting words in my mouth and then arguing at me about something I never said. Or even having an open ear to the subject.
 
Last edited:

jason lee

Posts: 40   +30
"Little education of the general public"? Lol. Sry, sir, you must have a master degree in economics. But what is a Ponzi scheme, exactly? The believe in the success of a non existent enterprise, foster by the payment of quick returns, where existing investors collect funds from new investors. If that's not Bitcoin, I don't know what it is. There is zero intrinsic value, where investors need to sell it further to make money. When nobody buys anymore, it collapses. You could argue about certain technicalities, but if it walks like a duck...
A ponzi scheme involves a middle man that is pocketing profit from the new investors. Otherwise you could say Social security is a ponzi scheme. Bitcoin is not a Ponzi. But it's an example of the Greater Fool theory.
 

emmzo

Posts: 754   +1,141
A ponzi scheme involves a middle man that is pocketing profit from the new investors. Otherwise you could say Social security is a ponzi scheme. Bitcoin is not a Ponzi. But it's an example of the Greater Fool theory.
The middle man is 2% of wallets owing 90% of all Bitcoin.
 

BSim500

Posts: 919   +2,170
Countries are proposing their own state run crypto currencies and going cashless. If crypto is indeed not equivalent to Fiat currency then why is the US, EU and China considering replacing paper currency with Crypto. The e-CNY (digital Yuan) is already being used in China.
They aren't "replacing" anything. Even Sweden's (the most digital and anti-cash country in the world) Central Bank said of proposed e-krona : "it is not to replace cash, but to act as a complement to it" and "The E-krona would be expressed in Swedish kronor, and not be a new currency of its own" (link), ie, they are state run digital payment methods for the existing fiat currency and not new "replacement currencies" at all. And the Chinese e-CNY has exactly the same capital controls as the ordinary Remminbi. It exists primarily an "anti US sanctions insurance" for trading with other 3rd party countries, it hardly gives ordinary people inside China "more freedom".
People keep reading my posts and reading what they want to read. I'm not promoting crypto, it's getting really exhausting trying to explain finance to people when they keep putting words in my mouth and then arguing at me about something I never said. Or even having an open ear to the subject.
People aren't ignoring your point that "fiat has value because someone says it does". It's just that it does start to sound similar to the sales-pitch of many crypto-salesman when it's the only point ever talked about, ie, a tunnel-vision obsession on "both fiat and crypto are unbacked so they're both the same!" whilst ignoring the 99x other things that result in why the USD, Euro, etc, are functioning currencies whilst Bitcoin never will be. There's a world of difference between Bitcoin's nonsensical junk economics + the extremely obvious crypto bubble vs national fiat currencies beyond the fact the only single trait they share is "neither are backed by an official gold standard".
 
Last edited:

BuckarooBonzaii

Posts: 168   +122
I believe bitcoin had deviated from it's orginal intention as an alternative payment system and turned into a speculative investment which Satoshi's did not intend it to be. Should have been a 1:1 value than it would have might worked.
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 925   +1,186
I absolutely hate it how many people think Bitcoin is some genius personal finance plan that will magically generate them money out of nothing. Explain to us where the value of Bitcoin comes from exactly, because obviously we're not as smart as you are.

From what I can see there is nothing backing Bitcoin, no products, no services, nothing. The only way to make money from Bitcoin is to find an even bigger sucker than yourself who's willing to pay an even higher price than you did. The problem with this scheme is that at some point you reach the "sucker saturation point" the point where no one else is dumb enough to pay an even higher price and then the whole thing starts to collapse.

Sure, the true believers who have everything invested in the scheme will make a lot of noise and try to prop it up, but the writing's on the wall and we all know where all this is headed.
There is so much wrong with this post, I do not know where to start. But let's start here.

Nothing backing Bitcoin? I guess all those graphics cards you were all whining about that you couldn't buy because miners bought them all up, those are "nothing". Yes yes, I know Bitcoin uses ASICs nowadays. But the point still stands, especially since ASICs are way more expensive than gaming graphics cards.

No products? Bitcoin IS the product. It is the ability for you to own your funds directly without needing an intermediary, and without needing to trust anyone else. The problem is that people keep using intermediaries like FTX that commit fraud, and then blame crypto and Bitcoin for it, because they don't know what they are talking about and don't understand the technology.

