Fuck it, why even bother(?), just say yes. If you are like me and have been preaching the good word of crypto to your normie friends for years, watching them completely uninterested, only to have them now breaking your phone with messages, just chill.
Take a step back and enjoy watching their assholes burn because they didn’t buy a cent of crypto.
Hear them say: “Next time it drops, I'll buy a lot”, sure you will buddy, sure you will (ironic smirk hiding under fake compassion on face).
Bitcoin is trading above the 24,000$ mark at the time of this article. We are clearly on uncharted waters and nobody knows what is going to happen. What we all know though is, 1 BTC = 1 BTC so for the hodlers not much change.
As you can read in our previous article about BTC ATH on issue #12 there are many factors contributing to the meteoric rise we all love to see. Bitcoin is on a path to set itself as the ultimate asset in history (if it hasn’t already) and it’s really exciting to see it gradually decoupling from traditional markets.
As anticipated the general NFT trade has slowed down but in some cases it even picked up. Nifty Gateway seems to be crushing it lately.
With BTC trading at 24k and ETH around the 660$ mark people are really looking to hodl their crypto.
This tweet made a really good argument about the recent NFT pump, and I agree it wasn’t an organic one.
Is it just me or does it feel like CT influencers are trying to coordinate an NFT hype pump by telling us how big NFTs are going to be. It all feels very unorganic. The coordinated NFT hype pump started just as food forks were dying down. Coincidence? I think not. #DeFi $ETH— Krugman | Level Up! DeFi (@krugman25) December 18, 2020
Just below you will read the comments that mostly disagree with the notion, and I get it. We all love NFTs, however, he brings up a valid point. Also if only a few influencers can create such pumps on the NFT space, it is further proof of how small and tender this space actually is.
The tweet isn’t about if NFTs are worth it or not, more like to look back and see what happened there and maybe learn a thing or two out of it. It is important not to feed lies to ourselves in order to fit the narrative we choose to follow.
Everybody who is involved in this space knows that the liquidity in most NFT markets is pretty limited, so when all this liquidity hype pump appeared out of nowhere, we have to look back and ask the right questions. It gave us a taste of how an NFT bull market feels like. Now we got a short glimpse and naturally have developed a taste for it, a longing, even.
Aren’t we all waiting for some of that sweet money to trickle down to our bags and shitcoins? Oh yea, nothing would be more satisfactory right now than an altcoin pump. A magnificent one to dwarf what we lived in 2017.
We are truly living in a historic period that will be referenced in the future for sure in the same way as the 2017 pump. It will be really interesting to see what happens next as we are all gazing at the price soaring while holding our breaths.
Absolutely, our beautiful little troll! Now sit back, grab a cup of irish coffee, roll a fatty, and watch the venom pour.
In hush corners, it’s being discussed how uninspiring and copy pasta this drop was. Whenever there is hype going on, you can always count that you will see Pak trying to tap into that vein. No difference in this case.
But let’s look at the numbers first. From a financial standpoint the drop was successful. (at the time of the article some artworks are still being auctioned)
Open editions sold for a total of 898,500$
454 editions minted
463 editions minted
88 editions minted
The drop format seems to be a straight-up copy from Beeple but fine-tuned for max yield.
The 1/1 editions were in 2 parts
From the NG presentations we can read:
"Pak is an omniscient designer/developer/wizard, one of the leads of the design scene as the founder of Undream and one of the prominent social media figures as the creator of Archillect, the synthetic curator. Pak is currently at uncharted space experimenting with new forms of creation and communication, discovering, learning and teaching along the journey.
Trevor Jones is a Scotland based artist. He is undoubtedly one of the leading artists in the crypto art medium. He primarily makes paintings and animates them afterwards. After graduating from Edinburgh University and Edinburgh College of Art in 2008, he set out to constantly innovate. The NFT medium was and is a perfect fit for him. He has pushed the medium so far forward and has been a key artist in our journey towards mainstream adoption."
Here we are reminded who Pak is and why he has to matter. Then some statements about his Jesus-like journey in arts.
Pretty sure experimenting with communication and teaching artists is not calling them incompetent and unable to comprehend your work.
Now Trevor is a good oil painter, he is not a digital artist that pushes boundaries, that would be Beeple. "He primarily makes paintings and animates them afterwards" - Mean the photos of each stage of the painting?
Overall pretty un-inspiring drop aimed at wallets. Was it a financial success for Pak,Trevor and NG? Oh yea, absolutely!
