Just Five Words Sell for over $2m - Twitter madness....

[Distinctly Average]

Summary

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has listed his first ever tweet for sale, with bids reaching $2m (£1.4m).

. 

 

Quotes

Quote

 

"Just setting up my twttr," the post, sent from Mr Dorsey's account in March 2006, reads.

It will be sold as a non-fungible token (NFT) - a unique digital certificate that states who owns a photo, video or other form of online media.

But the post will remain publicly available on Twitter even after it has been auctioned off.

The buyer will receive a certificate, digitally signed and verified by Mr Dorsey, as well as the metadata of the original tweet. The data will include information such as the time the tweet was posted and its text contents.

 

 

 

My thoughts

Maybe I just don’t get it. Strange assets sell for huge money to the ultra rich all the time. In this case however I just cannot get my head around anyone wanting this. It is to my eyes, insanity and more of a comment on just how strange our world has become. It will probably mean other posts will end up for sale though I doubt any will reach this kind of value. 

 

Sources

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56307153

 

 

 

[gloop]

Smart from the owner, dumb from the buyer. Sure, there’s a small bit of sentimental value but I’d damn well prefer having €2 million in my pocket compared to the first tweet on Twitter. 

[duncannah]

Get that bag I guess, that's all I can say

[Murasaki]

[TetraSky]

But... Why? Whoever paid 2M for that is absolutely insane and should probably check-in the mental asylum for an evaluation. Lord knows they can afford it.

 

That said... Why do I feel like this is just powered by "fomo" and people thinking this will be the next big thing after bitcoin so they want in thinking it will make them money in 10 years for being within the first few to have "purchased" this stuff?

Either that or rich people not knowing what to do with their money.

[Thaldor]

4 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

My thoughts

Maybe I just don’t get it. Strange assets sell for huge money to the ultra rich all the time. In this case however I just cannot get my head around anyone wanting this. It is to my eyes, insanity and more of a comment on just how strange our world has become. It will probably mean other posts will end up for sale though I doubt any will reach this kind of value.

As @Grand Admiral Thrawn said, value is very odd concept.

 

IMO the best example of "value" are diamonds, they are graded by their color (as in how pure they are; Clearer and so purer are better), uniformity (no cracks, no huge pressure differences etc.), size and how well they are cut, and with grade comes value.

We can grow almost every way possible better diamonds in laboratories, purer, bigger, more uniform, optically perfect, we can even craft diamonds to fit uses by introducing impurities to them to make them conductive, create internal stress to make them harder and more durable or just make them dirt cheap to be crushed to be used in tools.

But lab-grown diamonds are worthless because some poor fellow in some poor country didn't dig them out of the ground and some guy refuses to grind and laser mark them in a certain way because some poor fellow didn't dig them from ground.

So what does create the value of a diamond: It's color, size, way it bends light, it's usefulness or is their value just made up bullshit and actual crap is more valuable?

 

But as with anything value is just what someone is willing to pay for something and it's not stupid who asks but who pays.

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

But... Why? Whoever paid 2M for that is absolutely insane and should probably check-in the mental asylum for an evaluation. Lord knows they can afford it.

People buy art. That's not a new thing.

 

The new thing is the NFT, and that's even worse than the current cryptocoin mining. NFT's for all intents are another "cryptocoin" but instead of having a decimalized value, the value is the thing itself. (Thus answering the question of "what is the true value of a cryptocoin") and in theory, yes NFT's might solve a specific problem in preventing the counterfeit/duplication of a specific art item.

 

But let's be serious, NFT is just a digital version of baseball card collecting. To most people the cards are nothing more than paper. Some people want to collect the things, and to them it has value. NFT is basically the same idea except the authentic chain of custody is stored on blockchain.

 

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

That said... Why do I feel like this is just powered by "fomo" and people thinking this will be the next big thing after bitcoin so they want in thinking it will make them money in 10 years for being within the first few to have "purchased" this stuff?

Either that or rich people not knowing what to do with their money.

That's exactly it. That's what people do with Ethereum. 

 

A way to look at is the same way people look at domain names. 99.999% of domain names are worthless, but certain TLD's and short domain names are worth more. Being the original owner of nissan.com doesn't entitle the Nissan company to it, hence why they're at nissan-global.com instead, but most people are just going to type "nissan" in the address bar or google, and if the company is legit, they will be at the top of the search engine. So for all you know or care, the domain could be nissan-is-totally-a-good-company.co.jp and most people wouldn't even second-guess the domain.

