[Discussion] Cryptocurrency

Cryptocurrency! Either it's going to disrupt everything and usher in a new era of artistic and consumer freedom, or it'll hasten the climate apocalypse while largely benefitting a tiny number of investors. Let's yell about it!

Hey, are ya gonna make it?

The SEC recently announced that it was going to investigate and crackdown more on crypto fraud, which is like half of the non buying-illegal-stuff market, so I imagine that may be fueling part of the disruption. It doesn't make sense as a speculative investment if the main driver of new fools entering the system dries up.

EDIT: nah, it’s not worth debating whether or not an obvious scam is a scam.

"As of 12:00pm EST Friday, May 13, 2022, the USDC reserve consisted of $11.6 billion cash (22.9%), $39.0 billion U.S. Treasuries (77.1%), for a total of $50.6 billion (100%), and there were 50.6 billion USDC in circulation"

Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

That page is literally run by the company managing the coin, which is the equivalent of “I’ve got a bridge to sell you, just look at this site run by my bridge-selling company…”

Look, believe what you want to believe and keep hodlin’, my interest in crypto runs only as deep as how funny it is when these coins keep turning out to be scams and rug pulls, so my attention span in debating about them is somewhat limited.

There's a really good documentary on HBO Max about the previous version of crypto currency called Beanie Mania, if anyone is looking for a guide on where the crypto scam will inevitably end.

jontra wrote:

"As of 12:00pm EST Friday, May 13, 2022, the USDC reserve consisted of $11.6 billion cash (22.9%), $39.0 billion U.S. Treasuries (77.1%), for a total of $50.6 billion (100%), and there were 50.6 billion USDC in circulation"

Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Ya pretty much agree with this.

Unless there's something else nefarious about the accounting USDC is pretty straight forward.

You buy it they buy USD 1:1.

As for 'crypto tanking' it was pretty much going along with the stock market.... Then came the separate Luna crash.

Not sure about NFTs being banned/regulated makes much sense to me either. I could invest all my savings in collectibles tomorrow. I see this as no different and I don't see anyone clamouring to regulate Pokemon cards.

I think there has to be a certain amount of accepted risk. Example being the Gov reminding everyone playing in this space there's going to be no bailouts or being made whole. Play at your own risk.

Yeah, Circle is about as boring and conventional a company as you're likely to find in the crypto space. They're licensed money transmitters in the US and they get Grant Thornton to attest to their reserves every month, so your money is probably safer there than in your bank.

That article links to a great CS lecture.

As an immortal, I am still butthurt by those tulips.

Pretty good video on legal issues surrounding NFTs.

My understanding is that the contract is everything. No contract, no value...

Someone Stole Seth Green's Bored Ape, Which Was Supposed To Star In His New Show

BuzzFeed News wrote:

Actor and producer Seth Green was robbed of several NFTs this month after succumbing to a phishing scam that inadvertently threw a monkey wrench into the plan for his new animated series. The forthcoming show was developed from characters in Green’s expansive NFT collection, but in light of the recent hack, the project’s blatant crypto optimism has become a tragically ironic reminder of the industry’s shadier side.

On Saturday, Green teased a trailer for White Horse Tavern at the NFT conference VeeCon. A twee comedy, the show seems to be based on the question, “What if your friendly neighborhood bartender was Bored Ape Yacht Club #8398?” In an interview with entrepreneur and crypto hype man Gary Vaynerchuk, Green said he wanted to imagine a universe where “it doesn't matter what you look like, what only matters is your attitude.”

Unfortunately for Green, what also matters is copyright law. And when the actor’s NFT collection was pilfered by a scammer in early May, he lost the commercial rights to his show’s cartoon protagonist, a scruffy Bored Ape named Fred Simian, whose likeness and usage rights now belong to someone else.

“I bought that ape in July 2021, and have spent the last several months developing and exploiting the IP to make it into the star of this show,” Green told Vaynerchuk. “Then days before — his name is Fred by the way — days before he’s set to make his world debut, he’s literally kidnapped.” Green did not respond to a tweet from BuzzFeed News regarding the show.

NFT comedy never gets old.