Why did it sell so well? One could argue that it was riding on the afterwave hype of the Beeple drop, where the 969$ open editions resell for 3-5x that now.
A lot of people bought these to flip but the secondary is rather disappointing. This weak secondary response kinda solidifies the argument that the primary sales were mostly for speculation reasons rather than real interest. In addition, some may have bought just to buy the name.
And as always, congratulations to the artists and the collectors.
Tokenizing and selling tweets is definitely not a new idea, what is new here is the seamless and straightforward implementation of such a mechanism. To say that this market is in infant stage would be an understatement.
Of course, there are people who loved the idea and started bidding and some others that were more skeptical about it.
We are not going down the rabbit hole of analyzing why a tweet can be valuable or comparing it to cryptoart, what we’ll do is have a look at the value. The best argument so far has been brought up by Carlini.
I feel like I would only care about buying tweets if Twitter itself were involved. To me if just feels like a marble card of a tweet - Something I already don’t care for.— Carlini8NFT (@Carlini8N) December 20, 2020
It is a big what if case, but it’s true that if the tokenization was happening officially by Twitter then the value would be indisputable.
Also begs the question? What if Twitter enables that in the future? What happens then? Will valuables by Cent be the first app that they will move against? What will happen to the market and the tweets that have sold ?
All that remains to be seen and for sure the future will be exciting.
What we can all agree though is that Xcopy’s tweets stole the show. Read the whole performance art act on his Twitter here.
Royalties Twitter discussion:
I was going to let this go, but the increased pressure from spoiled artists, has forced my hand.— satman.eth (@satman78704554) December 18, 2020
What are you guys thoughts?@j1mmyeth @pranksyNFT @redlioneye13 @zima_red @NFTland @nft @josiebellini @ModeratsArt @DCCockFoster @Nevableed @rariblecom @MaxStealth5 @Barthazian pic.twitter.com/L5r7AfSixq
It is highly recommended to read the comments below the tweet, as we will be analyzing different viewpoints.
Royalties have been a bit of a gray area and the subject isn’t touched upon unless there are disputes, in which case there is a massive polarization in all fronts.
Basically people end up pushing their opinions over and over rather than having a meaningful discussion, but that’s what we love about Twitter.
The artist camp, which supports that royalties must be paid no matter what.
The platform camp, which supports royalties as long as it is on their own platform.
The seller/buyer perspective, which supports all that has been written in the contract and applied(or not) by the platform.
Let’s examine each point of view in an effort to form an educated opinion.
The artists and their fans support that royalties must be paid no matter what, and if they aren’t, then the seller has to either give it voluntarily or after being contacted, as the view is that it’s "their"’ money.
An artist’s journey is always difficult and we all recognize the harsh environment they are being called to tread upon. All the education and training and the devotion to art is what is also being priced in each artwork. That is definitely a valid point.
However, in this day and age where cryptoart can also be considered as an investment vehicle and being used as such by many, an artist should be able to adapt and embrace that new reality.
How are royalties being calculated? If i buy an artwork for 1 eth and sell it for 2 (assuming no fees) then do i "owe" the artist 0.1 or 0.2?
Because the sale was for 1 eth profit, the original investment of 1 eth has already been paid to the artist. If the person that bought the artwork for 2 eth sells it for 4ETH, does he "owe" the artist 0.2 or 0.4? You can see it is a valid question, you will not find another case of tokenomics where this happens. So definitely some more clarity and rules must be applied to keep it fair.
Also, the artist benefits more when a flipper buys their art since he gets paid by the initial sale + all subsequent sales (if royalties reach back of course), so in every case, there is only benefit.
The platforms openly state that they are all about artist royalties and should be implemented. Some ideas that were brought up include writing the royalties in the metadata and being applied universally on all platforms. This could require a lot of work and communication between platforms to be enforced strictly.
Also doesn’t have backward compatibility for previous contracts i would assume. There is an argument here that they also got comfortable in this loophole of a situation because it makes the artist want to sell and advertise their platform if that’s the artist's minting place.
The buyer/flipper camp which supports that the artist's royalties must be paid in a seamless way, however, if a platform doesn’t enforce the royalties it is not his active duty to find the artists and pay royalties.
Also, it is understandable if someone feels "heckled" when contacted by an artist from an old sale asking for money owed.
What is the point of our new automated economy if we have to contact each other to "fix" oversights of contracts/platforms ?
A valid point here as well is that with anon users, this contact and dialogue is not possible. So could some people actively use such means to circumnavigate royalties and artists contacting them to get back royalties? Maybe…
Definitely a possibility. Is that unfair for our "named" buyers? The answer is also YES!