No services? Bitcoin IS the service. It's the service of storing value without without intermediaries. The caveat is that you are solely responsible for your own funds. No one can take them, but no one can recover them for you either. To me, that is great. No more crying to the government for them to save you. We need more people taking responsibility rather than constantly whining about needing to be saved by others. If you left your funds on a 3rd party exchange, that is on you.

Want to know what went wrong here? The traditional financial system. Not Bitcoin, not cryptocurrencies. Why? Because Sam Bankman Fried made up a token out of thin air, pretended it had value with his rich friends, used it as collateral to get loans so they have leverage to grow more quickly than could be sustained. And when people got wind of it and started withdrawing, they didn't have enough to pay everyone.

Do you know what that's called? A BANK RUN. Yes. A Bank run. You know, that thing that happens in the traditional financial system. And it's the same thing the FED does; Print excess money, and when **** hits the fan they raise the interest rate, which is equivalent of buying back the money that they created. That system is the ponzi scheme.

What happened to Bitcoin? Nothing. The blockchain still works, transfers still happen normally, everyone that has a cold wallet still has their funds etc. On Ethereum, everyone still has their NFTs, can send funds freely and so on and so on. The only coin that truly blew up here is FTT, because it was technically a fiat currency that was artificially created out of thin air and propped up.

FTT didn't cost anything to create, but Bitcoin does cost money to create, and that is what people always forget. They fail to see that money creation is an issue and put the blame on the best solution that exists, because they don't know any better.

Leaving this here:
 
Last edited:

NightAntilli

Posts: 925   +1,186
by definition, Fiat currency isn't backed by anything. It's money simply because we say it in. It's value comes from a belief in it's value.
So I'd like to propose an idea to you. Countries are proposing their own state run crypto currencies and going cashless. If crypto is indeed not equivalent to Fiat currency then why is the US, EU and China considering replacing paper currency with Crypto. The e-CNY (digital Yuan) is already being used in China.
In the US, only about 10% of US dollar are actually printed. That serial number you see on bills? There are so many digital transactions that fed just creates new serial numbers and transfers them to a back. That is literally what happens when they "print" money. 90% of the dollars in circulation do not physically exist, they are just numbers in a bank somewhere.

It has value because someone says it does. People keep reading my posts and reading what they want to read. I'm not promoting crypto, it's getting really exhausting trying to explain finance to people when they keep putting words in my mouth and then arguing at me about something I never said. Or even having an open ear to the subject.
Do not confuse crypto with CBDCs. They are not even remotely the same.

Crypto is a decentralized technology that gives everyone free access, and the users are the maintainers of the network. There is no single point of failure, and everyone plays by the same rules.

A CBDC, which is what most countries are developing, is a centralized point of money control. The creator decides everything on it. How much you get, how long it is valid, how much you can spend, when to create it, when to delete it... They can impose a carbon tax on you, they can shut off you spending your money if you voted for the wrong person or said something wrong on social media.

They are complete opposites and should not be confused. One is a tool for freedom and progress, the other is a tool for global control under the guise of safety. If we accept CBDCs, we will be living under global climate communism.

Do us all a favor. If you are against crypto, be against all of them, and especially against any centralized digital currencies provided by central banks or governments. Don't fall into the trap of believing that a government backed one will be better. It won't be. That way you save the ones that know the space the trouble of cleaning up the mess.
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 925   +1,186
Hmmmm... Why does that sound so dang familiar? Can't quite remember the term, but I know it starts with N and ends with FT.
An NFT is no different than a proof of ownership as when you own a piece of land for example. The proof of ownership is generally a piece of paper with a signature on it. We keep a record of who owns the land by creating such certificates. If you sell the land to someone, that other person will now have that certificate.
The certificate technically has no value at all. It is simply something that has been agreed upon. The certificate is in reality in no way tied to the land. It is a made up system of peaceful agreement. It is unique and tied to that specific land.

NFTs work in exactly the same way. That the "land" that people buy with them for now is useless is another story. But in the future, University degrees, land ownership, art ownership, even identity, can all be more cheaply and easily be tied to NFTs.

