My knowledge begins and ends at "I'm kind of aware of what NFTs are, somewhat." That said digital collectibles have the same requirements to be successful that physical collectibles do; Marketing. What separates a curio from a collectible is a person's knowledge of what it is and for it to be wanted by several people. Offering a pile of "collectibles" for free is kind of like trying to offload a bin of Beanie Babies. Only, there's no nostalgia factor and they can't double as cute stuffed animals to pass off to kids. Find forums interested in whatever the subject of your NFTs is and offer a few as a promotion, or hold some sort of raffle or contest or whatever. Doesn't matter so long as you treat them as if they have value. If a creator treats their work as worthless then potential owners/customers are also going to see the whatever as worthless. I guess you could also ride the coattails of some other popular NFT twatters to promote your stuff to your "market".

>>3885 First problem is no NFT is free. There's still an associated gas fee. Second if you value your art at 0, everyone will believe your art is just that, nothing.

>>3893 >I pirate NFTs on principle I really need you to explain how to do this as there's a 69 million dollar NFT I really fucking want to have.

>>3898 >just take a picture of the NFT Ah, you don't understand how an NFT works then, my mistake. Really had high hopes there.

>>3935 All art is fundamentally worthless. Art assigned a specific value destroying interpretation is no longer art.

>there are anons that still haven't realized it's literally all just money laundering I know artists sometimes don't have the minds to gasp this stuff but literally no one is unironically paying for NFT's of jpg's, not a single person. Every single NFT of a jpg being sold is only being used to hide other purchases that they don't want on the books, literally every single one. There is no market value for "owning" a random string of characters. >>3936 Except NFT's isn't the purchasing of art so the comparison is retarded. NFT's isn't the act of selling art, or even selling the rights to art. You're literally just selling a string of characters that points to a jpg. You're buying nothing, actually nothing. Art has value in that I might want something specific depicted for my own pleasure that I can commission. Or it has value in that it simply looks nice and I want it on my wall. The range of that value might be subjective, but we can all generally understand how those two things are at the very least tangible. NFT's are not, they are nothing. Their only value is in money laundering. Something that art was already notorious for to begin with. Except now you don't even have the veil of that tangible product to hide behind.

To be fair... Money laundering is based and I think on that alone we should pretend that this is a real thing people pay for.

>>3945 I don't care that people launder money. I care that retards don't understand that's what's being done and think they can make millions of dollars selling strings of 0's and 1's that point to a link of a jpg. It would be like someone coming here and asking how they could get a canvas with 3 shit smeared lines on to sell for $800,000 like some faggot they read about online did. The answer is to become a fucking hitman and murder people.

>>3939 The only thing required for an NFT to have value is for others to believe it has value. Yes, the big purchases are money laundering schemes, but there are speculators out there that value that purchases of NFTs purely for the profit to be made by reselling them. >>3946 All you need to do to make millions selling physical shitstain paintings is playing social games, networking and shit testing people by offering your art for outrageous prices. You'll eventually get there.

>>3947 >but there are speculators out there that value that purchases of NFTs purely for the profit to be made by reselling them. I refuse to accept or believe this. Maybe if you were purchasing the rights to something over the blockchain it would be understandable, but an NFT is nothing. You own literally fucking nothing when buying an NFT. No rights transfer, no physical product is acquired, no server is provided, no commerce actually occurs.

>>3948 >I refuse to accept or believe this. You can say this, but having personally talked to speculators, these people do exist and purely exist to exploit the market. The people who bought Stonetoss NFTs and the Dilbert NFTs come to mind. >You own literally fucking nothing when buying an NFT. No rights transfer, no physical product is acquired, no server is provided, no commerce actually occurs. This applies to any cryptocurrency as well. Is crypto also a money laundering scheme to you?

>>3951 >This applies to any cryptocurrency as well. Is crypto also a money laundering scheme to you? It applies to some cryptocurrencies, and the ones it applies to are money laundering or even outright rug-pulls. All cryptocurrency is not devoid of value. Plenty of them have inherent value in the technology they offer. NFT's don't offer technology, they offer nothing. They don't even offer a sales pitch of useless technology. They don't even TRY to scam you. It's apparent from the get-go that it's completely devoid of value. There isn't even the attempted illusion of value.

