Token Daily

2

25 2

hutugutuh 11 hs ago

The metaverse is absolutely the last thing this world needs. The wns is near.

2

Tronith87 11 hs ago

We’re doomed. This shit makes absolutely no fucking sense unless you’re a fucking idiot with more money than brains.

Edit: had to change the word insan but with an e because apparently that’s a bad word. Go figure considering who’s running the show.

2

voidspaceistrippy 11 hs ago

I 100% agree. I knew that corporations were making plans. However I didn't expect them to be this grand, vague, and immediate. One of the linked articles is how Nike purchased a 'virtual sneaker retailer' for an undisclosed amount. Another interesting case is that someone did one of those photos over a period of time things, sold the individual photos as NFTs, and now he's made over a million dollars. This entire timeline is a joke.

1

Tronith87 10 hs ago

It doesn’t make any sense. Like I don’t think I’m a Luddite here but to me this has gone too far. We have REAL WORLD problems bearing down upon us and the solution is just to strap us all into VR headsets? Like, is this really real life?

1

AutoModerator 11 hs ago

Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism^Ⓐ☭

⚠ Announcements: ⚠

NEW POSTING GUIDELINES! Help us by reporting bad posts

Help us keep this subreddit alive and improve its content by reporting posts that violate our rules and guidelines.

Subscribe to our new partner subreddits!

Check out r/antiwork & r/WhereAreTheChildren

Please remember that LSC is a SAFE SPACE for socialist discussion.

LSC is run by communists. We welcome socialist/anti-capitalist news, memes, links, and discussion. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.

This subreddit is a safe space; we have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. We also automatically filter out posts containing certain words and phrases that some users may find offensive. Please respect the safe space, and don't try to slip banned words or phrases past the filter.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

IcERescueCaptain 18 hs ago

Too bad Ryan headhunted all the best talent out there!!!!!

Good luck with that!

🦍🚀

1

The4rZzAwakenZ 19 hs ago

Does walmart support Al-Qaeda? I dont want to give my money to a company that does. 🙃

1

kidkadian99 19 hs ago

What? Do t they know NFTs market places are DOA? Do t they know only terrorist will use their platform? I hope they are comfortable helping ISIS and Al Quedia launder their money…

I mean that is what they said about the gamestop nft market place

1

AutoModerator Yesterday

Your submission was removed because r/NFT doesn't allow whitelist or presales. Please fill in this form first and join our Discord's #Contact-Reddit-Mods channel to get whitelist/presales approved.

Join r/NFT Discord [70,000 members]
Follow rNFTcommunity Twitter to get featured!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Seabound117 Yesterday

Walmart properly bribes the media while GME did not. Also walmart is the souless low quality giga type company they wanted to take over when they flash crashed everything in 2020. Amazon handling the majority of online and Walmart being the main physical stores.

2

bonerinho_ Yesterday

According to Frank Chaparro, director at crypto information services firm The Block, many retailers are still reeling from being late to e-commerce, so they don’t want to miss out on any opportunities in the metaverse.

“I think it’s a win-win for any company in retail,” Chaparro said. “And even if it just turns out to be a fad there’s not a lot of reputation damage in just trying something weird out like giving some customers an NFT in a sweepstake, for instance.”

Ah yeah but when GME does it, it has the potential to support terrorism. I am so fucking done with MSM!

8

animboylambo Yesterday

‘Walmart is quietly preparing to enter metaverse to compete with what was a small, dying, brick and mortar store….which has transitioned into a competitor that has a footprint in most of their plazas’

Or that’s how it reads to me. GameStop used to be in the strip mall by Walmart’s cart corrals in the parking lot. Now they are stealing their business and becoming a huge competitor.

2

MoneyNoob69 Yesterday

Talk is cheap.

3

yesbabyyy Yesterday

"quietly"

11

Foreplay241 In the c of Yesterday

WALMARTS GETTING INTO NFTS?!? BETTER GO TELL REDDIT!

3

luckeeelooo Yesterday

So sneaky. Sssshhh!

3

ExaltedDLo Yesterday

Wait, I thought they said it was a shit idea when GameStop did it?

wut doing CNBC??

5

rjt212 Yesterday

Who isn't?

2

QualityVote Yesterday

IMPORTANT POST LINKS

What is GME and why should you consider investing? || What is DRS and why should you care? || What can you do to support the company and local communities

Please help us determine if this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk. Learn more about this bot and why we are using it here

If this post deserves a place on /r/Superstonk, UPVOTE this comment!!

If this post should not be here or or is a repost, DOWNVOTE This comment!

1

A50THNTS Yesterday

Bullish on People of Wallmart NFT collection.

3

Suicideduck710 Yesterday

BootyshortsMethhead for 6.9 Eth

2

Lint_baby_uvulla Yesterday

No. Please make it stop. No.

2

nothinfollowsme Yesterday

Walmart getting into the NFT game?

Let them. NFT's are so fail. South Park was right to call out how profoundly retarded NFT's are. Kind of like bitcoin mining.

2

adamasimo1234 Yesterday

lol.. metaverse users will be able to buy virtualized furniture, food, electronics, (from walmart)for their virtualized homes in the metaverse with a cryptocurrency developed by Walmart.. Metaverse reminds me of a game i use to play when I was younger. How exactly does Walmart make profit(fiat currency) from this? They'd sure make a lot of money in decentralized currencies though.

2

kyersthrowaway2013 Yesterday

Can't wait to see the clearance ones! /s

2

khildebrand98 Yesterday

If it's anything like my store they won't put the prices on any of the clearance stuff and customers will make the same "Guess they're free" one-liners 😫

1

Character-Leather-78 Yesterday

NFTs on clearance 👀

5

svanapps Yesterday

Thank this post to u/Devils_doohickey 🙏💙

1

AnotherMillenial93 Yesterday

Fuck Walmart. Worst business on earth. Idgaf how much you’re “earning” when your employees need to go on welfare you’re running a failure of a business. I’d be fucking EMBARRASSED if I couldn’t pay my workers enough to eat. Why we as a country haven’t boycotted this place and shut them down permanently (many communities have fought against them) is beyond my understanding.

1

Rush1985 Yesterday

Would be nothing but a long shot guess from anyone here

1

SchenkelMcDoo Yesterday

So they HAVE bought

Into this spiel

I'd really hoped

This wasn't real

The perfect toy

For rich buffoons

They'll pay our checks

With SamCoin™ soon

9

rockyon 19 hs ago

Can i have DogeCoin instead

2

SchenkelMcDoo 17 hs ago

Because this place Is FRESH and HIP They'll come up with Their own new scrip Perhaps they switch The stock program To sell jpegs Of Mister Sam

2

ALiteralHamSandwich Yesterday

PoorCoin

1

ErdoganTalk Yesterday

Attention seekers

1

25 2

veritanuda Yesterday

Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):

Rule #3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle, or, only if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must:

adequately describe the content

adequately describe the content's relation to technology

be free of user editorialization or alteration of meaning.

If you have any questions, please message the moderators and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.

1

Drakeytown Yesterday

So an energy facility incapable of providing energy anywhere anyone needed it was put to work doing nothing of any value? Hooray?

8

Blujeanstraveler Yesterday

Albany Engineering Corp. gets 3 cents per kilowatt hour when it sells energy to National Grid.

Mining bitcoin, an electronic currency, makes 9 cents per kilowatt hour

0

mr_rouncewell Yesterday

If you can't justify this then you can't justify \[pure\] capitalism.

1

CharminSqueezer Yesterday

This article is 7 months old.
Fuck your pump and dump spam, OP.

5

Blackadder_ Yesterday

Shows how power hungry crypto is. Crypto will be locking heads with Climate Change.

12

Consistent_Scale_540 Yesterday

Reddit uses a ton of electricity in its datacenters you know. Same as Facebook and any social media. Have you seen modern datacenters? Worse than bitcoin miners. Maybe you should stop wasting your time in then and save the climate.

0

Blackadder_ Yesterday

Calm down Karen. I’m merely stating a fact and not my personal position on how i see crypto or its usefulness.