I believe bitcoin had deviated from it's orginal intention as an alternative payment system and turned into a speculative investment which Satoshi's did not intend it to be. Should have been a 1:1 value than it would have might worked.
Bitcoin has not really changed. It's all the fluff around it that's the issue.
 

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,656   +1,122
Staff member
An NFT is no different than a proof of ownership as when you own a piece of, land for example. The proof of ownership is generally a piece of paper with a signature on it. We keep a record of who owns the land by creating such certificates. If you sell the land to someone, that other person will now have that certificate.
The certificate technically has no value at all. It is simply something that has been agreed upon. The certificate is in reality in no way tied to the land. It is a made up system of peaceful agreement. It is unique and tied to that specific land.

NFTs work in exactly the same way. That the "land" that people buy with them for now is useless is another story. But in the future, University degrees, land ownership, art ownership, even identity, can all be more cheaply and easily be tied to NFTs.
I respectfully and vehemently disagree with your assessment. NFTs are like deeds in that they are a symbol of ownership of something, but that's as far as your analogy goes. Real estate has a fair market value that can be easily assessed and mainly appreciates in value under normal market conditions. A bottled fart, or a piece of clip art taken from the public domain, both of which have NFTs out there, do not have an easily indexed fair market value. Its intrinsic value is based solely on what another person is willing to pay for it. If you own an NFT for "investment" purposes, your sole job is to find someone willing to pay more money for it than you did. It's classic greater fool theory.

The scam is furthered by promoting misunderstandings of NFTs, such as the explanation you proffered. By keeping fools foolish by not providing pertinent valuation information, the price becomes overly inflated until you run out of fools. Examples of things that are not explained during an NFT sale:

That you do not really own the item but rather the chunk of blockchain the item is attached to. If the item is digital, which many are, anyone can view it, print it, and use it any time they want. You have no rights to the item. Copyright is not transferred, and anyone can use it freely if the piece is in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain, then they cannot use it freely, but neither can you. If you bought, let's say, a digital painting NFT from an artist, UNLESS the agreement was that the art comes with the copyright, you still don't own the art. You cannot reproduce it. You cannot publicly display it, or any other caveat that comes with copyright law without the owner's permission.

Many NFT investors know this but are gambling that others do not. So much of the over-inflated trading in NFTs is among scam artists who know they have nothing of value to offer a sensible person. They buy from other scammers in the hope that they can find a gullible buyer.

All that said, I do think there are legit uses for NFTs. But they are not a good investment, and anybody willing to tell you that they are is 99.9% likely to have an NFT for sale.
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 925   +1,186
I respectfully and vehemently disagree with your assessment. NFTs are like deeds in that they are a symbol of ownership of something, but that's as far as your analogy goes. Real estate has a fair market value that can be easily assessed and mainly appreciates in value under normal market conditions. A bottled fart, or a piece of clip art taken from the public domain, both of which have NFTs out there, do not have an easily indexed fair market value. Its intrinsic value is based solely on what another person is willing to pay for it. If you own an NFT for "investment" purposes, your sole job is to find someone willing to pay more money for it than you did. It's classic greater fool theory.

The scam is furthered by promoting misunderstandings of NFTs, such as the explanation you proffered. By keeping fools foolish by not providing pertinent valuation information, the price becomes overly inflated until you run out of fools. Examples of things that are not explained during an NFT sale:

That you do not really own the item but rather the chunk of blockchain the item is attached to. If the item is digital, which many are, anyone can view it, print it, and use it any time they want. You have no rights to the item. Copyright is not transferred, and anyone can use it freely if the piece is in the public domain. If it is not in the public domain, then they cannot use it freely, but neither can you. If you bought, let's say, a digital painting NFT from an artist, UNLESS the agreement was that the art comes with the copyright, you still don't own the art. You cannot reproduce it. You cannot publicly display it, or any other caveat that comes with copyright law without the owner's permission.

Many NFT investors know this but are gambling that others do not. So much of the over-inflated trading in NFTs is among scam artists who know they have nothing of value to offer a sensible person. They buy from other scammers in the hope that they can find a gullible buyer.