We can clearly see that there are valid points in each camp/school of thought.
A more detailed and sophisticated way to calculate fair royalties is desperately needed, on top of that implementation by the platforms must be precise and trustless. It can’t be placed upon the seller to perform tasks that the platforms should have overseen. What are they charging fees for then?
Fair royalty calculation and trustless distribution are paramount for the development of the space as a whole. Artists need to form a common front and make the platforms implement the necessary changes. Efforts on this part have been low.
That in turn makes the platforms procrastinate, since there is no pressure and the current system works in their favor as mentioned earlier, so why bother? Which like a domino falling to the next moves to the seller being comfortable as well with the current situation, which works in their benefit as well.
Looking from above at all of this, it must be the definition of a clusterfuck, and a perfect problem for code to solve. It is up to us in the end as a community to take on the challenge head-on and actually crush it, or keep in this zombie-like state where we keep coming circles to the same things again and again when we could solve them and elevate the space as a whole.
Then the next "hurdle" will be even easier to solve since we will be already in a consensus like state against these universal "bugs" in our journey in the meta economy.
Nexus Mutual Founder/CEO Hugh Karp was recently a victim of a hack that lost him $8.25 million.The hacker was able to gain access to Karp’s computer and modify the metamask extension.
Karp tweeted out at the hacker asking for the money back in exchange; he would give the hacker $300,000.
Attacker.— Hugh Karp 🐢 (@HughKarp) December 14, 2020
The mempool is a dark forest, but the IPs on the internet are quite transparent.
I'm still happy to honour the bounty if you return the funds (less the bounty) within the next 12 hours. No questions asked.
To the attacker. Very nice trick, definitely next level stuff.— Hugh Karp 🐢 (@HughKarp) December 14, 2020
You'll have trouble cashing out that much NXM.
If you return the NXM in full, we will drop all investigations and I will grant you a $300k bounty.
The hacker was able to construct a scheme more ingenious than the Nexus Mutual Project. Karp is responsible and uses a hardware wallet, but that seemed to be no match as the hacker gained remote access through Karp’s computer. The hacker modified Karp’s metamask extension, tricking him into signing away his hard work. So much being an insurance company, probably should’ve covered his own ass.
The good thing about the hack is Nexus Mutual and its members were not harmed by this… yet. The hack seemed to be a personal attack on Karp.
The hacker converted the 370,000 NXM of stolen funds into wrapped NXM (WNXM). It’s reported the attacker also cashed out up to half of the WNXM by converting it into Bitcoin. RIP.
The interesting part about this story is the dialog between the hacker and Karp. The hacker said in the input data of an Ethereum transaction, “Hello Hugh. I will not sell wNXM anymore until wNXM recovers its value or you send me 4.5k ETH. If you need any negotiation with me, send msg to my eth address. Following are your addresses. You are rich, Hugh. 0x87B2a7559d85f4...”
Yikes Karp, this shit ain’t looking good for you.
"Hello Hugh. I will not sell wNXM any more until wNXM recovers his value or you send me 4.5k ETH.If you need any negotiation with me, send msg to my eth address.Following are your addresses. You are rich, Hugh.0x87B2a7559d85f4..."— EtherText (@EtherText) December 16, 2020
This whole situation does not look good for Karp and Nexus Mutual as the hackers have now threatened to dump the remaining WNXM into the market, which could make the coin plunge.
The community has since set up a gitcoin grant to compensate Karp. But he plans on taking all the funds raised to create a bounty and produce “A highly secure solution for interacting with smart contracts, designed for a retail user with fantastic UX.” Good luck with that!
Some of our community have set-up a gitcoin grant to donate to me personally to compensate for some of the hack losses.— Hugh Karp 🐢 (@HughKarp) December 19, 2020
While extremely kind I don't think I should be compensated.
There are still many questions to be answered.
How did the hacker get Karp’s IP?
What will the hacker do with the rest of the WNXM?
Will the hacker ever be caught?
Will Karp become the poster child of his own product the next time he gets hacked?
The Shameless Shilling
With great artists involved such as: Bruce the Goose, One for All, Megan Jain, Travis Ames, Moxarra Gonzalez, FtrSaroth, Gerardo Cotera, Kevin Winger, GusGG, Okytomo, Mr Monk, Suryanto Sur, Mugen, Aris Mikelatos, Matthew Lawler, Tissa Vilany, Chris Grande, Samuel Diaz, fairly compensated with 50% of pack revenue!