1

BruceBanning Yesterday

I could get behind crypto if it could be converted back into energy. It’s a foolish one way street: covert 100% valuable energy into potentially worthless crypto, all we get is waste heat.

5

ampjk Yesterday

My neighbor use his heat create to heat his basement and ducted it to the garage.

1

asdaaaaaaaa Yesterday

> all we get is waste heat. Not to mention all the problems (including financial) that damage to the climate will do.

3

tux9988 Yesterday

But but its decentralized so we can beat the banks and government......lol

8

timespender Yesterday

It has been since the very start

8

saintsulpice Yesterday

Oldest working watermill

1

PeterShiffindisguise 6 months ago

Absolutely brilliant 👏

1

bogglecoin 6 months ago

They can actually make more money with bitcoin than selling the electricity to National Grid, It's a good improvement

1

rockman412 6 months ago

He’s skeptical of bitcoin as a long-term investment; he’s just doing it to bring in cash.

1

bessonovrv 6 months ago

They are just doing it on the side, experimenting with it. They are buying used servers.

1

Arash-1991 6 months ago

Wow interesting !

1

3egmercy 6 months ago

Is this really the oldest renewable energy facility in the world that’s still running? That's cool

1

dr4ziel 6 months ago

A 3 cent par kwh, ca ne m'etonne pas vraiment que la vente ne soit pas rentable. Sachant que derriere le consomateur paie ca entre 10 et 20c.

2

EmmaDiazz redditor for 1 week 6 months ago

Great !!!

3

Angelus512 6 months ago

But but but but but but but but mUH CLiMaTe ChAnGE! This wasn’t what the newspapers fed me. Must be wrong. Yes. Must be wrong.

How dare you trigger me. How dare you!

0

thembitches326 6 months ago

Let's not get Elon Musk's panties in a twist about this now.

1

walloon5 6 months ago

Ah you love to see it :) great that they could revive the plant for renewable energy use

1

me-i-was 6 months ago

That's pretty darn cool 😎. Thanks for sharing this with us. I would definitely not have come across this on my own.

1

MurrE1310 6 months ago

Shit. Something local to me that I can provide a less biased background on. Jim Besha loves blaming National Grid for everything because one of their predecessors screwed him over though a miscommunication. This plant should not have survived the 90s, but did due to that miscommunication.

The laws created by New York are what pushed them towards Bitcoin, not National Grid not paying them enough. The reason they got into Bitcoin mining is because they needed an alternative revenue source to keep the plant alive after being denied distributed generator status.

New York capped “DG” sites at 5 MW, unity power factor and forces everything larger to participate in the NYISO market. Their 2 motor-gen sets that convert their power from 40Hz to 60Hz are old enough that their rating is at 0.8 power factor and there is no way to update them to a unity power factor rating. They are rated at ~2.2 MW @ 0.8 pf, so 2.75MW @ unity pf, pushing the site over 5 MW. This rating prevented them from becoming a DG site, meaning they lost out on a ton of incentives, which would have about doubled their revenue. Bitcoin was their last grasp and I am glad it saved them because this is such a cool site with a ton of history and has been phenomenally restored by Albany Engineering.

If anybody wants more info, PM me and I may be able to find an in depth history of the hydro plant tomorrow.

17

Most_Adeptness_3569 6 months ago

you work there? or how do you get in depth history of stuff like that

1

MurrE1310 6 months ago

My grandfather worked there for a bit when Niagara Mohawk owned it, I work next door some days, and I have been given a tour by Jim Besha

2

Most_Adeptness_3569 6 months ago

sweet

1

dangerng 6 months ago

Yeah would love more history about this place for sure

1

Alaska_Roy 6 months ago

Well that is really cool, I would love to get the dime tour of that place.

1

fanriver 6 months ago

This one is really amazing, an unexpected surprise!

1

Nemo-504 6 months ago

This is the way

0

electricapplefarmer 6 months ago

I hate that site. Jesus how many ads

2

j4kz 6 months ago

Use adblock and then turn off Javascript (the lock icon on the left of the URL) to get past their "can't view with adblock" thing

1

Amazing_Succotash677 Bronze | QC: CC 16 6 months ago

Thanks a lot, bitcoin

1

uniquelyunpleasant 6 months ago

Well there you go. Suck on that, tree huggers.

1

flysob523 redditor for 1 week 6 months ago

Why aren’t more oil companies using miners to use up there flare. It’s a joke. Or at the very least instead of flaring create electricity to pump back into grid.

6

davidd00 6 months ago

I was listening to the Compass podcast today, and apparently in TX alone, theres enough available flare gas to run the entire BTC network 7-8x over. Theres already 4-5 large companies working on this, and they are getting the lowest power costs in the country. Along with stranded/decommissioned micro/small scale hydropower plants, the future of BTC is looking really green.

2

ensignlee 6 months ago

because you need a power plant to convert rhe flared gas to electricity. That doesn't exist where the gas is getting flared

2

flysob523 redditor for 1 week 6 months ago

Actually it does exist do you listen to the podcast we study billionaires Preston talks to a gentleman that actually does this he brings a Shipping container two locations converts this gas in directs it into a generator that create electricity and the company mines off the gas is that they normally flare it off

2

crimeo 6 months ago

There's probably a lot cheaper ways to get electricity in most people's situations than "chartering cargo space to go out into the middle of the ocean with a mobile mining rig to use exotic spare resources in the middle of nowhere". Maybe it has some decent margin if they have kept it up consistently, but this hardly sounds like a SLAM DUNK

1

ItsAGorgeouDayToDie 6 months ago

For the live of god use punctuations

1

2

25 16 4

banaanigasuki Yesterday

I knew that. But since a16z funded not only Celo but also Valora, I see it as a huge bet. I just follow the money.

I don't really care about this Web3=WebVC things. As long as I can do everything with my money, without censorship, it's enough. As long as the devs and the buidlers are there and innovating, it's enough. I don't care if it's Solana or Bitcoin or Ethereum or Terra or Celo or any other VC/non-VCchain

3

BlackBambool Yesterday

Well CELO seems to be going somewhere good atleast

8

ErrolsBush Yesterday

No doubts. It's certainly going to become a market leader.

3

ComplexExpression143 Yesterday

And staking interest are 5%.... With inflation of 100%, the interest should also be 100... This explain 50% interest on Valora wallet

3

bravesfan1975 Yesterday

The inflation will be cut by 70% starting in April 2022. Everyone hates on VCs but they actually hold.... would you rather have the top 10 addresses be some random person? Kinda like a doge? They could dump and crash the price at anytime. VC won't do that. If you want crypto to succeed VC will always be a part of it. It's a fact.

13

ErrolsBush Yesterday

Absolutely agree, I always recommend a deep DYOR on CELO.

2

iJasonRam Yesterday

But the total supply didn’t change from inception correct?

3

RandomWalker1017 Yesterday

I believe that's correct. But price discovery through supply/demand dynamics on exchanges is dependent on circulating supply, not on total supply. The supply schedule is public information, so there is no suggestion of foul play. Only that you need to do your homework if you're not in it for the super long-term. A project could be great, but it's token could go nowhere for years because lots of new supply is becoming unlocked.

3

rahulprama Yesterday

Thanks for explaining this (i.e. the distinction between circulating and total supply on price in exchanges)!

1

iJasonRam Yesterday

Thanks for the clarification here. Yeah absolutely interesting how double the amount of the previous supply just unlocked. Thanks for sharing btw!

1

SeaworthinessSorry66 1 day ago

What? The price is up from $2 a year ago? Hello?

5

RandomWalker1017 Yesterday

Highly dependent on when you bought, which suggests that it is stuck in a trading range. It was trading as high at $4.40 in August 2020.

1

abhilodha 2 days ago

torrent network works just fine without a token

so does nano shitcoin

1

Mutchmore 2 days ago

How is this any different than early bitcoin investors?

0

PrecedentedTime redditor for 3 weeks 2 days ago

You can't tell the difference between a company and a peer to peer network money? Sad. Go do some fundamentals. https://armantheparman.com/why-bitcoin-only/

6

PurpleLurker69 2 days ago

Underrated pessimism here

3

NagareboshiNakamoto redditor for 5 days 2 days ago

I wish there was a web3 version of bitcoin..

