So no one is yet being asked or forced to buy anything are they?
if at some point a Charlton related linage can be bought then it’s up to the individual if they buy it. I see little difference to buying overpriced football stickers for example.
If the club add in some sort of associated hospitality or a Q/and A session it’s little different to a membership package.
I’m struggling to understand the outrage for now.
Happy for people to buy overpriced beer and food and indeed match tickets but for some reason this is a step too far?
Yeah they’re a bunch of amateurs, it’s almost as if… it’s a DAO.
But from that twitter thread that's exactly what they aren't.
They are fronting as a DAO but also offering Crypto financial services. Their ownership/structure is hidden.
And even if we accept that they are a DAO what corporate structure signed a legal sponsorship contract with CAFC Ltd?
What payment or benefits are this supposed DAO offering to CAFC Ltd in return for the exposure on the shorts and LED boards and how is it to be delivered/paid?
If it is a DAO what hard currency does the organisation have?
So a non fungicide token is something that only exists on the internet. And people ‘buy’ them as an ‘investment’. What happens if you want to buy a fungus token with cash money? What if you are prepared to buy a token with a cheque? What if you’re prepared to buy a picture of those trainers with a bank transfer?
As for defining the ‘literal’ meaning of the word whale. If whale means both the largest mammal and also somebody in this weird world, how can the ‘literal’ definition be fixed?
Such thought processes and claim of command of those terms, indicates to me the doublethink some people apply to themselves in this field and then wish to impose on others. To me the literal meaning of cryptocurrency and Non Functional Tokens is the word ‘bollocks’.
I'm not at all interested in crypto or NFTs, but I am interested in understanding, so... here is my best stab at NFTs (but I am no expert by any means):
- I take a .jpeg photo of some trainers
- I create a NFT from the .jpeg
- Someone else makes a copy of the.jpeg and introduces a tiny/minimal change, so that the file's digital signature is different from mine, but to the human eye the two images are identical.
- She/he now also creates a NFT with their altered version of the image on a different NFT platform.
- How do I now prove that I am the true owner of the trainer's photo?
I guess this is all down to the reputability of the platform that created/holds the NFT. If anyone is going to pay £2m for my NFT, they will buy it from me (via my NFT platform) because I used the most reputable available. A bit like buying that Van Gogh from the National Gallery rather than from (with all due respect) Aladdin's Cave in Lewisham Way.
Hope that makes sense to somebody, and more than happy to be corrected.
The blockchain proves legitimacy.
If I buy a physical banksy for 100k, it comes with a COA. If I pay £100 off of ebay for a reproduction, it doesn't.
The blockchain is a digital form of authenticity
Sure, but as @Addickhead86 also noticed, if the .jpeg is modified (e.g. converted to a .gif for example) and an NFT created from that, you mean to say that all the NFT proves is ownership of the unmodified .jpeg, and not the visual aspect of the photo? So in a film with 24 frames per second, can you create an NFT for every frame and then one for the whole .MP4 for the video itself. Weird example I know, but that's the way I try to understand things 😊
There are NO useful applications for NFTs yet. They are ALL, without fail, a way for cryptobros to cash out. You might make some money in the short term, but as soon as they've managed to get what they can out, you'll lose everything - if you're holding the non-existent cards when that happens, you're fucked. It's no better than penny stock pump & dumps (worse, because regulators haven't caught up it yet - unlike with boiler rooms)
NFTs have some promise in future potential legitimate applications (gig tickets, for instance, as there's a practical application there) - but not as digital pokemon cards - and anyone who can't see the con is being obtuse, in on the scam, or delusional.
Are you suggesting that the club should pull the deal then? The stark reality is that money talks and whether we’re sponsored by a betting company, crypto exchange or NFT peeps, the club simply cannot turn this down. They do have value as digital Pokémon cards if people are prepared to buy them.
They can turn down any deal.
They have done so with betting firms in the recent past.
Whether they should is a different debate.
I respect Leroy's expertise and take on this.
Fair enough. As I said, I don’t know enough about NFT’s but I can’t see how we’re in a position to turn down sponsorship based upon peoples moral compass. And I found the pile on of the NFT fella this morning pretty poor.
It’s unacceptable. Web3 and NFT companies rely heavily on their community. Congratulations to all those scaring away commercial business from the club. It’s to the point I wouldn’t be surprised at some point some one contacts the club to complain about what’s going on here.
Well, I'm not sure I had 'tears for a cryptobro' on the cards for today - but 2022 has been a wild ride for sure
Why did I expect anything other than sea lioning and dog piling from this hellsite?
We’ve gone from “NFT’s are terrible for the environment” (debunked) “NFT’s are just jpegs” (debunked) “all NFT’s are run by scammers” (debunked) in the space of like 7 pages, so forgive me for being hesitant to say a club sponsor are scammers.