 

So NFT's, are in the land-rush stage. People want to put everything on it that has a perceived value, and likewise buyers want to be the ones that "own it", and this might eventually lead to a change in IP law where the owner of the NFT might be the legal owner of a brand/image, and used instead of trademark law.

 

I sure hope it doesn't. This is quite the waste of energy, but rich people have never particularly cared about their environmental footprint

 

[Heliian]

You're talking about a guy who drinks bleach(or salt water, whatever), there is no logic, they're rich and bats hit crazy.

 

It's not unlike the art world where the ugliest pos wall hanging could sell for millions because of its provenance or just because somebody thinks it's worth that much to them.

 

I think all of it is mostly dumb but there is the possibility you'll get a real Mona Lisa once in a while.  A tweet is definitely not it. 

[Jtalk4456]

7 hours ago, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

For example, what value do celebrity autographs hold?

I'd argue for autographs, there's a real memory and connection there. So and so actually touched this, I actually spoke to so and so in person, they actually spoke back to me, etc. That signature is proof someone was physically there in a sense. It's real and tangible. If the power goes out you can still play catch with that babe ruth signed ball. Can't look at that tweet though. 

This however feels incredibly impersonal. No contact, no smile, no talking. and I mean is he really even famous like that? he's just a CEO. he didn't say it to you or anyone you knew, you're just buying a certificate that says you paid 2 million for a screenshot. And it might be one thing if the tweet was gone after that (pretending no internet forever copies or wayback machine), but the tweet is still there. So i can go screenshot it myself. Personally I feel a lot more proud being the guy who got the screenshot for free than the one who had to pay 2 mil for it...

[poochyena]

7 hours ago, Grand Admiral Thrawn said:

This is nothing new. For example, what value do celebrity autographs hold? Is it the value of the pen or the ink? Should signed book be more expensive than just a regular one if they are used for the same purpose even without the signature?

 

People assign too much value to simple things just because someone famous used them.

 

I still remember someone in Poland sold a sack of dirt that one of the presidents (presumably) walked on for 3000 USD.

lol

Not a good analogy at all because only real signed autographs mean anything. No one cares about a digital copy of a signature, which is what this basically is. Each signature is unique. This has nothing special about it, its not even *that* old.

 

[Heliian]

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

So what does create the value of a diamond: It's color, size, way it bends light, it's usefulness or is their value just made up bullshit and actual crap is more valuable?

Debeers and the rest of the diamond syndicate. They're not as rare or as valuable as they'd like you to believe.  The whole "diamonds are a girls best friend" thing.

[Jtalk4456]

1 minute ago, Heliian said:

Debeers and the rest of the diamond syndicate. They're not as rare or as valuable as they'd like you to believe.  The whole "diamonds are a girls best friend" thing.

that and it's amazing hardness, mostly the syndicate though. good news is lab created are becoming far more popular

[The_russian]

24 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Money laundering?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say it, that was the first thing I though of when reading an article on NFTs and this topic. In my mind that makes the most amount of sense why someone would pay that much for something digital that everyone else can also see. It's not like the buyer even gets exclusive access to view or use something. 

[Arika]

This is stupid

[Giganthrax]

I'm guessing it was just someone who wants to boast how rich they are to their friends. 

 

Weird flex, but ok.  

[Fasterthannothing]

You people are completely missing the entire point of NFTs! Imagine the possibility of knowing whatever virtual item you have is real and not a fake. Digital items are so easy to steal, fake, or manipulate. Take for example deep fakes in a few years how will we tell real from fake? NFTs of course by having a blockchain to verify the authenticity of the digital item you never have to worry about it being fake. Or take for example copy right protection. How can you make a game, movie, or song so it can't be reproduced except by the original artist? You use block chain to verify the digital signature of the item because the digital signature that the blockchain hands out can't be hacked or duplicated. So something like say a game won't ever be able to be pirated again. Because the key that you would use to play the game would be verified on the blockchain. Which is why their are even entire virtual worlds built on blockchain. So when VR gets huge and everyone is spending all their time in VR like ready player one all those items are secure and always legitimate. This can even apply to things in the real world like tickets, shoes, art ect. Everything in the future could get a digital signature attached when purchased and then transfer that to the buyer to verify its authenticity. You can't replicate it so their can't ever be a knock off sold of it. Anyway in regards to the tweet yes paying that amount of money is stupid but what the buyer was saying was I believe this idea is valuable and I want to make history.