1

Fidlo 2 days ago

Ok. You get 2 more wishes. Stacks. RSK. These and other Bitcoin L2 projects are working toward such functionalities to the best of my limited knowledge.

4

nabecraput 1 day ago

check out RGB (still in development though). Stacks is its own L1 blockchain with its own token, a lot of contention whether or not this is needed.

4

Fidlo Yesterday

So how is Stacks L1 but still enjoying the decentralized security of BTC? I thought it was "on top of" BTC. I know, DYOR but would appreciate a TLDR.

2

nabecraput Yesterday

it uses proof of transaction as its consensus mechanism, directly tying it to BTC's proof of work. I don't know enough to tell you about advantages/disadvantages of that solution, but you can take "proof of transaction" as a starting point to read up if you want

3

CognizantSynapsid Tin 2 days ago

This is why it’s good other apps are up and coming (ex. CDC)

0

Svoboda1 Silver | QC: CC 42, BTC 67 | VET 117 | Politics 28 2 days ago

I tweeted at the author but I'd also like to see the Venn diagram of these VC coins and those that are marketed through the Coinbase Learn series.

2

Tyroneus Platinum | QC: ETH 25, CC 104 | Technology 22 2 days ago

I like that the author mainly holds btc, eth, and near.

1

NagareboshiNakamoto Tin | 0 months old 2 days ago

Most people don't realize that while they are busy playing squid games, the ones at the top are playing monopoly, so that everytime you roll the dice, you are getting rekt.

@shadowtheronin/zenon-network-12c9f13d8b5b">https://medium.com/@shadowtheronin/zenon-network-12c9f13d8b5b

1

LayPessimist 2 days ago

Web3 is a scam

11

sunuyy 2 days ago

Pretty Solid read. In depth analysis regarding coinbase and their shady listing scheme

1

techma2019 Silver | QC: BTC 30 | CelsiusNet. 134 2 days ago

Bottom line: stop piling into "alt coins" that aren't Ethereum. And stick to Bitcoin. Those alt coins mentioned that are listed for 2021 that are still doing well are probably only doing well because we're in a bull market. All the ones that are worse off than BTC/ETH from years prior did not survive the bear cycle.

Do you want to continue gambling thinking your alt coin will perform better than Bitcoin/Ethereum?

0

kirtash93 The Ash Ketchum of Crypto | Gotta Catch 'Em All 2 days ago

It is a pretty interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

4

coinfeeds-bot 2 days ago

tldr; Coinbase is like the New York Stock Exchange of crypto - a listing there is a huge deal, and usually leads to massive profits for everyone involved. But unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ, Coinbase gets to choose whatever assets they want, using their own process. Most coins underperformed, returns got worse over time, and VC-backed coins did worst of all.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

3

United_Respect_826 redditor for 7 weeks 2 days ago

It's true that you don't 'own' Web3, but that doesn't mean VCs can just sell it to retail. Web3 is a decentralized platform, which means it can't be controlled by any one entity. The only way to use it is to join the network, which is open to anyone who wants to participate.

0

nabecraput 1 day ago

tell me you didn't read the post without telling me you didn't read the post

1

ethereumfail 2 days ago

term web3 is used strictly by 100% centralized projects pretending to be decentralized it can be controlled by 1 entity since it's designed that way, usually in form of a central permissioned premine of what controls it, a literal introduction of a central point of control and failure. and many introduce other points of central control such as building on a centralized network, relying entirely on trusted party called oracle, using trusted setup where 1 party can print whatever they want, and so on. buying from your own "sale" is free for sellers which means 1 central party can literally control it and has to be trusted not to this is why decentralized projects do not introduce new centralized tokens and, if they must have a coin, they use Bitcoin directly as the most permissionlessly distributed trust-minimized resource available Joining the network is not permissionless for "web3" See the project by a premine scammer known as Vitalik to see an example of a 100% centralized network just pretending to be centralized with history of confiscations, censorship, rule changes whenever they want. Goal should be to avoid web3 and skip right to decentralized web to avoid association with just fake projects that make up entirety of "web3" buzzword

13

dktunzldk 2 days ago

> Web3 is a decentralized platform, which means it can't be controlled by any one entity. No it isn't. It's controlled by premining scammers.

8

PurpleLurker69 2 days ago

This is why we bitcoin only

7

PrecedentedTime redditor for 3 weeks 2 days ago

Deep dive https://armantheparman.com/why-bitcoin-only/

4

ZeFGooFy 2 days ago

Exactly this ^^^

3

Redtiehet Bronze | QC: CC 21 2 days ago

Informative article to read! thanks for sharing with us 👍

1

coinfeeds-bot Approved CC Bot 2 days ago

tldr; Coinbase is like the New York Stock Exchange of crypto - a listing there is a huge deal, and usually leads to massive profits for everyone involved. But unlike the NYSE or NASDAQ, Coinbase gets to choose whatever assets they want, using their own process. Most coins underperformed, returns got worse over time, and VC-backed coins did worst of all.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

3

Malibu-Stacey 5 days ago

duplicate

1

devliegende 5 days ago

The conclusion here is that USDC and USDT are largely to create an illusion of liquidity while the scammers cash out via shitcoins.

12

mkwiat 5 days ago

It occurred to me after reading this, is that an alternative explanation for the "Coinbase Curse" is that trades on Coinbase reveal the price of tokens IN USD and thus curb rampant speculation on other exchanges, priced in USDT or other stablecoins.

13

thehoesmaketheman Everyone can make 200k in America 4 days ago

Just speculating, but I'd say the peak success a coin can achieve is getting listed on Coinbase. After that there's no more "accomplishments" to be had. Everybody wants to be in on the coin that's *going* to be listed on Coinbase. Once it's there, it's done. What would be the next accomplishment to spike the price?

2

not_mahi 5 days ago

Turns out something even remotely resembling price discovery on shitcoins, which provide no value to the world, isn't actually giving a gazillion percent gain to the "investors". Boohoo, who would have thought?

5

andutu - @andutu 2 days ago

Anything I talk about below is not financial advice. Full disclosure: My crypto holdings consist of around 1 ETH and $5 worth of BTC on Coinbase.

Anyone remember Monero? A POW crypto using state of the art cryptography such as ring signatures and Bulletproofs to guarantee private, secure transactions? It's secure enough that almost half of all dark web transactions are done using it despite its market cap being a fraction that of BTC. So secure that the IRS put out a $675,000 bounty for anyone who could find critical vulns. There's RandomX which is Monero's POW algo which is designed to run best on general CPUs and actually run terribly on ASICs? And to top it off, it has transaction fees in the fraction of cents.

With all of the talk by many crypto hustlers about banking the unbanked, "digital freedom", etc., that Monero would be perfect! So, why aren't VCs pouring money into developing it like they are into new web3 stacks?

It's because it's old news. It doesn't get enough eyeballs like a listing on Coinbase. You can't build digital fiefdoms using Monero, no ICOs, no pump and dumps. You can't have middlemen like OpenSea skim off the top and gatekeep. There's no artificial scarcity of coins. Monero isn't "useful" for the vision of web3 that investors have.

Most people don't have the time to read through every single whitepaper put out. It's easier to join a Discord server waiting for an airdrop, to read a bunch of Tweets, and check what's on Coinbase. It's just more convenient.

True, Monero doesn't have smart contract support and there are things like Tornado Cash which can emulate what Monero offers. Monero is still a sizeable player in the space and a lot of developers behind it. On top of that are all the controversies around Monero such as certain bad actors abuse CI integration services to mine it. But as the article points implies, for the majority of crypto investors/whales it's mainly about making a quick buck before moving on to the next pump.

I'm optimistic for a crypto future. Smart contracts are a great idea (though there's polishing needed) and there are other decentralized technologies out there I'm excited for. The Ethereum Foundation, Starkware, and others have helped push new and exciting cryptography research. Hopefully when the next correction comes, all the noise dissipates from the space.

blintz - @blintz 2 days ago

> Those insiders include venture capital firms like a16z and, incredibly, Coinbase’s own venture arm, which has a number of investments listed on Coinbase.