>>3952 >All cryptocurrency is not devoid of value. But it's all just 1 and 0s anon. > Plenty of them have inherent value in the technology they offer. Such as NFTs? Which is a purely crypto construct? >They don't even TRY to scam you. Oh no my friend, plenty try to scam you. Let me introduce you to Waifusion. >https://waifusion.io/ Feel free to pay 2000$ to get one randomly generated waifu. How about if I explained it like this. What if I told you some retards believe NFTs have value and if enough retards believe NFTs have value NFTs actually have value? It's like how DOGE is still sitting at 30 cents. Do you think they're holding it because they just absolutely believe in the tech? It only has value because people believe it has value. That's all I'm going to posit. Some retards believe it has value and thus by definition it has value. We can argue if it will *last*, but that is separate from whether or not it has value *now*.

>>3954 >But it's all just 1 and 0s anon. So is your operating system. Surely you can distinguish between the value behind what those 1s and 0s represent. >Such as NFTs? Which is a purely crypto construct? NFTs don't have inherent technological value. Technology existing doesn't mean it's fulfilling a fundamental need in society. >What if I told you some retards believe NFTs have value and if enough retards believe NFTs have value NFTs actually have value? I think there's a difference between being able to extract value out of something and it having inherent value. Amazon stock will literally only ever go up. Buying Amazon is an investment. DOGE is completely fucking useless. Buying and selling DOGE is a matter of extracting money from people more retarded than you are and leaving them holding the bag. NFTs are the same way. You might extract value from an NFT, but they don't actually have any inherent value. There are technologies like Monero that have inherent value because of the technology they offer. There will never be a time where being able to transfer funds anonymously doesn't have a significant degree of value. It's impossible for that tech and network to not be valuable, people will always care about privacy. Things having value because we think they have value is a concept that I can't accept. For this reason I think bitcoin is also worthless. You can extract money out of bitcoin, but it has been surpassed and then some by other technology.

>>3956 >So is your operating system. Surely you can distinguish between the value behind what those 1s and 0s represent. Because it serves a use I have, much like NFTs do for some people. >NFTs don't have inherent technological value. Technology existing doesn't mean it's fulfilling a fundamental need in society. What does a need being fundamental have to do with anything? People are selling overpriced haircuts and dog shampooing services, are those "fundamental" needs? Putting that to the side if NFTs are fulfilling someone's need somewhere does that not mean that it meets your criteria for value? >I think there's a difference between being able to extract value out of something and it having inherent value. And that would be? You provide examples, but I'm not understanding the underlying premises. Furthermore, let's say I concede this point, assuming I ask you to now use the word "value" to denote "I can extract value from this", do NFTs now have value? Because from my perspective I could not give a single fuck about the supposed underlying value and only what can be extracted, and I care about no other factors. >There are technologies like Monero that have inherent value because of the technology they offer. There will never be a time where being able to transfer funds anonymously doesn't have a significant degree of value. It's impossible for that tech and network to not be valuable, people will always care about privacy. Okay so you seem to be conflating the concept of something "having value" with something being a "having lasting value across time" is this the point you are actually trying to make? >Things having value because we think they have value is a concept that I can't accept. For this reason I think bitcoin is also worthless. Going by this logic the US dollar is also worthless and is only viewed as valuable because people agree it is valuable. So this argument applies to fiat too.

>>3956 Do you believe rare stamps have value when they sell for several million dollars? Why or why not?