All that said, I do think there are legit uses for NFTs. But they are not a good investment, and anybody willing to tell you that they are is 99.9% likely to have an NFT for sale.
Everything related to NFTs also appreciate and depreciate based on market conditions. The market is immature though, so there will be a lot of scammers. But that doesn't mean that NFTs are useless. It's like arguing that if fake movie tickets are rampant, that real movie tickets have no value.

The example you give regarding not truly owning the item, but a chunk on the blockchain, is exactly the same thing as a proof of ownership. Nowhere do you really own the land or house. You own the ticket to it, which we all happen to agree is the real owner. Sure, you can't copy-paste a house like you can an image. But that is a distraction from the point. Another example might make it clearer. There is one real Mona Lisa, and a bunch of copies. Even if the copy is identical, it's the original that has value. I can download a copy of the Mona Lisa from google. It doesn't give it value. I can buy a fake one at a street market. An NFT can be sold for thousands, while any downloaded/saved copy is worth zero. And there is a reason for that.
The greater fool theory can apply to a lot of things. You can even apply it to the housing market, hoping that someone buys it for more than you before the bubble bursts. But I digress.

As for the copyright part, you are generally right. But this is holding NFTs to a higher standard than traditional systems. Let's go back a few years... Remember CDs? You know, those things you bought to listen to from your favorite artist? Did you own the CD when you bought it? Yes. Did you own the music? No. It's the same thing with NFTs. You can display the art you bought as long as you do not make money from it, since any income belongs to the original artist, unless otherwise specified. Just like you can listen to your CD but you are not allowed to copy and distribute it. The same applies to game discs if you still buy those.
We generally forget how things worked in the past, now that everything has become a service.

The PFP (Profile Picture) market through NFTs will be a lot more important than you think. A simple example... A profile picture being tied to the blockchain vs a simple downloaded copy can easily be distinguished algorithmically, making it very easy to differentiate between real and fake accounts, something that is a real problem right now on social media.

NFTs are a technology, and like everything else, they can be used for good and for bad. A lot of bad actors doesn't mean that it's useless technology or a scam. We don't get rid of knives because people stab each other. We don't get rid of money because people launder it. We don't get rid of NFTs because people sell air to others for high prices.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,873   +4,882
TechSpot Elite
Everything related to NFTs also appreciate and depreciate based on market conditions. The market is immature though, so there will be a lot of scammers. But that doesn't mean that NFTs are useless. It's like arguing that if fake movie tickets are rampant, that real movie tickets have no value.

The example you give regarding not truly owning the item, but a chunk on the blockchain, is exactly the same thing as a proof of ownership. Nowhere do you really own the land or house. You own the ticket to it, which we all happen to agree is the real owner. Sure, you can't copy-paste a house like you can an image. But that is a distraction from the point. Another example might make it clearer. There is one real Mona Lisa, and a bunch of copies. Even if the copy is identical, it's the original that has value. I can download a copy of the Mona Lisa from google. It doesn't give it value. I can buy a fake one at a street market. An NFT can be sold for thousands, while any downloaded/saved copy is worth zero. And there is a reason for that.
The greater fool theory can apply to a lot of things. You can even apply it to the housing market, hoping that someone buys it for more than you before the bubble bursts. But I digress.

As for the copyright part, you are generally right. But this is holding NFTs to a higher standard than traditional systems. Let's go back a few years... Remember CDs? You know, those things you bought to listen to from your favorite artist? Did you own the CD when you bought it? Yes. Did you own the music? No. It's the same thing with NFTs. You can display the art you bought as long as you do not make money from it, since any income belongs to the original artist, unless otherwise specified. Just like you can listen to your CD but you are not allowed to copy and distribute it. The same applies to game discs if you still buy those.
We generally forget how things worked in the past, now that everything has become a service.

The PFP (Profile Picture) market through NFTs will be a lot more important than you think. A simple example... A profile picture being tied to the blockchain vs a simple downloaded copy can easily be distinguished algorithmically, making it very easy to differentiate between real and fake accounts, something that is a real problem right now on social media.

NFTs are a technology, and like everything else, they can be used for good and for bad. A lot of bad actors doesn't mean that it's useless technology or a scam. We don't get rid of knives because people stab each other. We don't get rid of money because people launder it. We don't get rid of NFTs because people sell air to others for high prices.
Let me correct you: NFTs are useless.