As someone who is not as familiar with the day-to-day machinations of this field, this really surprised me. Does anyone at Coinbase care that there might be this massive conflict of interest? How can this be legal/ethical?

At a more basic level, don't they at least feel kinda slimy about it? I thought there would at least be some kind of hamfisted "we keep these departments separate" statement w.r.t who gets listed, but I don't even think they claim that. In fact at the launch for Coinbase Ventures, they said "You can expect that we’ll enthusiastically invest in ideas from our own alumni network."

graiz - @graiz 2 days ago

Tracking performance relative to ETH and BTC seems flawed to me. Tokens/Coins can have investment properties that are more or less speculative so the relative price to other cryptos may be irrelevant. As an example FileCoin is a storage token and more of a utility coin rather than a value store.

I think the point around conflicts of interest is sound. A16Z should probably step down from the board.

orthopodvt - @orthopodvt 2 days ago

Seems like a pretty reasonable analysis of what is going on. I'd be interested in hearing any rebuttals.

waffle_maniac - @waffle_maniac 2 days ago

> You’re a nocoiner. Nope, I’m long BTC, ETH, and NEAR, with March ‘22 $26 puts on BITO to hedge some of the recent volatility.

Do people do this to feel smart? You’re already speculating by buying the actual asset. What’s the point of doing more?

mizzao - @mizzao 2 days ago

> for the last few years, Coinbase put out the names of coins they were thinking to list, but never did. I analyzed those coins - and found they did even better than the ones that made it, and the VC-backed ones didn’t show any of the same underperformance.

This is implying a causal relationship that may be misleading. Is it that coins invested in by VCs underperform? Or is it that fraudulent or scammy coins are more likely to seek out VC investment?

Or worse, is it that rug-pulling scammers are both more likely to seek out VC and list on Coinbase to take as much money as they can and run?

batman-farts - @batman-farts 2 days ago

I largely agree with the writer’s skepticism, both of the coins and of the VCs, but shouldn’t it be straightforward if time-consuming to confirm insider selling? If these are public blockchains, one ought to be able to notice and correlate big outflows from addresses with large holdings, no?

waffle_maniac - @waffle_maniac 2 days ago

> The “hits” in VC are supposed to be “100x” returns to make up for dozens of failures, but of a16z’s listings only one (Solana) managed to at least double in BTC terms.

The return on Solana from bear market to bull market is far in excess of 100x.

NetWorth16254 - @NetWorth16254 2 days ago

It is interesting, that most crypto businesses have investment from Digital Currency Group and DCG belongs mostly to Mastercard.

rvz - @rvz 2 days ago

> Is the game rigged.

In a way, yes. the VCs know it is a scam, which is why they are doing it.

> The never listed coin is the best; the listed, non-VC coin is better; and the listed, VC-backed coin is the worst.

Precisely.

It is exactly what happened to Internet Computer when that launched on Coinbase and Binance, as the author in this article describes, as well as I did [0][1]. The same happened especially with ENS [2][3][4] and the same happened with DESO. [5] These tokens listed out of no where on Coinbase or Binance, so that means that insiders who bought in at private token sales are using these exchanges to unload their holdings on to the retail buyers on the exchanges when they list.

By the time that has happened, it is too late and expect a pump and dump on the token price, hence why all these tokens are 'under performing'. As for the ENS token, they are doing it all over again via another airdrop [6], just look at how much ENS they can 'airdrop' and gift just to pump the price again.

That is the hype of 'web3' illusion and scam.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27492858

[1] https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/33b6e8116ce5...

[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum-name-service/

[3] https://www.binance.com/en/support/announcement/6dcf651bba03...

[4] https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/1457857919068737543?lang...

[5] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/deso/

[6] https://decrypt.co/87505/coinbase-votes-favor-another-ethere...

Rastonbury - @Rastonbury 2 days ago

I've lost respect for VCs that peddles web3 hard, just add sheen to random coins and get a sizable % of the float, easy money. In the past VC used to fund companies that created valuable products (mostly), this contrasts against hedge funds or HFTs who make money off arbitrage, legitimate imo but are characterised as vultures by some.

Retirees sharing altcoins tips in WhatsApp groups is going to be that scene in the Big Short where the stripper has 3 mortgages

yeetaccount4 - @yeetaccount4 2 days ago

Moxie Marlinspike had a good take on this, specifically about NFTs being a blockchain with a web link to the “asset”. Whoever controls the server (or DNS) controls the “asset”. If I was to seriously entertain the notion of NFTs I’d at least want my token to be a hash of the “asset” in question (or hashes, computed with differing algos, in case of collisions). Anything else is a non starter. We’re one hilarious hack away from some $50m NFT being turned into a collage of dicks.

chris123 - @chris123 2 days ago

That's what you get for investing in alt coins, their garbage.

dmitriid - @dmitriid 2 days ago

The only reason Jack Dorsey is "calling out" VC-funded crypto-scams is that he is in pre-marketing/marketing stages of his own crypto-scam.

aaroninsf - @aaroninsf 2 days ago

Curious if rising interest rates put an end to the party.

Had an interesting debate with a friend yesterday, he thinks the money laundering value is so high the NFT market will never collapse; I opined that the appetite for any single get-rich-quick scheme is bounded by the number of peers one has who lose out; and that personal experience of that kind is weighted higher than the irrational exuberance; at that when the bit flips and the latter begins to be viewed through a soured lens of failing to Get Rich, things decay quickly, and the next fad takes hold.

At which point the "market" for NFTs implodes as can fully be anticipated, because while the money laundering would love it not to, it needs noise and chaos to get away with its own targeted grift.

Reminded, I need to order more popcorn. Gonna be a great show.

pl0x - @pl0x 2 days ago

Well written article. Eventually regulation will catch on but by then Marc Andressen, Chamath, Balaji and the many other grifters of the Valley would have made their extra billions and launch their new funds promoting their next grift.

Show all comments on Hackernews

25 2 5

gotamd 9 hs ago

This will also impact MobileCoin.

1

imcharginmalaza 12 hs ago

It hasn't happened with 4k yet, but there's an entirely free software playback platform for regular blu-rays using libaacs (and a file containing vuk keys which I probably can't legally link to) which won't be affected by any kind of DRM hardware changes.

Because of how this setup works, anything that plays now will always play in the future.

Physical media isn't too bad... once we get a nice free software way to play them. Just be sure to buy second hand to ensure big companies don't make any money off of you.

1

godelski Top Contributor :thumbsup: 12 hs ago

Signal uses SGX as an additional security layer, not an essential one (this is mentioned frequently because there is in fact a SGX hack[0]). And as others have pointed out, this is only about Desktop processors. So there's nothing really to worry about here.

[0] the hack is rather sophisticated and it isn't something you should worry about either. Mostly because Signal isn't dependent upon SGX.

14

messagepot 12 hs ago

Intel chips have never played Blu-ray disks. Driver software is needed to read the data off the disk and media software is needed to render it to screen, convert it to other format etc... The SGX instruction set would be used in the driver and/or player but is only necessary from 'legal' perspective.

1

messagepot 13 hs ago

How does the CPU know the data being sent to it from the device driver is blueray data?

1

redditor_1234 Volunteer Mod :snoo: 14 hs ago

What they decide to do remains to be seen. Signal's developers don't usually talk about new or upcoming features until they're ready. I'm sure they're already aware that SGX is being deprecated and are making plans for a post-SGX world.

If the use of SGX were removed from Signal without any replacement, a malicious Signal server could a) gain access to the hashed phone numbers of a user's contacts, and b) gain an unlimited number of attempts to brute force a user's Signal PIN. Users who don't trust the server could still mitigate this by denying/revoking the app's contacts permission and by setting a long alphanumeric passphrase as their Signal PIN.

Edit: It looks like new server platforms will continue to support SGX for the time being, so there’s no rush for Signal:

https://github.com/intel/linux-sgx/issues/760#issuecomment-999258032

1

_cherti_ 14 hs ago

Right about now nothing, because that article talks about Desktop processors, not server ones, as far as I can see, so there is no direct impact right about now.