>>3957 >much like NFTs do for some people. What use do NFTs serve? >People are selling overpriced haircuts and dog shampooing services, are those "fundamental" needs? These are tangible experiences. An NFT is nothing. You don't get exclusive rights to download jpg, you get nothing. If you really enjoy the act of burning money then I suppose that's the value someone might get out of an NFT. But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that is legitimate commerce and not a mental illness being exploited. >Because from my perspective I could not give a single fuck about the supposed underlying value and only what can be extracted, and I care about no other factors. It's cool that you don't care about people being manipulated and exploited, but society generally looks down upon that behavior and we have laws and regulations in place to prevent it for a reason. The value in these products is the ability to transfer money from stupid peoples accounts into your account. That's literally all there is. Nothing is being generated, nothing is happening. The only difference is that now someone has more money and somehow has less. I don't find the ability to extract value out of things that have none impressive, I find it detestable. At one point in history people got genocided and world wards got started over just that kind of behavior. >Okay so you seem to be conflating the concept of something "having value" with something being a "having lasting value across time" is this the point you are actually trying to make? We are getting lost in semantics. Things can have value without being useful. They have this value for no reason. So I worded this as you being able to extract value from something that isn't valuable. Meaning it's useless but idiots will give you money for it because they're stupid. To call nothing valuable because you can sell it for significant value sounds stupid to me so I refuse to do it. Do I call a generic rock valuable as long as I can convince an intellectually impaired wheelchair bound retard on the side of the street to give me his welfare check in exchange for it? I sold the rock to someone for $500, so it's valuable right? Except all I really did was abuse some poor retard. We would not accept this definition of value so we shouldn't accept similar applications at scale. >Going by this logic the US dollar is also worthless and is only viewed as valuable because people agree it is valuable. So this argument applies to fiat too. Yeah. >>3958 A stamp is no different than any other kind of art. It's just smaller. If I can accept that the mono lisa has value as art then I can easily accept that stamps can too.

>>3959 >What use do NFTs serve? Creating exclusivity in the realm of digital art, as far as I can tell. Do I find NFTs valuable? No, not really, but I know humans value exclusivity, and I understand that NFTs offer artists the ability to create exclusivity, and these two facts paired together means that value was generated. Though it's about as tough a market to break into as selling hard copy originals. Why? Because you're selling the same thing. Anyone can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, anyone can download a picture of the Mona Lisa, anyone with an internet connection can enjoy the intrinsic value of the Mona Lisa, but there is only one Mona Lisa. Likewise, anyone can download a jpeg, what you are buying is not the jpeg, it's the exclusivity of owning that specific arrangement of pixels, and just like the Louvre probably doesn't give a fuck that anyone can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, they still own it. Anyone can download a jpeg, but now I have a system of managing exclusivity. You can say it's silly to claim you own the arrangement of pixels, but I would claim it's equally silly to claim you own the land you're on because a pretty piece of paper from the government says you do. >But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince someone that is legitimate commerce and not a mental illness being exploited. I view it the same as any other form of exclusivity where the only value it has is because of it's exclusivity, which only holds value as much as people envy the exclusivity. I >Do I call a generic rock valuable as long as I can convince an intellectually impaired wheelchair bound retard on the side of the street to give me his welfare check in exchange for it? I sold the rock to someone for $500, so it's valuable right? By definition yes and crystal healing companies make millions off of this model. What you described it is a currently operational industry. Though I'd hire you in a minute if you could manage to sell a generic rock for 500$ because you, yourself, would be a god of a salesman, and I fucking want you on my side if you can do that. Just imagine what you could manage if you were selling something like production models, hot damn. You make selling a bad product sound easy, most scams just rely on outright lying as opposed to actually convincing the other person the object has value. >Yeah. Ooooooh, so an NFT is as much as a scam as Bitcoin is, and bitcoin is as much as a scam as fiat is, which means an NFT is as real as fiat. Interesting. One last question, why is gold valuable? If you say industry uses, assume before we developed any scientific uses for it. Why has gold ever been valuable? >If I can accept that the mono lisa has value as art then I can easily accept that stamps can too. Is the value stored in the original Mona Lisa or is stored in the appearance of the Mona Lisa anyone with a computer can enjoy at anytime?

