This complexity is also a reason why a lot of games don't allow player-to-player transactions; only transactions with the game itself (which tend to flow slightly unidirectionally). Once you allow player-to-player transactions, you've built an economy, and those things are complex. All you want to do is allow players to trade stickers, and the next thing you know you've got some Keynesian PM arguing for barbarian stimulus while some Hayekian dev is screaming his head off that barbarian inflation will destroy the userbase.
The big issue, and what public perception doesn't really get, is that most of these games are still very heavily reliant on a functional client implementation. That centralization will make it such that all they need to do is flag origin UTXO (for UTXO based chains), or follow destination addresses (smart contracts can do lots of "fun" things). This means one of the primary uses, indisputable _control_ of an in-game item, doesn't have to be recognized by the client. You could potentially copy the client and run a closed server, but that will likely just lead to a fractured player base, and the version with the most resources will likely win. Accountability is going to be a huge aspect of this, but it might make the case for the gummit to force companies to use blockchain based licensing in order to allow people to buy and sell copies of games instead of the vendor lock in we have now (e.g. Steam). Without doubt, only few exceptions for public blockchains exist that justify any of its existence in the first place. Cross border remittance amongst _n_ countries, their central banks, and chartered banks on a proof of stakes system is one. In game assets as proof of control is another. Whether or not it's worth a half an iPad in carbon emissions to do it is another question.
Harambe is on Wall Street. I can't believe I am actually typing this. They also surrounded the bull with bananas
So Trump's new media venture is going to spike way up and then come crashing down, but I have no idea how high it'll go or when the turnaround will start. Ton of money to be made if you time it right, ton of money to be lost if you don't.
I saw it this morning at $14 and thought about buying in, but thought "Nah..." Oops. After hours it topped $65.
Any news on what happened with this? I very quickly took a look on OpenSea and it looks like it didn't fully mint even through the whitelist members, but I don't know what happened after that.
I'll ask my friend. I don't know exactly. And I don't know how any of it works. What does fully mint mean? Does that just mean that as many were sold as expected in the early days? Based on the OpenSea page, it looks like traffic picked up a lot today? https://opensea.io/collection/doodles-official My understanding was the locked Discord users, which I guess was the whitelist, could purchase up to 5 NFT Doodles during the designated time frame and day. These users had given their routing number/account number. (I know that's not the right terms - crypto account something something eth?) Then, the Discord was (is) open to the public to purchase. The initial mint just happened last Sunday, I think. If you're on Discord, you could join and ask. Discord.gg/Doodles I think once it opened to the public, the original whitelisters have a special channel access but the rest is public.
Think of it as a limited run. When you create an NFT from nothing, it's called "minting"... or creating. It usually comes at a cost, depending what blockchain and tech you're using. If you're doing it on Ethereum, it's fucking expensive, so you may only want to mint/create it when someone buys it, rather than pre-minting them all and having them sit on the shelf not being sold.
And I should mention that the amount of NFTs in a run is usually an arbitrary number, much like an artists limited print run, not a technology limitation.
Yeah the whitelist members I believe were supposed to buy up 5k of the 10k offering and then when it went public, the rest was supposed to be bought up. If I'm reading it correctly, they have sold 4.3k of the 10k they offered, which definitely isn't bad. Looks like the majority are going for 1-1.8 ETH a piece. Not sure what they were selling them for when they started.
Actually you do own the NFT's you buy and the blockchain entry is just the record that the item is 100% authentic and 100% belongs to you. Although I know the meme is, "well I can just copy and paste these, what are people doing" having proof you own something and not being able to fake ownership or have someone take ownership from you without permission is something people with huge piles of money care about. I can go out and buy a Picasso and have no clue whether it's actually his, whether it's a fake, whether the professionals will agree it's an original piece, etc etc. Using blockchain eliminates most of those concerns.
But you own neither the physical art itself (because it's digital and everything is a copy) nor the copyright. An NFT is like owning something that says the Picasso in the MOMA is real. Ok, it's real, it's still not yours.
I believe the price was .123 ETH at whitelist mint if I'm converting correctly. It was a little over $500 each.
Nah, they can actually have the "art" in the NFT payload itself. You'll notice the small and low bandwidth quality of the doodles... that's by design. Last time I checked, if you want to store 5MB of shit in the Ethereum, it'd cost you about $500k. Because of this, they USUALLY refer to something other than the NFT itself, but that isn't a requirement. The key is that the NFT is described by the smart contracts within it. Like any contract, the possibilities are almost infinite. You can make the NFT represent whatever you want within those boundaries, and you have proof of ownership of the NFT itself.
Ownership has varied definition and value. An NFT could represent the title/ownership of a car. It has value, there is only one, and you can prove you own it via the NFT. An NFT could also represent an NBA 20 second video clip that is posted all over the Internet, but the NBA has said, "here, you gave us money, it's now yours, but you don't own the broadcast rights to it". It's digital, and out there, so you may own it, but not practically, as it's everywhere and people have ready access to it. So yeah, congrats, you officially own it, but I would say that there is very limited value in it other than to that person. It's like buying a piece of memorabilia or something, but less so, because everyone else has access to it already, unlike a game-worn jersey. An NFT could also represent a cute little digital CryptoKitty, where the pixel art is in the NFT itself, and therefore free for everyone to see and look at because it's in the blockchain itself. And then there's the whole "who's to say you own the physical thing in the first place and have the right to transfer ownership via NFT?" What if I made you an NFT that said you owned the Mona Lisa? How much value is there in that? NFT's are very contextual. They could be a gift card type thing that you can redeem for something else, like entrance to a show, or a rebate on something in-store. For instance, if Gamestop issues all shareholders a "$250 NFT", or "redeem this NFT for a Ryan Cohen bobblehead", that's yet another scenario.
I think part of this whole tech is that people are trying to figure it out, and there are some stupid use cases (to me, anyway) where people that don't get it but have money are engaging because they don't know any better, they want to be cool, or FOMO, or something. Some of the early examples are going to be stupid and people will look back and go "what the fuck was everyone thinking?", JUST like Beanie Babies, but there will be some pretty reasonable uses for it as well as time goes on. I mean, the Wu Tang Clan private album just got sold on NFT. Congrats! That's kind of an interesting scenario where you can prove part ownership of that album. I can totally see super fans jumping on board.