If they happen to abandon SGX on servers as well (which is to be seen, might simply be that the technology doesn't yield benefits for the desktops, possibly because it competes with TPMs or something like that, but if server customers use it then Intel might still continue to deploy it there), we'll see. If they should abandon it on servers as well, maybe a successor emerges, maybe not.

Fortunately, SGX has always been a defense-in-depth technique; having it yields benefits, not having it/it being compromised doesn't break the system, so my worries are very limited even if Intel decides to abandon SGX entirely. If a successor or replacement comes around I could imagine Signal trying to leverage that one just as they looked into leveraging the benefits of SGX back in the day and did so to the benefit of the system.

But let's see if that article has any practical relevance for Signal's uses of the SGX at all or if Intel simply decided to make SGX a server-only technology.

12

bobtheman11 15 hs ago

I can’t help but recall the huge amount of users who were super skeptical of the use of sgx only to be ridiculed on the forums and on Reddit.

0

convenience_store Top Contributor :thumbsup: 14 hs ago

There were a relatively small (not huge\*) amount of users at the time whose skepticism was pointed out to be overblown (not ridiculed). Why? For the reasons expressed in the two other comments after yours here:  >SGX has always been a defense-in-depth technique; having it yields benefits, not having it/it being compromised doesn't break the system, so my worries are very limited even if Intel decides to abandon SGX entirely and >Users who don't trust the server could still mitigate this by denying/revoking the app's contacts permission and by setting a long alphanumeric passphrase as their Signal PIN.  (\**Also, when PINs were first released there were probably 2-3x as many complaints from people who mistakenly believed Signal was forcing them to set an "app lock" code on installation than there were people who expressed any skepticism of Signal's use of SGX*)

4

Bill_Money Integrator 15 hs ago

/r/htpc

1

Hrmbee 15 hs ago

Blu-ray disks may sound like something from the distant past that has been phased out, but it's not obsolete yet.

People are still buying them because they have collectible value and they enjoy having something physical and tangible, giving a sense of ownership and possibly even attachment.

Moreover, Blu-ray disks can offer 4K content entertainment without an internet connection, and the quality is stable and guaranteed, contrary to streaming.

No matter if a movie leaves a streaming service or if the digital rights change in the future, a physical disk makes the content permanently available.

And finally, some people are just nostalgic or enjoy following the "ritual" of putting the disk on the drive.

For all the above reasons and many more, Ultra HD Blu-ray isn't dead yet, and Intel's decision to deprecate the SGX will impact a substantial number of users.

1

Fragrant-Grade3410 15 hs ago

I have a feeling VERY few people PLAY BluRay discs on their computers. Much more users RIP their discs to another medium. I didn’t read the article, but I doubt this will be changed.

1

Border_Giant Yesterday

I agree with this post. Thanks OP

1

blackomegax Yesterday

Oh well I guess I'll go back to downloading 4K HDR linux ISO's

2

Lyon_Wonder Yesterday

The article implies it's only 4K blu-rays discs that are effected by the removal of SGX. Standard 1080p blu-rays should still be able to play on new Intel CPUs with Windows?

My guess is Intel didn't put further effort into it considering 4K BD never became as popular as DVD and 1080p BD and they probably assume most people stream on their computers anyway and the article also gives me the opinion 4K BD requires even more stringent DRM than DVD and standard 1080p BD.

4

randomkidlol Yesterday

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widevine DRM level is tiered and content playback quality depends on highest tier supported by device. "tier1" is having hardware + software backchannels from data source to your display across firmware, physical connectors, drivers, and operating systems to ensure content is encrypted from start to finish. widevine is for browsers and streaming services, but the OS to display component is shared with blu rays.

1

Qazwsx000xswzaQ Yesterday

Get yourself a LibreDrive plus the right software and dump the disk content out. Problem solved.

14

pastari Yesterday

Skip getting the "right software" and just get the "right version" of the movie in question. Also, this is only for UHD, which is 4k and (usually) rec2020 aka HDR. The number people that play 4k hdr through their PC is certainly higher than even, but I'm sure the number of people that actually *jump through the hoops to use a disc-based playback solution* represent a vanishingly small percentage of all intel chip users. edit: And I'd wager most serious movie collectors that for some reason use an intel cpu for playback (htpc?) already rip their own movies, bypassing all DRM anyway.

5

tamrinkhan Yesterday

Can you explain this further please? If it isn't too much trouble

2

Qazwsx000xswzaQ Yesterday

>LibreDrive I believe you will find this forum post very informative: https://forum.makemkv.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=70116#p70116

8

CZC73pl Yesterday

Could this possibly mean undervolting possibilities on laptops, as plundervolt (relying on sgx) was the cause for blocking them?

5

Jaidon24 6700K gang Yesterday

Reading the article, it makes perfect sense why Intel dropped it, and AMD never supported it. This also goes for 11th gen btw. SGX was deprecated with security vulnerabilities and no successor in site. The movie industry wants DRM, but won’t put in the work to maintain it. They would rather people have products they can’t use than risk someone pirate a movie (which is already happening anyway).

26

randomkidlol Yesterday

ironically, it would be a lot easier to rip 4k blu rays now that the SGX is completely broken and you can leak data out of it.

1

Yeuph 2700X Vega 64 Yesterday

Well realistically from a consumer perspective why tf would people purchase physical (or even digital) copies if you don't have the right to use them as you see fit. The DRM stuff has gotten so bad that people won't be able to play DVDs that they purchase on their fucking computers; and if they do have a computer that can play them they will often also need a special monitor. The more DRM shit they do the more sense it makes to pirate shit. If a person pirates some media they can then do with it as they see fit; conversely they could purchase it and not be able to use it

11

destiny2sk Yesterday

and.... everybody could of predicted that, on chip DRM is the easiest to get rid of on future products to save cost considering everything is online these days

The whole physical market for media is hell bent on total hardware control, investing on the PC side for your blueray collection is not a wise move; better off with external player so you can upgrade your OS,CPU easily

For being a secure platform for DRM, SGX sure failed, full of security holes and got dumped by Intel megafast🙄

8

roy_piza Yesterday

bummer. but in all honesty, you don't want to watch these on your PC anyway. a dedicated player is the better choice.

0

destiny2sk Yesterday

external player is just extra cost for no benefit, they can still allow playback without SGX DRM platform but we all know it will never happen On AMD side , cpu or dedicated GPU it never worked anyways🙄

11

roy_piza Yesterday

no extra benefit? that's not true at all. well, maybe if you watch the movie on a monitor.

0

DestroyerofCheez 2 days ago

I already forget exactly how so, but they already gimped this about a year ago on some of previous gen processors. My I5-8400 can no longer play UHD Blurays on my Pioneer-211UBK because SGX and some other software won't activate. I spent hours digging around, only to find a work around involving wiping windows and installing PowerDVD before an online update could screw things up. Glad I just got another blu-ray drive beforehand, rolled back the firmware and now just rip the files directly off the disc.

1

1_p_freely 2 days ago

Aaand I was just explaining to my friend the other day (and she agreed) that physical media is better because it cannot be disabled by the vendor.

But the industry is hellbent on wrecking your stuff no matter how you obtained it. And the solution to the problem is to just not support them anymore.

9

picmandan 2 days ago

Another reason (not our fault) why we can’t have nice things.

4

BCProgramming 2 days ago

There's a few important points here:

First - Won't play 4K Blu-Ray Discs. This is one important distinction. UHD Blu Ray is a different format from Blu-Ray in the same way HD-DVD differed from DVD and DVD differed from CD-Video. I was initially confused how a feature that apparently only existed in 2016 was needed to play Blu-Ray when my machine that I built in 2013 can play them fine.

Second: The SGX Extensions are used by commercial Video playback software as it is a requirement of the attached licenses. Basically, the license requires additional DRM protections which uses SGX to use an isolated environment to make the DRM more "secure".

However, it is not actually a requirement to perform the AACS Decoding. It is possible to have programs like VLC Play UHD Blu Ray (just as one can get them playing Blu-Ray discs), which as far as I can tell, doesn't use the SGX Extensions.

1

coleh779 2 days ago

If I use a standard 4K player patched into my monitor will it play in 4K?