You can answer all your questions if you Google, instead of being a smart arse about it on a football forum.. thats directed at most of the posters on the thread and nobody specific.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
You can answer all your questions if you Google, instead of being a smart arse about it on a football forum.. thats directed at most of the posters on the thread and nobody specific.
Martin Calladine (in the tweet above) did exactly that. And he (unlike most of us who are sceptical) understands the environment. Have you read his thread? Does it not worry you?
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
Had to look it up myself: And now comes “sealioning,” a noun on Merriam-Webster’s “Words We’re Watching” list and defined as “a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable.”
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
I think it is you yourself above that criticised the use of the word ‘whale’. All the questions have not been answered. Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though. There are some forms that are more legitimate than others.
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
Correct. The value is all in the artwork. The NFT is basically a reference to that artwork on the blockchain which holds the ownership, etc.
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.
It is legitimate to write about this stuff on our football forum, because this malarkey is contaminating our football club. ’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts. An abomination.
Of course it's legitimate, but half the posters don't want to be informed, just another thing to maon about with not much knowledge.
I have asked a lot of questions on this thread in order to be informed. google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view. Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
8 pages in, all the questions have been answered and we are at the stage of criticising peoples use of words like you don't know what they mean.
You have not addressed the legitimate and pertinent questions about Gemerous Robots by Martin Calladine. A company which the club apparently endorses to its fanbase, especially the younger ones.
This is no longer about the value or otherwise of NFTs. It is about transparency of ownership. It has the same whiff about it as ESI. Fake sheikhs with fake bookcases, sooper dooper phone deals, bent lawyers and dental accountants.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
I dont pretend to know much about this sort of thing but I watched the video and it sounded like a pyramid scheme to me.
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
Not all Pyramid schemes are illegal tho are they. There’s be no story for the journo if it wasn’t opaque! What we getting for this, £10k - £20k for a logo on the shorts that’s unreadable. Doubt it’ll last more than a year anyway. AFKA has suggested that we aren’t getting paid or haven’t been paid. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about.
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
Bang on. Worth adding that some people do see digital art as having value and potential for profit though.
Indeed - But we should not conflate the value of digital art with the value of NFT which, to me appears to be in the value of the NFT technology itself at this point.
Correct. The value is all in the artwork. The NFT is basically a reference to that artwork on the blockchain which holds the ownership, etc.
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.
Now that is an interesting real world application if it comes to fruition.
As others have said for now this whole space ie crypto / blockchain / NFT feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Maybe when it gets it’s killer app then it will become something tangible.
Comments
if at some point a Charlton related linage can be bought then it’s up to the individual if they buy it. I see little difference to buying overpriced football stickers for example.
They are fronting as a DAO but also offering Crypto financial services. Their ownership/structure is hidden.
And even if we accept that they are a DAO what corporate structure signed a legal sponsorship contract with CAFC Ltd?
What payment or benefits are this supposed DAO offering to CAFC Ltd in return for the exposure on the shorts and LED boards and how is it to be delivered/paid?
If it is a DAO what hard currency does the organisation have?
And people ‘buy’ them as an ‘investment’.
What happens if you want to buy a fungus token with cash money?
What if you are prepared to buy a token with a cheque?
What if you’re prepared to buy a picture of those trainers with a bank transfer?
To me the literal meaning of cryptocurrency and Non Functional Tokens is the word ‘bollocks’.
’Contaminating’? You may ask, well has anybody looked at the blimmin logo on our shorts.
An abomination.
This Banksy print will cost you 100k in a gallery, photocopy it and try sell that for 100k. Let me know how you get on.
google is not the only resource, indeed it is not the resource to use when engaging with others positing a specific point of view.
Asking legitimate questions is often met with ‘do your own research’ or the rather pathetically amusing ‘you’re Sea Lioning’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) from inarticulate people who have no answers.
And now comes “sealioning,” a noun on Merriam-Webster’s “Words We’re Watching” list and defined as “a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable.”
Used to be called the Socratic method pre-Twitter
All the questions have not been answered.
Like can I buy one of these nine fungal tickets with a cheque?
NFT is just a way of legitimising (via block-chain) a person's ownership of 'something'.
It is being used predominantly today for legitimising ownership of some digital artwork but expectation is that NFT will be used for a wider range of services in the future.
We should not confuse the NFT with any perceived value or investment potential of the 'something' (digital art) that it is mainly supporting today.
Is this correct?
I then read those tweets from the journalist where he tried to get to the bottom of who owned this mob and didnt get anywhere. Sounds a bit fishy.
I'm not saying this is all a con, but I do know that one of the tricks of the con man is to use smoke and mirrors to make you feel stupid if you dont initially understand something.
So for those reasons, I'm out!
In the future, for things like say gig tickets, the NFT will be able to dictate how much it can be sold for or how many times it can be sold on, does the original owner make x% of profit each time its sold on.
Things like this if bands choose to can eliminate scalping. Ticket sold, NFT dictates if it can be sold on for more than the original price. If not, scalpers can't buy four tickets for £60 each and flog them for £120.