There is absolutely no use for current NFTs. If, by chance, in the future we'll see legit uses for it then that's fine. But even then, the current crop of NFTs are and will always be useless.

Just because we might find some uses for it doesn't mean that we should not tell everybody that they should not buy into the 100% scams on the market today.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,119   +8,226
So, is it no different then a FIAT currency or is it a publicly traded asset? You cant have it both ways.
Well, in the case of a "publicly traded asset", there is actually physical property supported. In theory anyway, if you own GM, or Tesla, or whatever stock, you own a piece of the company. But, no, you can't walk in and grab say a fender stamping machine, when you cash out. you just get that nasty, old fashioned, fiat currency.

With any crypto, you own nothing, save for a string of numbers somewhere in the ether.

Celebrities will endorse anything for money. That's whether they own it, use it, or don't even believe in its worth.

Now why do you suppose a few of them are being sued for endorsing crypto?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,119   +8,226
Hmmmm... Why does that sound so dang familiar? Can't quite remember the term, but I know it starts with N and ends with FT.
Recently, John Lennon's kid attempted to get in on the NFT craze, by selling NFTs of the Beatles artifacts such as clothing and whatnot.

I don't know how he's doing with that, but all it indicates to me is that he's not doing anywhere near as well as daddy did with the music business.
 

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,656   +1,122
Staff member
Recently, John Lennon's kid attempted to get in on the NFT craze, by selling NFTs of the Beatles artifacts such as clothing and whatnot.

I don't know how he's doing with that, but all it indicates to me is that he's not doing anywhere near as well as daddy did with the music business.
And that's kinda the thing here with most NFT transactions. Regardless of whether or not the NFT comes with a physical article, like clothing (TBH I'm unfamiliar with the Julian Lennon clothes selling thing), the price for said item is jacked even higher by the ignorance involved with the entire concept of NFTs. I mean, IDK what a pair of John Lennon's shoes would go for on the open market, but suddenly if an NFT is connected, fools will pay a whole lot more without good reason.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,119   +8,226
And that's kinda the thing here with most NFT transactions. Regardless of whether or not the NFT comes with a physical article, like clothing (TBH I'm unfamiliar with the Julian Lennon clothes selling thing), the price for said item is jacked even higher by the ignorance involved with the entire concept of NFTs. I mean, IDK what a pair of John Lennon's shoes would go for on the open market, but suddenly if an NFT is connected, fools will pay a whole lot more without good reason.
That's just it, there's no physical items attached. What he's (trying), to sell, are jpegs, (Gifs?) with 360 degree rotation, the same as you'd find on Amazon for something like a computer case.

I caught the interview during an all nighter, on an entertainment "news" program. I can't recall exactly which show. They all seem to run together at 4:00 AM on a weekend.

Since the house directly next door is vacant, my interests would have obviously been better served, and my time better spent, blasting my stereo
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 925   +1,186
Let me correct you: NFTs are useless.

There is absolutely no use for current NFTs. If, by chance, in the future we'll see legit uses for it then that's fine. But even then, the current crop of NFTs are and will always be useless.

Just because we might find some uses for it doesn't mean that we should not tell everybody that they should not buy into the 100% scams on the market today.
You call this a correction? It's a baseless popular opinion and a blunder reply at best.

Nobody should be investing in things that they don't understand. We can agree on that. 99.9% of users shouldn't be investing in crypto nor NFTs. If you have an inability to filter out crap, then don't spend your money. But to claim that NFTs are useless goes too far. NFTs are a technology, but for some reason people see it only as paying for images that other people can right-click save.

There is no use for current NFTs? Ok... I guess a permanent record on the blockchain of a college degree tied to your identity is completely useless and will always be useless...


Now why do you suppose a few of them are being sued for endorsing crypto?
They are being sued for endorsing a scam that was executed using the traditional financial system and leniency (or maybe even support) of regulators. They blame it on crypto because it is the last way out for humanity's freedom.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 19,119   +8,226
Nobody should be investing in things that they don't understand. We can agree on that. 99.9% of users shouldn't be investing in crypto
OK, but suppose that the 99.9 percent who shouldn't have invested in bitcoin didn't. Then, I prithee tell me, where would the big fish that got in at the beginning, be able to leech out the profits?