0

Picard37 2 days ago

What is SGX deprecation, and why was support removed?

1

Admirable-Hyena5040 2 days ago

Intel Software Guard Extensions (SGX) "allow user-level as well as operating system code to define private regions of memory, called enclaves, whose contents are protected and unable to be either read or saved by any process outside the enclave itself, including processes running at higher privilege levels"

1

Picard37 2 days ago

I don't know what that means, but I'm sure that may be helpful to others reading your answer. Thank you for being technical. Why was it removed? I don't watch movies on my computer, I just use my TV and Blu-ray player. Say I got a newer laptop with an external 4K Blu-ray player. You're telling me they worked work together?

1

EShy 2 days ago

If that laptop's CPU doesn't support SGX, it won't. It's the same reason you couldn't play back 4K movies on AMD systems. If you were planning on using a computer with PowerDVD for 4K discs, they're recommending sticking to older hardware and not even updating drivers

2

Picard37 2 days ago

I just have an HP laptop that I bought in the spring of 2019. It only has a DVD drive, can't even play Blu-ray. haha When I eventually go 4K, I guess I'll have to stick to watching them on the TV.

1

Sandtiger812 2 days ago

PC enthusiast since 1994 checking in, I have built multiple PCs for various family members and gaming PCs for myself and I've gotta ask people still play BD media on their PCs? I have built a total of 1 PC with a Blu Ray drive and I rarely used it.

1

maxicoman17 2 days ago

I literally just bought a brand new 11th gen intel laptop with a 4K UHD display

~for school of course~

I have work-arounds but still upset.

7

25 15 3

Labambolastar 2 days ago

But its not art anyway

3

BuyOver5100 Tin | 6 months old 2 days ago

Good.

2

TheStuporUser Tin 2 days ago

Honestly I'm surprised, I thought people in crypto would understand that NFTs are a proof of ownership mechanism, and have nothing to do with the item of ownership they represent.

Good on you wikipedia. I'm donating again.

2

Sup3rPotatoNinja Bronze | QC: CC 17 | r/WSB 63 2 days ago

Plenty of NFT use cases have nothing to do with art. It's a tool you can share art with, not the actual art.

2

redbluecrypto Tin | 2 months old 2 days ago

Art is just an use for NFTs

2

M4roon Bronze 2 days ago

Wait, so if we're all in agreement that NFTs are are a system of ownership and not art, then who are the outraged crypto community?

2

gruio1 Platinum | QC: CC 73 | r/WSB 29 2 days ago

They are absolutely right, I agree 100%. NFTs are not art and never ever have been intended to be art. Art is very niche market in general, so it will be very small part of NFTs as well.

Anyone that accepts NFTs main use as art means that NFT technology will never be mainstream.

I assume this got so popular as "art" because someone decided to add a link to a jpeg to visualize how it works.

2

BluehibiscusEmpire Gold | QC: CC 34 | BANANO 5 | PCmasterrace 44 2 days ago

It’s not.

Edit : it’s not art. Means and method that has many an application, does not correlate to art

2

asso Tin 2 days ago

It is a technology to verify ownership, but it can be also art if even a banana glued to the wall is considered art!

2

LightninHooker 3 days ago

Outrage = 72 tweets from nobodies

2

Ecstatic_Variety_613 Tin 3 days ago

NFTs ARE NOT ART

2

nmassart Developer :Ethereum: 3 days ago

Wikipedia will soon be decentralised and crypto driven, don't worry, they will change their mind...

2

ApexRedditor97 Tin | r/SSB 5 3 days ago

All art turned into a non-fungibley tokenised asset a is an NFT, but not every non-fungible token asset is art

2

nikkestnik 3 days ago

I’m bullish on crypto and NFT technology and I’m also happy with that decision.

1

WyrdNine Tin 3 days ago

Spoiler they're not.

Art is art that may or may not be associated with an NTF.

A piece of art may or may not have a picture frame. Just because you have a picture frame doesn't mean you have art.

2

coinfeeds-bot 3 days ago

tldr; A group of Wikipedia editors has voted not to categorize NFTs as art. The editors chose not to include Beeple and Pak on the free encyclopedia’s list of the most expensive art sales by living artists. "Wikipedia really can’t be in the business of deciding what counts as art or not," one editor wrote.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

1

GoodBot88 WAGMI 3 days ago

Sounds like woke gatekeeping.

1

QuantumCurt Tin 3 days ago

I mean, NFTs are a wide body of things, not just images of apes or whatever it is that people are buying in hopes of flipping for a profit. It would not be logical to classify NFTs as art, because there are many things that could be NFTs that nobody would ever consider to be art.

1

cowboystetson Platinum | 6 months old | QC: CC 56 3 days ago

good

1

Stone_Hands_Sam Gold | QC: CC 28 3 days ago

Only boomers think NFTs should be classified as "art" ... It's like saying that "blockchain" means "money" and should be classified as such

1

BN_Boi Platinum | QC: CC 99 | NEO 9 3 days ago

Sparking outrage? What?

Not a SINGLE person has said NFT was art.

What those writers are smoking?

2

Sell_Asame Tin | r/WSB 81 3 days ago

They’re screenshots, not art

1

Gravy4Tendies Tin | 3 months old 3 days ago

More proof that majority of people in nfts have no idea what they’re doing.

1

omghag18 Tin 3 days ago

Most of nfts don't even deserve to be called art

1

CalyssaEL Bronze 3 days ago

I mean... The editors are right, though. A nft can be assigned to anything.

1

everforward - @everforward 3 days ago

I think they made the right call.

Without delving into the usual crypto flamewar, most NFT's are a method of tracking ownership of an item. They're closer to a Certificate of Authenticity than a piece of art in and of themselves.

Even if someone put the image itself on the blockchain, I still think the blockchain serves as a storage mechanism rather than an inseparable part of the artistic work. The image could be copied off the blockchain onto a flash drive without changing the artistic value of it.

To me, the portions of a thing that are "art" are attributes that change the artistic value of a thing. The artist is an inseparable part. The frame on a painting might be an inseparable part. The location of the thing is not art, because it has the same artistic value whether it's sitting in the Louvre or in someone's attic. The NFT is like the location; it doesn't change the artistic value of anything, it only changes the monetary value of it.

There could be art where the blockchain is an inseparable part of the work, but NFT's aren't it. E.g. in architecture, the location of the building is absolutely part of the "art", even though it isn't for something like a painting.

JellyBeanThief - @JellyBeanThief 3 days ago

The crypto community needs to slow down and understand what "Wikipedia works off of precedent" actually means.

If the crypto community wants NFTs classified as art, then they need to convince other artists, art journalists, and academics that they are art. Then, when the art community has reached sustained consensus and agrees with the crypto community that NFTs are art, Wikipedia will follow, because by design Wikipedia pays attention to the art community for judgements on what is and isn't art.

tim333 - @tim333 2 days ago

I see Beeple's Everydays and Pak's think are now in Wikipedia's art works list. I think it would be silly not to include Beeple's - it's obviously art and the technology of sale should not really change that.

allears - @allears 3 days ago

If a cartoon drawing can be art, then NFTs can be art. "Fine art," even if it's Andy Warhol's soup can, are generally judged by a higher standard, even if the standard has to do with the concept more than the execution.

Sure, you can call anything art. But in that case, what's not art? There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Just because a bit of graphics is popular and draws in a lot of money doesn't mean diddly.

This is a hotly debated topic even before NFTs. I for one respect and agree with Wikipedia's decision.

gherkinnn - @gherkinnn 3 days ago

Isn’t an NFT merely a receipt pointing to a piece of art?

As far as I understood it, the actual work is not part of the token, but hosted by a third party.

stubish - @stubish 2 days ago

If the NFT is the artwork, what does that make any images that the NFT points to?

If the NFT is the artwork, can the hosting providers generously hosting images that the NFT points to rent free remove them or replace them with ads without adversely affecting the NFT?

Or is it that the NFT and hosted images together form the artwork? In which case, did you buy an artwork if you only bought the NFT portion of it? Or did you buy a share in it? And is the image itself a separate artwork in its own right, even if it was included in a combined NFT/image artwork?

