Let's say you mint some sort of digital asset of value inside of a video game. Maybe it's the Pink Cadillac I mentioned. It has no set price value, but it does have value, potentially, due to its scarcity or what it represents. Maybe you have to grind for 1k hours in the game to get it. But if we adopt a "play to earn" economy, then that Pink Cadillac is now something that can be sold on a secondary market. Someone with cash can now buy that PC even though they don't have the hours invested to earn one. That is now a digital asset of value. The US Government is now expanding beyond securities and stablecoins, and are considering this use case to be one that requires regulatory oversight. Because it's a digital asset of value that you're selling (or trading), normal payment processors are not able to make that transaction and still be compliant. Stripe, etc, don't have the proper licensing. And that's for using fiat transactions. If you were using crypto or trading for other digital assets of value, Tillia is the only one, right now, who is compliant, due to their association with JP Morgan and their licensing. 99% of the shit you read about online about people selling NFTs and making bank is out of compliance, and is driving a ton of legal action from DOJ, etc. Just google "opensea doj sec". Also take a look at the latest IRS draft that now considers NFTs as digital assets of value that must be reported and taxed.
Yeesh, I better make all my money in the "real" world because the last ~10 comments are WAY over my pea brain.
To be clear, that secondary market, like OpenSea or some other, is where you can buy/sell/trade digital assets for cash/crypto/other assets. That is where the real money comes in.
The digital asset economy of video games is a multi multi multi billion dollar industry. There's a reason JP Morgan and others are hugely interested in tapping into it. Just look at all the stupid money spent on pokemon, or loot boxes... purely trading cards of no utility. As digital assets move towards utility or become "legally" transferable, that marketplace will only grow.
I get the purpose of a secondary market, but given that the value of the assets themselves remains intrinsically tied to the product of their origin, I see no value in making these secondary markets decentralized and blockchainified.
Holy fuckin shit. DID YOU JUST GO CRYPTO BRO? DID YOU JUST CONVERT US ALL INTO CRYPTO BROS? All kidding aside, that is wildly interesting, and makes a ton of sense. Your group is laying the foundations for more financial exchanges out of the attention economy, which is pretty fucking wild considering that's still not considered real by a healthy swath of the population. So, playing this out a few years down the line, you could re-enact the WoW episode of South Park, but instead of a massively upgraded character, it just became more straightforward to liquidate that asset for cash or other curriencies. To Juice's point, sure, but like....it can be a lot smoother and if you had more fluid currency exchanges, then you would earn more consistent revenue. Also, the asset creation could be done in places where the purchase power is low, but the acumen is high, like middle schools or Nigeria. I think about some of the costs of doing business in a place like Honduras, versus a digital infrastructure that renders a lot of that moot. I think some of the confusion for me is around the notion that the value of these assets is still wildly subjective to the environment and individual. Ie, it's more art than commodity. I get the journey from value to a specific community inside a given system to straight cash homie needs to be regulated, and the best thing to have on your side is cash to back whatever it is. The easiest way I can analogize it is converting reputations points into dollars. You'd figure out how to create reps (Tit.ty. Pic.tures), and then trade/exchange them for like....better reps (say with cool comments or from mods) that have more value. Usually more scarce=more value. Then you'd trade your reps for TittyPictureCoins, and those coins function as in-store (or in-network) credit or can be exchaned for cash.
Fucking casual. I do see some limitations to the value, because of the environments themselves. IE, folks don't play Halo or StarCraft the way they used to. It's kind of scary to realize that video game companies have perfected their addictive nature to the point that companies like JP Morgan see how to extract billions of dollars from the time spent in them. I think this works better with stuff like Fortnite or even Minecraft, where that product can expand, shift and diversify in a zillion different directions, on multiple platforms/devices. I can recreate La Pieta in Minecraft, or I can pay $6 to have a middle schooler from Malaysia do it, and they probably got school credit for it. I pay $6, the Malay kid gets the equivalent in Minecraft money or local currency, and the entire transation is backed by JP Morgan coin? Makes sense, to an extent. I think part of this requires an understanding of how immersive and how much sheer time can be sunk into these environments.
You're in the video game headspace. I don't care about that, really. That's up to the developer. But if the developer wants to take advantage of those secondary markets in some way, go nuts... we've got the toolset for you. But what I'm really interested in is turning the deed to your house or car into a tokenized asset, and having instantaneous settlement. The Japanese market has been pumping billions of dollars/yen a month doing just that right now, using the ODX (Osaka Digital Exchange). I built the institutional custodial crypto wallet that they use for that system. And right now, the teams I'm working with are transferring global cash, M1, internationally, without counterparties or collateral... all because of tokenized assets. Imagine getting your SWIFT transfer immediately, rather than waiting a few hours to a few days to have some lackey in the back trust it enough to authorize its clearance. That is happening right now.
The concern I have there is....essentially wagering with it, or day trading with it. It's fine if it's an "imaginary" asset, but I can see tremendous issues with being able to settle on a major asset like a house in seconds. I'm thinking about my friends during the Great Recession whose mortgages were sold and the companies who bought them fucked around and found out....or falsely put them in collections, because the exchange didn't fully process all the paperwork or in-process payments, that kind of shit.
https://www.bis.org/ This is the real target that benefits from crypto tech, and what we're tapping into right now. It's a big fucking deal in banking, and represents a paradigm shift, for the better.
Take the financial component of any transaction and make it trustworthy and instantaneous. Imagine buying a car. Let's say you want to buy a car, and the guy wants $50k for it. You can't do cash, so he'll take a cashier's check or a bank note, right? Right? Fuck no... they're too easily faked. Using a crypto based closing system provides that immediate and verified payment process for you without having any kind of escrow while you wait for funds to clear. It's not a standalone process, it's a replacement/improvement for part of the existing process.
But those are centralized as well. A property deed is only as relevant as the legal authority that issued it, so again what is the value of making it decentralized. I can see the value in adding tech to these transactions, but all the value strikes me as residing in speeding up the processes and removing friction; not in adding blockchain or a trustless ledger.
They are not centralized. If you bank with one bank, and the seller with another, how is that centralized? Here's an example of an NFT house sale. https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/the-first-nft-home-just-sold-for-175000/437522 Again, it's not your typical standalone OpenSea NFT sale.
Again, please go read this pilot that SIngapore is working on... project Guardian. https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-r...industry-to-pilot-use-cases-in-digital-assets It describes how it is decentralizing such things, and the use cases/benefits of doing so.
You can tokenize and transact the deed as an NFT, but only in the context of the Recorder of Deeds recognizing the NFT as representing the deed. The second the Recorder of Deeds declares that the NFT doesn't represent the deed, or disputes a transaction on the blockchain as illegitimate, the NFT becomes meaningless. The central authority of the Recorder of Deeds has all of the power, and so the secondary market is only trustless given the assumption that you already trust the Recorder of Deeds implicitly.
It's San Fransisco. I'm sure they had to ascertain he wasn't having a mental health crisis and was only trying to show Mr Pelosi his new hammer. Then they had to determine if he was an oppressed minority or not. Then they had to radio HQ and ask permission to intervene or wait for the social workers to arrive. These things take time. But, with the in home attack of the spouse of the third most powerful person in the country by a hammer wielding nut bar, I think SF has achieved it's goal of becoming a third world city. Good for them, I guess.
San Francisco's violent crime rate is right in line with Miami and San Antonio, at about ~1/3 the rate of Memphis and Kansas City. It's bad for property crime, but still slightly better than Memphis. In both violent crime and property crime, the safest large city in America remains... Irvine, California.