Try if you can, to separate blockchain technology from bitcoin.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,873   +4,882
TechSpot Elite
You call this a correction? It's a baseless popular opinion and a blunder reply at best.

Nobody should be investing in things that they don't understand. We can agree on that. 99.9% of users shouldn't be investing in crypto nor NFTs. If you have an inability to filter out crap, then don't spend your money. But to claim that NFTs are useless goes too far. NFTs are a technology, but for some reason people see it only as paying for images that other people can right-click save.

There is no use for current NFTs? Ok... I guess a permanent record on the blockchain of a college degree tied to your identity is completely useless and will always be useless...



They are being sued for endorsing a scam that was executed using the traditional financial system and leniency (or maybe even support) of regulators. They blame it on crypto because it is the last way out for humanity's freedom.
"They blame it on crypto because it is the last way out for humanity's freedom." - pfff hahahahaha.

You are too far gone dude. You are dreaming of a perfect future that doesn't exist today because of "crypto" and can't exists in the future because of "crypto" :)

In the end you've given zero reasons why NFTs should exist. A diploma can easily be put on a server without needing an NFT for it.
 
Last edited:

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,656   +1,122
Staff member
That's just it, there's no physical items attached. What he's (trying), to sell, are jpegs, (Gifs?) with 360 degree rotation, the same as you'd find on Amazon for something like a computer case.

I caught the interview during an all nighter, on an entertainment "news" program. I can't recall exactly which show. They all seem to run together at 4:00 AM on a weekend.

Since the house directly next door is vacant, my interests would have obviously been better served, and my time better spent, blasting my stereo
Yeah, even worse and further serves to drive the point home. Most NFTs are a scam. Period.

Ok... I guess a permanent record on the blockchain of a college degree tied to your identity is completely useless and will always be useless...
Yep. Absolutely useless. Why would I need my degree or high school diploma tied to a chunk of blockchain? So far, I've done well with just having it sit on my wall and in school records. NFTs give it no extra authority or anything. This is yet another scam preying on the ignorant who think that having an NFT diploma actually means something special. It doesn't. Name one company or organization that requires your degree or HS diploma to be secured with an NFT. Take your time I'll wait.

And...

They blame it on crypto because it is the last way out for humanity's freedom.
Huh?

Now I know this convo has gone completely off the rails. The dude is just a troll or is completely unhinged. I can't figure out which, so I'm out.

TTYL Cap'n. O7
 

NightAntilli

Posts: 925   +1,186
Yep. Absolutely useless. Why would I need my degree or high school diploma tied to a chunk of blockchain? So far, I've done well with just having it sit on my wall and in school records. NFTs give it no extra authority or anything. This is yet another scam preying on the ignorant who think that having an NFT diploma actually means something special. It doesn't. Name one company or organization that requires your degree or HS diploma to be secured with an NFT. Take your time I'll wait.

In the end you've given zero reasons why NFTs should exist. A diploma can easily be put on a server without needing an NFT for it.

I hope you know you're using the exact same arguments people were using against e-mail when it just came out. All those arguments that normal mail works just fine and e-mail is useless... Look where we are now.. "But this time is different!!!!" Uhuh...

And, it IS useful...
Because it can't be faked, which still happens in many countries around the world.
Because you don't have to scan it or copy it or attach it. You can just link to it.
The most important one: Because you don't have to rely on any entity to verify its validity for you, or pay a notary to verify how real it is for international use. Its presence on the blockchain is enough.

That is the most important one, because it shows what NFTs will do in the long term: Make notaries obsolete.
Once again you have very strong opinions without having thought them through. That's normal nowadays I guess...

"They blame it on crypto because it is the last way out for humanity's freedom." - pfff hahahahaha.

You are too far gone dude. You are dreaming of a perfect future that doesn't exist today because of "crypto" and can't exists in the future because of "crypto" :)
Huh?

Now I know this convo has gone completely off the rails. The dude is just a troll or is completely unhinged. I can't figure out which, so I'm out.

TTYL Cap'n. O7
When CBDCs roll around you will suddenly peep very differently, and you will remember me.