Personally, I'd say a NFT sale would deserve to be on the list if the NFT sale also conferred ownership over a piece of artwork. In which case, the NFT portion is just as irrelevant as a VISA transaction receipt. Keep the artwork, sell the receipt to a sucker while they are still there. Maybe get sued for fraud by someone who thought they were buying the artwork.

cinntaile - @cinntaile 3 days ago

> In the curiously designed sale, which brought in $91.8 million, 28,000 buyers bought 266,445 units of a Pak artwork that could, in theory, be combined into a single NFT owned by a single buyer worth the eye-popping, multimillion-dollar total.

Ignoring the Wiki debate... It's a bit ridiculous to count all these pieces as one piece of art because they could theoretically be owned by one person. That doesn't magically make them into one art piece.

boublepop - @boublepop 2 days ago

NFT isn’t art, its a digital receipt vaguely related to the ownership of something in some cases.

If you buy the Mona Lisa and get a certificate of ownership with a reference to the painting, you would not say that this certificate was art.

lazyeye - @lazyeye 2 days ago

"Everyone's screwing your wife but you can't do shit about it.

But you have your marriage certificate, that's your NFT..."

rgovostes - @rgovostes 3 days ago

But is ssh-keygen randomart art? https://superuser.com/questions/22535/what-is-randomart-prod...

zebraflask - @zebraflask 3 days ago

I would actually agree with this! An NFT is primarily a financial vehicle - that's the core purpose - albeit one that comes "decorated" with visual trappings.

For a dumb analogy, you can put a bow tie and a party hat on a stack of cash, but it's still fundamentally a stack of cash.

olliej - @olliej 3 days ago

An NFT is no more art than the receipt you get whenever you buy another piece of art.

Why is that up for debate?

rvz - @rvz 3 days ago

> Wikipedia is a global source of truth. Having NFTs categorized as ‘not art’ would be a disaster!

So the 'global source of truth' says that NFTs is not art and the web3 crowd take that one central source as 'the truth'. I thought web3 was supposed to be 'decentralised' and 'DAO' driven, but why not keep relying on web2 services for your definitions instead of using multiple sources that have a common definition.

I would meet both the Wikipedia editors and the NFT artists half-way and classify NFTs as contemporary art - also abbreviated as 'con-art', since literally anything can be 'art' these days.

rubyist5eva - @rubyist5eva 3 days ago

If an NFT is art then a hyperlink signed with an RSA key is "art". (read: it's not)

xqcgrek2 - @xqcgrek2 3 days ago

If Wikipedia Editors voted that then NFTs must be art.

Show all comments on Hackernews

3

3 2

4

2

3

25 2

Ok-Jaguar1284 3 days ago

if I had that i would be dumping it asap

5

steeevemadden 3 days ago

Do the actual dollars held by Tether go to the authorities or do they just keep the money (assuming there's actual backing)?

1

RandolFeyn New Redditor 3 days ago

🔥Most desired Mystery Game is launching🔥

Legends of Aragon game is Fantasy Dragon world inspired by history of Aragon region in Spain 💰Ride your dragon to EARN 💰SEND to hunt for 600% APR 💰Join tournament to get BUSD reward 🔥Presale:21/01

Join TG : https://t.co/j8onjASOqW

1

EthTraderCommunity 3 days ago

Tip this post.

1

discreetlog 3 days ago

This is why you should use DAI.

1

Western_Helicopter_6 3 days ago

Tether does this all the time when hacks or bad actors are at play. Nothing new.

1

ShameWitty5152 3 days ago

why?

1

semensdemon69 3 days ago

USDT is pretty shady , I simply use BUSD for stable coin. Never heard any bad news about BUSD or USDC.

1

FreeForHK 3 days ago

use UST

2

llamaDev 3 days ago

bitcoin fixes this.

0

Gmun23 3 days ago

I'll be honest, I personal did not know Tether is centralised, this was a shock to me! I will no longer be using this "Government" coin. Like why is even on CoinMarketCap if it's a shitcoin and can do this? Why so many people are using this? I'm shocked! At least we need a new list that only show decentralised coins. It's currently very deceiving list.

The good news this will bring some light and let people know not to use this BS coin.

1

anor_wondo 3 days ago

whether you personally agree or not, a lot of people are very aware and still don't mind it. defi is permissionless, that means people are free to use whatever they want, including centralised assets

1

plgod 3 days ago

How to short sell Tether and profit if/when it crashes:

Deposit some collateral (e.g. ETH) on a lending platform like Aave or Compound
Use that collateral to borrow as much USDT as you can on that same platform.
Trade (swap) that USDT for a better stable coin like USDC or DAI
Deposit this better stable coin on your lending platform of choice. This will improve your health factor and prevent you from getting liquidated if the value of your collateral goes down.
If you wish, use that improved health factor to borrow more USDT, rinse and repeat.

In case of a USDT crash, you can simply buy back USDT for pennies to pay off your loan on the platform and withdraw all the ETH and USDC that you put on there.

won’t work if they freeze the tokens like in the article lol

1

ryebit 3 days ago

LUSD and RAI are pretty much the only stablecoins that are safe here.

LUSD is ETH only backing, with immutable contract.

RAI is (currently) ETH only, though stability mechanism is more interesting / complex.

USDC has similar blacklist feature to USDT.

Imo, this taints DAI as well, since some of it's backing is USDC. Imagine if a USDC vault was frozen like this.

1

cleanuponaisle4 4 days ago

Huh. That doesn't seem very decentralizy.

0

anor_wondo 3 days ago

what made you think it is? tether is a centralized stablecoin. have you never used defi?

2

cleanuponaisle4 3 days ago

Yes I have. I was being sarcastic.

1

McLaconicus 4 days ago

The tether team seem like lovely and really reliable chaps!

2

NorbeeNorbee 4 days ago

Ah yes the infinite printing machine called tether. From them promising to assure the robber cant use the 30m$ tether stolen from them in 2017 to inability to pass the audit, so that we know if its actually backed by $ or not, tether has it all.

Can make as much tether as you want if you dont have to back it up with cash.

1

Fivebag 4 days ago

Is this the start? 😬

1

x61tf 4 days ago

Tether has said in the past that it regularly works with regulators to supervise suspicious accounts.

0

leonidasmark 4 days ago

They can freeze accounts using their smart contract? Remind me to never use USDT again

1

PrettyBoiFlackoJodye 4 days ago

What are good alternatives ?

2

Beneficial-Ocelot470 4 days ago

Is there a way for the community to deal with hackers or fraud without relying on centralization like this?

Censorship resistance is crucial, but if it allows criminals to deal as they please, then we can be sure that regulation is going to make our life much more difficult.

1

kkkkmzmkkk 4 days ago

Tether froze three Ethereum addresses on Thursday, holding over $160 million worth of USDT.

1

CSharpSauce 4 days ago

I didn't realize blacklisting was a thing... but looking at the contract, there it is. Apparently USDC has a blacklist feature too.

3

EEmakesmecry 4 days ago

All centralized stablecoins have to support blacklisting

6

Twoehy 4 days ago

Jesus Christ. What is even the point then?

3

velly1z 3 days ago

I knew tether could blacklist. But did not realize they could actually freeze an ETH address. SMH!

1

ShadowOfHarbringer Here be shadows 4 days ago

Obviously, to destroy or break cryptocurrency so it doesn't compete with fiat money. What, did you think the point was for the things to actually work?

4

mbearss 3 days ago

How scam tether even came about is a mystery right, right?

0

EthTraderCommunity 4 days ago

Tip this post.

1

2

1 2 3

17 3

veritanuda 6 days ago

Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):

Rule #3. Titles

Submissions must use either the articles title and optionally a subtitle, or, only if neither are accurate, a suitable quote, which must:

adequately describe the content

adequately describe the content's relation to technology

be free of user editorialization or alteration of meaning.

If you have any questions, please message the moderators and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.

1

rtbot2 6 days ago

Original /r/technology thread: https://reddit.com/r/technology/comments/s209be/costa_rica_hydro_plant_gets_new_lease_on_life/

1

7mL 6 days ago

Queue the crybabies

1

seventhrty 6 days ago

A defunct hydro plant in Costa Rica is getting a new lease on life by powering crypto mining and bringing clean energy to a rapidly expanding business.

