This is perfect, thanks. I guess i signed up for a dev kit at some point as I'm an FPGA engineer by trade and got sent a pocket dev kit for free. Was a bit of a bother trying to find a singular resource for this stuff.
I have the same thoughts. Though after seeing The Matrix recently and the recent news about Facebook's Meta (or Meta's Facebook?), I begin to see what these NFTs will be used for.
Simulacra and Simulation.
I don't think a rational mind could ever justify them from an efficiency standpoint. Just like any rational mind couldn't justify a glorified linked-list.
But we're not rational creatures.
> Don't they only make money off the initial sale?
In some cases there may be a royalty to the original artist on resale. But even if there isn't, just as with dividend-free stock offerings, the existence of a resale market means that the artist (or company) can expect to receive more money from the initial sale since buyers have the prospect of recuperating some of their initial expense by reselling the NFTs (or shares) later.
NFTs have absolutely nothing to do with artists or art. They are mainly a scheme to launder money.
Please note that the poster whining about the IRS provision didn't complained about sales tax or income tax, but the need to report transactions over 10k to the IRS. The IRS moved in to plug a loophole, and the NFT gang reacted to it like vampires exposed to sunlight.
> NFTs have absolutely nothing to do with artists or art.
That's an incredibly ignorant remark.
Art has been one of the more prominent uses of NFTs that emerged this year. Despite the relative immaturity of the technology, it has already proven transformative for many artists and non-profit art organizations.
Right, that must be why this is a discussion on the IRS requiring people to report transactions to tackle money laundering, and how that justifies protests, and not art history.
> Art has been one of the more prominent uses of NFTs that emerged this year.
"Art" has been the pretext. The prominent use of NFTs is to perform transactions.
Don't be disingenuous, and tone down the arrogant gaslighting.
Not sure how this is gaslighting, arrogant, or disingenuous.
You may not agree with this use of the technology, but it does not mean the behaviour is primarily criminal. It can be likened to a traditional art market, where artists attempt to earn revenue for their work by distributing and selling limited signed editions, but in this case the signature is cryptographically verified.
> You may not agree with this use of the technology, but it does not mean the behaviour is primarily criminal.
Again, don't be disingenuous. You're literally commenting on a post on how the IRS requires transactions over 10k to be reported with the goal of fighting money laundering, and how that raises "alarm bells". This is not about paying artists. This is not about paying taxes. This is about a requirement to report potentially illegal transactions within the scope of money laundering.
Trying to spin this to be about art and artists is profoundly disingenuous, and launching ad hominem attacks on those who point out this fact just shows how weak are your arguments.
> NFTs have absolutely nothing to do with artists or art.
Suggesting that such a remark is ignorant—i.e. lacking knowledge—is not ad hominem. The arguments in favour of this usage of the technology are quite well laid out in the articles I linked, should you choose to read them.
NFTs are just a new way to conduct the same money laundering schemes which, loopholes and the lack of regulation, are easier to hide and exploit.
This recent change adopted by the IRS is just a way to address that loophole, and lo and behold it's spun as a deadly attack on the purposefulness of the entire technology.
> I didn't get why prominent artists I follow are getting into it in the first place.
Power law. Prominent artists will move to cash in now, as they can hoover up 90% of whatever legitimate business there is. The remaining 10% will be fought over by no-name artists who enter the scene too late.
> I understand it's a massive scam but I didn't get why prominent artists I follow are getting into it in the first place.
Even highly respected artists are not immune to the appeal of making an easy buck. For instance, as legend would have it, Pablo Picasso created his "Poor Robbie" engraving with the express purpose of monetizing it, so that his close friend Robert Godet could quite literally use his printing press to whip out yet another "limited edition" print whenever he was short on cash and needed a quick buck.
I'd like to agree, but when this was a major magazine front page this month, I don't think I can.https://i.imgur.com/0kQQMcS.png
I personally know too many people who believe this shit. You can't say anything about it though or you're called scum and toxic. That too is healthy to them.