How do you steal a digital picture? And who cares if you do?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

How do you steal a digital picture? And who cares if you do?

Using it for money making purposes is a little different than making a copy and using it as your own twitter avatar. That lawsuit could get kind of interesting in a train wreck sort of way. I'm curious what the "artwork's" original author thinks.

Mixolyde wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

How do you steal a digital picture? And who cares if you do?

Using it for money making purposes is a little different than making a copy and using it as your own twitter avatar. That lawsuit could get kind of interesting in a train wreck sort of way. I'm curious what the "artwork's" original author thinks.

This isn't exact, but it's kind of like stealing a copyright - the thief "stole" the rights to use that picture however they saw fit, then turned around and sold those rights to someone else for $100k. The person the thief stole it from had spent a year or so working on a project involving that exact picture, and now that he no longer has the rights to it that could be problematic. For him, at least. For the rest of us it's just kind of hilarious.

And who the heck would pay $100k for that, anyway, unless they knew what it was and were intentionally trying to screw that guy over?

The contract is everything. I'd love to see the one behind that NFT. I bet it refers to the "holder" or some such. It's probably notionally similar to bearer bonds or the like. You get it, you own it...

Sure, but to my knowledge we haven't seen anything about these "contracts" actually hold up in a court. These idiots say, "code is law," but it isn't. The law is law, and good lawyers could probably shred all of this bullsh*t.

Also, if a thief sells me stolen artwork, it's not "finders keepers." Something is going to happen when the legitimate owner comes after me.

The new owner's claim to the copyright seems shaky, at best, given how it was obtained. Seth could just move ahead with his project and let the lawyers figure it out.

However, his project is based on "crypto optimism", and the irony of exposing the weakness of blockchain tech, and NFT IP in particular, make him understandably hesitant to proceed.

Maybe if changed the show to be an ironic take down of crypto, instead...

Robear wrote:

The contract is everything. I'd love to see the one behind that NFT. I bet it refers to the "holder" or some such. It's probably notionally similar to bearer bonds or the like. You get it, you own it...

This is going to be the plot of the inevitable reboot of Die Hard, isn't it?

Everything I’ve seen from non-crypto bro sources says that nft ownership only grants non-commercial rights to the art so Green’s project may have been on shaky legal ground to begin with. I would imagine that he had cleared it with his lawyers first, though.

The perspective I've seen from a lawyer is that NFTs are simply an expression of the attached contract. No contract, no rights at all, would be the minimum.

Imagine if a store could generate a unique contract for every TV sold, and you had to go through it to make sure they were not just selling you the right to use it at their discretion, or if they specifically invalidated the warranty, or if you had to come in and dance for them every month to maintain possession, or if they could simply sell it out from under you. That's NFTs.

My personal favorite are the poison-pill NFTs that steal your entire wallet if you interact with them in any way.

Robear wrote:

The perspective I've seen from a lawyer is that NFTs are simply an expression of the attached contract. No contract, no rights at all, would be the minimum.

Imagine if a store could generate a unique contract for every TV sold, and you had to go through it to make sure they were not just selling you the right to use it at their discretion, or if they specifically invalidated the warranty, or if you had to come in and dance for them every month to maintain possession, or if they could simply sell it out from under you. That's NFTs.

Oh, that's called an iPhone.

OG_slinger wrote:
Robear wrote:

The contract is everything. I'd love to see the one behind that NFT. I bet it refers to the "holder" or some such. It's probably notionally similar to bearer bonds or the like. You get it, you own it...

This is going to be the plot of the inevitable reboot of Die Hard, isn't it?

Hans wrote:

It's Christmas Theo! It's the time of miracles. So be of good cheer and call me when you hit the last lock.

It's Lethal Weapon 2 but instead of Krugerrands it's a briefcase full of USB sticks, and at the end of the film Riggs gets to keep the whole suitcase but discovers the market already tanked and its contents are worthless.

imbiginjapan wrote:

It's Lethal Weapon 2 but instead of Krugerrands it's a briefcase full of USB sticks, and at the end of the film Riggs gets to keep the whole suitcase but discovers the market already tanked and its contents are worthless.

There's even a South African villain.