1

blueberry-yogurt 6 days ago

"Oh no, they should tear down that dam so that fish can swim freely! Bitcoin is an environmental catastrophe!"

1

AnonFor99Reasons 6 days ago

It would be nice to see a headline along the lines of "Bitcoin makes green energy economically feasible"

7

pegiewegie Tin | 5 months old 6 days ago

Electricity bills high no miners.

1

coinfeeds-bot Approved CC Bot 6 days ago

tldr; A hydroelectric power plant in Costa Rica's Poas River de Piedras provides energy to hundreds of computers wired up to the cryptocurrency mining business. More than 650 machines from 150 customers operate non-stop from eight containers powered by the plant. The plant was forced to reinvent itself after 30 years because the government stopped buying electricity during the pandemic due to surplus power supply in the Central American country.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

1

No-Froyo622 Platinum | QC: CC 116 6 days ago

In my country we have around 35 percent of electricity from hydroplants and nobody want to even hear about mining bitcoins :(

1

LegislationCoil 6 days ago

This is a great example of how crypto mining can be used to support renewable energy projects. By providing a new source of revenue for hydro plants like this, crypto mining is helping to ensure that these projects can continue to operate and provide important benefits to the environment and the community.

3

Jezzes Platinum | QC: BTC 40, GPUmining 15 | CRO 11 | Min 6 days ago

Electricity. If you sell it cheap, miners will come.

1

coinfeeds-bot 6 days ago

tldr; A hydroelectric power plant in Costa Rica's Poas River de Piedras provides energy to hundreds of computers wired up to the cryptocurrency mining business. More than 650 machines from 150 customers operate non-stop from eight containers powered by the plant. The plant was forced to reinvent itself after 30 years because the government stopped buying electricity during the pandemic due to surplus power supply in the Central American country.

This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

1

Phreesion 6 days ago

Bitcoin energy use is it’s strength.

5

Kahrahtay123 Platinum | QC: CC 187 6 days ago

And the $$ flows in like water.

1

Phreesion Bitcoiner 6 days ago

Bitcoin energy use is it’s strength. Few understand that.

1

Nozomilk Platinum | QC: CC 1349 | TraderSubs 11 6 days ago

See, Mainstream media won't even dare touch this story.

2

AutoModerator 6 days ago

Proof of Work Pros & Cons - Participate in the r/CC Cointest to potentially win moons. Prize allocations: 1st - 300, 2nd - 150, 3rd - 75.
- Competing or related projects: Proof of Work, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero.
- Official or related subreddits: r/CryptoMining, r/GPUMining, r/BitcoinMining, r/EthereumMining, r/MoneroMining.
Sort comments as controversial first by clicking here. Doesn't work on mobile.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

svanapps 6 days ago

r/CryptoMarkets 📰 r/CryptoCurrency 📰 r/crypto 📰 r/CryptoToFuture

1

4

13 4

jimhi - @jimhi 5 days ago

Honest question, is this satire?

The only hint is their mention of "KYC processes."

As an investor, I am confused who would agree to this. I would like to hear from someone who has done this.

Is there any binding legal action you could take if there is fraud? It says blended teams of anonymous and identified people but then you are just investing in the identified people and will have to go after them.

One only has to look at the history of the Silk Road to see how this goes. There was repeatedly tons of "reliable" pseudonymous sellers there who would maintain their reputation until they took a bunch of orders and pulled the rug. Over and over.

zaptheimpaler - @zaptheimpaler 5 days ago

With the amazing new technology of cryptocurrency, you can now give money to people you don't know with no legal recourse in case they rug you or funnel the money to criminals, yay!

Governments developed KYC laws beginning in the 2000s so that banks wouldn't inadvertently help criminals by laundering money or providing access to capital.

Vancouver is a city dealing with crazy housing prices and a fentanyl drug problem because of illegal money. The government is moving in precisely the opposite direction to the article - to require listing the beneficial owners of land[1], again to expose organized crime and prevent money laundering. Requiring real names is a feature, not a bug.

[1] - https://biv.com/article/2021/12/why-are-bc-institutions-hidi...

JaggerFoo - @JaggerFoo 5 days ago

Businesses in the crypto space are trending to anonymous organizations and suceeding. Take traderjoexyz.com, which does not reveal anything that most businesses do on their web page, such as office addresses, team, etc.

Only handle names (Co-founders Cryptofish & 0xMurloc) are given instead of the human names in all documents. Most ethereum based businesses (traderjoexyz is Avalanche based) have at least a white paper with the actual people behind the business/concept.

Cheers

after_care - @after_care 5 days ago

Would anyone here be comfortable using their official identity to confound a company with a pseudonymous cofounder? To me this feels like a gross asymmetrical information disclosure.

carlosdp - @carlosdp 5 days ago

A lot of assumption in this thread that the only reason to be pseudonymous is for criminality. That's not the case.

I've raised a decent bit from a well-known pseudonymous twitter account. If it's a smart contract-based investment, the blockchain secures their investment, not law, so don't need their "real" name for that.

Short of needing the name for legal reasons, why do I care what their birth name is? I know they have a certain audience in my target customer base, I know they are knowledgable about my space because I hear them talk all the time in twitter spaces.

If they want to remain pseudonymous, let them! In a world where gaining a large online presence essentially rolls the dice on whether you get cancelled for something in the future, are we really surprised people want to reclaim a bit of anonymity on the internet while still being able to build a reputation they can build on?

woodruffw - @woodruffw 5 days ago

It could be an incorrect reading on my part, but it sounds like the “capital” described in this post refers to mostly unregulated securities. I think giving an anonymous entity actual capital would probably run afoul of KYC, right?

wmf - @wmf 5 days ago

Balaji from A16Z is pushing this and I asked myself why. Then I remembered that all tokens are illegal unregistered securities under US law and the SEC is running a crypto death lottery where they choose 10% of crypto startups at random and put them out of business. Pseudonymity allows founders to walk away and start again under a different name if the eye of the SEC falls on them and A16Z is legitimizing that strategy.

kenneth - @kenneth 4 days ago

I'm a VC; there is zero chance I would ever invest in a pseudonymous founder.

That said, that doesn't mean the company and founder have to be publicly announced. I just have to know who I'm dealing with, and do my due diligence. It's totally fine for the founder to adopt a pseudonymous public persona, or for the company to remain stealth. But there is no way I'm dealing with a founder who hides their identity from their investors.

Investor-company relationships are based on trust. You can't trust people you don't know.

thom - @thom 5 days ago

Client side error. Return home. Anyone have an archive?

democracy - @democracy 5 days ago

"Most investors will predictably look at a nym’s Github to evaluate code quality and real shipping velocity."

What if I'm using self-hosted SVN?

Invictus0 - @Invictus0 5 days ago

This post raises way more questions than it answers. Has there ever been a successful company run by a pseudonymous founder in the history of business? Why is this needed now? How can this legally exist? How is such a founder going to also be a leader?

seibelj - @seibelj 5 days ago

There are many anon teams in the crypto space. More likely to rug but it is a legit strategy. Lyra.finance is a recent one, some off the top of my head are Tornado, Grin, and Whiteheart / Hegic.

Animats - @Animats 5 days ago

What's scary is that this is for real. It's becoming the new normal.

Amazon has been a big driver of anonymous business. They don't tell the customer who the real seller is, yet, when sued for liability, they claim they are merely connecting buyer and seller. Even when Amazon doesn't know who the seller is. Amazon fought liability up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, then finally settled when it looked like they were about to lose.[1] Amazon thus enabled an entire fake product industry.

We see this all the time with NFT scams. Especially the kind that are fund-raising operations for something not built yet. Those are public offerings, and when made to US persons clearly require filing with the SEC, with all the usual disclosures and financial statements. The SEC shut down the Initial Coin Offering industry back in 2018 for that sort of thing, but hasn't gotten to the forward-looking NFT industry yet. Probably because the complaints haven't started coming in yet.

[1] https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2020/09/23/product...

Show all comments on Hackernews