[Arika]

3 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

You people are completely missing the entire point of NFTs! Imagine the possibility of knowing whatever virtual item you have is real and not a fake. Digital items are so easy to steal, fake, or manipulate. Take for example deep fakes in a few years how will we tell real from fake? NFTs of course by having a blockchain to verify the authenticity of the digital item you never have to worry about it being fake. Or take for example copy right protection. How can you make a game, movie, or song so it can't be reproduced except by the original artist? You use block chain to verify the digital signature of the item because the digital signature that the blockchain hands out can't be hacked or duplicated. So something like say a game won't ever be able to be pirated again. Because the key that you would use to play the game would be verified on the blockchain. Which is why their are even entire virtual worlds built on blockchain. So when VR gets huge and everyone is spending all their time in VR like ready player one all those items are secure and always legitimate. This can even apply to things in the real world like tickets, shoes, art ect. Everything in the future could get a digital signature attached when purchased and then transfer that to the buyer to verify its authenticity. You can't replicate it so their can't ever be a knock off sold of it. Anyway in regards to the tweet yes paying that amount of money is stupid but what the buyer was saying was I believe this idea is valuable and I want to make history.

Blockchain can fuck off. 

[Fasterthannothing]

24 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Blockchain can fuck off. 

What made you so salty about blockchain? Blockchain is the future with everything going more and more digital blockchain is going to be in everything. 

[Lurick]

3 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

What made you so salty about blockchain? Blockchain is the future with everything going more and more digital blockchain is going to be in everything. 

Probably something about mining and not understanding the two are not one in the same.

[Sauron]

On 3/6/2021 at 8:17 PM, gloop said:

Smart from the owner, dumb from the buyer. Sure, there’s a small bit of sentimental value but I’d damn well prefer having €2 million in my pocket compared to the first tweet on Twitter. 

"owning" doesn't even mean anything in this context, you don't have access to the account that posted it nor can you control who sees it

[Arika]

8 hours ago, SlidewaysZ said:

What made you so salty about blockchain? Blockchain is the future with everything going more and more digital blockchain is going to be in everything. 

8 hours ago, Lurick said:

Probably something about mining and not understanding the two are not one in the same.

 

The technology is fine by itself, i'm just sick of hearing about it and how everyone treats it like the next coming of christ and that it will solve everything in technology and is the "future". It has it's uses, but it is not as prolific as everyone seems to try to make it out to be.

 

I've seen people (some on this forum) unironically say that blockchain is going to replace:

• Banks (not online or in person banking, actual banks)
• HTTPS
• Cellular phone towers
• Cloud computing
• Cloud storage
• Windows
• Linux
• Social media
• Youtube
• The internet

 

So yes, i'm salty about it because it's breeding a new form of elitists who reply to everything with "but blockchain".

[Lurick]

Just now, Arika S said:

 

The technology is fine by itself, i'm just sick of hearing about it and how everyone treats it like the next coming of christ and that it will solve everything in technology and is the "future". It has it's uses, but it is not as prolific as everyone seems to try to make it out to be.

 

I've seen people (some on this forum) unironically say that blockchain is going to replace:

• Banks (not online or in person banking, actual banks)
• HTTPS
• Cellular phone towers
• Cloud computing
• Cloud storage
• Windows
• Linux
• Social media
• Youtube
• The internet

 

So yes, i'm salty about it because it's breeding a new for of elitists who reply to everything with "but blockchain".

It's going to replace LTTstore.com  

Fair enough, it has gone a bit crazy with blockchain everything =/

[Sauron]

12 minutes ago, SlidewaysZ said:

What made you so salty about blockchain? Blockchain is the future with everything going more and more digital blockchain is going to be in everything. 

The blockchain has some legitimate uses but it's far from being something that is ever "going to be in everything". Plenty of things just have no reason to use it whatsoever.

[Fasterthannothing]

52 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

The technology is fine by itself, i'm just sick of hearing about it and how everyone treats it like the next coming of christ and that it will solve everything in technology and is the "future". It has it's uses, but it is not as prolific as everyone seems to try to make it out to be.

 

I've seen people (some on this forum) unironically say that blockchain is going to replace:

• Banks (not online or in person banking, actual banks)
• HTTPS
• Cellular phone towers
• Cloud computing
• Cloud storage
• Windows
• Linux
• Social media
• Youtube
• The internet

 

So yes, i'm salty about it because it's breeding a new for of elitists who reply to everything with "but blockchain".

Well I mean you can use it for a lot of stuff. It's not just some random idea there are a unimaginable number of possibilities with block chain. Yes not everything needs it but it's wrong to say that it's not going to be prolific. Lots and lots things will run on blockchain. 

[Fasterthannothing]

58 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The blockchain has some legitimate uses but it's far from being something that is ever "going to be in everything". Plenty of things just have no reason to use it whatsoever.

Curious what you think would be some things that block chain should never be used in?