Eichel and USA Hockey launch first NFT

[matter2003]

Jack Eichel releasing 15 NFT's 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jack-eichel-buffalo-sabres-nhl-131800259.html

[spndnchz]

[#freejame]

I don’t understand these. Can someone please explain?

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, #freejame said:

I don’t understand these. Can someone please explain?

Its like a digital piece of art or memorabilia item.  In this case, think of it as a rare hockey card, except it’s only digital.

[Doohicksie]

It's snake oil.  It's a money grab from the foolish.  Someone who owns an NFT owns the "rights" if you will to a digital file.

[Curt]

Just now, Doohickie said:

It's snake oil.  It's a money grab from the foolish.  Someone who owns an NFT owns the "rights" if you will to a digital file.

Weird to describe an item that is inherently useless and doesn’t profess to have any use as snake oil.

It’s not much different than buying any other “useless” thing.  Like a hockey card, baseball card, bobble head, beanie baby, piece of art, etc.

 

[mjd1001]

I'm still having a hard time with NFTs and understanding why most people want them.  At a high level, a VERY high level, I can understand they would be a collectible.  If Bobby Orr's famous diving goal (the picture) happened today and that was an NFT, as a sports fan owning it might have some value. However, as more and more of them are issued, the value for them shouldn't be much (in the past few weeks, NFTs have already plunged in value).  I think there is more to it that I don't know of....but I can see the value in collecting physical sports cards, I can see SOME value in Bitcoin (there is a limit to the supply)....but with a potentially infinite supply of different NFT's, Right now I think this is more something that people are TRYING to make valuable more than something that is naturally valuable to a large group of people.

[Believer]

Laughable… A sucker born every day…  Eichel selling digital tulips… What a guy…

[ubkev]

 

[inkman]

Part of me is kicking myself for not getting in on cryptocurrency in in infancy.  The other part of me doesn’t understand why people keep buying into this Ponzi scheme nonsense.  Somebody somewhere is gonna get stuck with the tab.  

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

Weird to describe an item that is inherently useless and doesn’t profess to have any use as snake oil.

It’s not much different than buying any other “useless” thing.  Like a hockey card, baseball card, bobble head, beanie baby, piece of art, etc.

 

But you don't even get a "thing"

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

But you don't even get a "thing"

Whatever you say Boomer.  It’s a digital thing.

 

Im just kidding.  I’m not really defending it as a good idea, cause I’ve no interest in that crap, but digital things can be things too.  Is the digital  file of a song a thing?  Is a digital picture of your family a thing?

[Doohicksie]

6 minutes ago, Curt said:

Is the digital  file of a song a thing?  Is a digital picture of your family a thing?

They have a function, a value.  NFTs have no function.

[Randall Flagg]

4 hours ago, inkman said:

Part of me is kicking myself for not getting in on cryptocurrency in in infancy.  The other part of me doesn’t understand why people keep buying into this Ponzi scheme nonsense.  Somebody somewhere is gonna get stuck with the tab.  

Crypto is definitely still in its infancy haha. 

It could crash and burn, but if they iron out the kinks it would be foolish for all sorts of industries to not adopt it in all sorts of ways, and if you picked the right ones before this potential singularity, your grandkids are retired 

[steveoath]

It's absolute crap. The amount of energy needed to create the "authenticity" is unreal. 

Worth a read if you're interested

 

[PerreaultForever]

no words. 

[Eleven]

I don't necessarily want to be all "get off my lawn" about this, but I think I have to:  These things are freaking stupid.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

I don't necessarily want to be all "get off my lawn" about this, but I think I have to:  These things are freaking stupid.

It definitely is.  Art/collectible stuff is all stupid though.  It’s incredibly stupid that people pay thousands of dollars for a painting or baseball card.  People do it though.

[#freejame]

41 minutes ago, Curt said:

It definitely is.  Art/collectible stuff is all stupid though.  It’s incredibly stupid that people pay thousands of dollars for a painting or baseball card.  People do it though.

You have no art up in your house? That sounds awfully drab. 

[Weave]

16 minutes ago, #freejame said:

You have no art up in your house? That sounds awfully drab. 

Not thousands of dollars art.  I more or less agree with Curt regarding the silliness of spending huge money for art.  And I like and buy art.

 

then again, money is relative, right?

Edited April 30, 2021 by Weave

[Eleven]

What do you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on a wall?

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

What do you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on a wall?

What do you call a man with no arms and no legs floating out in a lake?

 

What do you call a cow with no legs?

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, Eleven said:

What do you call a man with no arms and no legs hanging on a wall?

I know his name changes if he’s floating in a pool.

[LTS]

NFTs... wow.

It's not equatable to any physical item as anything physical is inherently a unique item.  Even if you print 1,000,000 hockey cards, each of those cards is different in some way and will continue to differ as they age.  One of those cards might have a misprint, or age differently, or the paper suddenly deteriorates to put the face of Jesus over the player, etc.  No matter what happens, that one card is unique.  It may even be a smaller run of say 500 cards where the limited run of those cards drives its value.  (assuming no one prints another 1,000,000 after selling the first 500).

Digital versions however remain 100% the same. There is nothing unique about it and if you have the file then you have the ability to create as many copies of that as you would like.  100% the same, never changing, ever.  Along comes the idea that someone will pay money to own the "original" of those digital bits.  Those bits might represent a tweet, a photo, it doesn't matter.  By purchasing the NFT you "own" it.  Only you have no rights over it.  It's like paying money to commission a piece of digital art and then telling the artist just post that anywhere you'd like and let anyone use it how they want.

So basically people have an NFT, which us a 100% unique digital signature (for now) and they supposedly have value because they have that signature. But they don't actually OWN the digital piece of work that the NFT represents ownership of, they just own the unique NFT that represents ownership.

 

[SwampD]

11 minutes ago, LTS said:

NFTs... wow.

It's not equatable to any physical item as anything physical is inherently a unique item.  Even if you print 1,000,000 hockey cards, each of those cards is different in some way and will continue to differ as they age.  One of those cards might have a misprint, or age differently, or the paper suddenly deteriorates to put the face of Jesus over the player, etc.  No matter what happens, that one card is unique.  It may even be a smaller run of say 500 cards where the limited run of those cards drives its value.  (assuming no one prints another 1,000,000 after selling the first 500).

Digital versions however remain 100% the same. There is nothing unique about it and if you have the file then you have the ability to create as many copies of that as you would like.  100% the same, never changing, ever.  Along comes the idea that someone will pay money to own the "original" of those digital bits.  Those bits might represent a tweet, a photo, it doesn't matter.  By purchasing the NFT you "own" it.  Only you have no rights over it.  It's like paying money to commission a piece of digital art and then telling the artist just post that anywhere you'd like and let anyone use it how they want.

So basically people have an NFT, which us a 100% unique digital signature (for now) and they supposedly have value because they have that signature. But they don't actually OWN the digital piece of work that the NFT represents ownership of, they just own the unique NFT that represents ownership.

 

They're modern day rai stones.