>>3960 >Creating exclusivity in the realm of digital art, as far as I can tell. What the fuck does that even mean? What is exclusive about an NFT? I can download the exact same image with the exact same hash as the owner of the NFT can. That's the farthest you can possibly get from exclusive. You literally just right click the image and save it. >Mona Lisa, anyone with an internet connection can enjoy the intrinsic value of the Mona Lisa, but there is only one Mona Lisa. Likewise, anyone can download a jpeg, what you are buying is not the jpeg, it's the exclusivity of owning that specific arrangement of pixels, and just like the Louvre probably doesn't give a fuck that anyone can take a picture of the Mona Lisa, they still own it. No, you're absolutely wrong. You are not owning a specific arrangement of pixels at all. That is not how NFTs work. I can have the exact same pixel for pixel copy of that JPG. Often the image itself isn't even hosted on the ethereum network and the NFT is just a URL pointing to the location of the image on a server. There is literally nothing preventing me from ripping that content directly and having an exact copy of the "NFT". What the actual NFT is is literally just a digital string of characters saying that you bought that jpg, not a unique version of that jpg. You're buying the receipt to a jpg, not buying a jpg. Anyone else can have that jpg, an identical version of it, but only you have the receipt. But a digit receipt to an infinitely reproducible item where each copy is mathematically indistinguishable from the next is completely fucking useless. >By definition yes and crystal healing companies make millions off of this model And they should be all put in prison for being useless fucks. >One last question, why is gold valuable? If you say industry uses, assume before we developed any scientific uses for it. Why has gold ever been valuable? Silver and gold are valuable as currency because they're rare and because iron rusts, titanium is difficult to smelt, aluminum is hard to extract, platinum/palladium/rhodium/iridium/osmium/ruthenium are too rare so their coins would be too small and difficult to transact with. So by process of elimination silver and gold are natural currencies. Why consider any noble metals currencies in the first place? Because they're shiny and rare. Do you know what isn't shiny and rare? Diamonds. Do you know who is in charge of the bullshit diamond trade? Kikes. >Is the value stored in the original Mona Lisa or is stored in the appearance of the Mona Lisa anyone with a computer can enjoy at anytime? Unlike your claims about NFTs only a single atom for atom copy of the mona lisa exists. So the exclusivity argument actually applies. An NFT would be like selling someone a receipt for the mona lisa at the museum and giving only them the special receipt, then telling them to fuck off and that they have no rights to the actual piece. It's a completely meaningless gesture and you would be considered a fucking laughing stock for buying it.

>>3962 >Do you know what isn't shiny and rare? Diamonds Diamonds are obviously shiny, I just meant they aren't rare.

>>3962 >What the fuck does that even mean? What is exclusive about an NFT? It not being the jpg. Anyone can have the jpg. Only one can have the NFT. Even uploading copies of the jpg to the blockchain aren't the original NFT because it's address is written elsewhere. >But a digit receipt to an infinitely reproducible item where each copy is mathematically indistinguishable from the next is completely fucking useless. It's only as useful as people perceive it to be for monetary purposes, again, about as useful as a piece of paper indicating you own the land you're on. >Silver and gold are valuable as currency because they're rare and because iron rusts, titanium is difficult to smelt, aluminum is hard to extract, platinum/palladium/rhodium/iridium/osmium/ruthenium are too rare so their coins would be too small and difficult to transact with. So by process of elimination silver and gold are natural currencies. Why consider any noble metals currencies in the first place? Because they're shiny and rare. Are you saying that the reason gold and silver are valuable is because there's exclusivity in how many people can have it? >Unlike your claims about NFTs only a single atom for atom copy of the mona lisa exists. So the exclusivity argument actually applies. An NFT would be like selling someone a receipt for the mona lisa at the museum and giving only them the special receipt, then telling them to fuck off and that they have no rights to the actual piece. It's a completely meaningless gesture and you would be considered a fucking laughing stock for buying it. I'm confused, in the example of digital art then, where is the "original" or a digital art piece? You're stating that the receipt is just a receipt, okay, then where is the original? Is there one?

>>3966 >It's only as useful as people perceive it to be for monetary purposes, again, about as useful as a piece of paper indicating you own the land you're on. They are absolutely not the same level of usefulness. Unless you're using the NFT system to verify rights to something they aren't comparable. I suppose they could technically be used like that, but I have absolutely no idea why you would even need specifically an NFT when smart contracts are already baked into ethereum. A piece of paper saying I own land gives me the right to shoot people for trespassing. A piece of paper saying I purchased that piece of paper and it's vaguely related to a JPG is fucking useless. If it isn't transferring the rights to that image then there's no point. >Are you saying that the reason gold and silver are valuable is because there's exclusivity in how many people can have it? That is one aspect of why gold and silver are used as currency. I listed a number of other reasons why they are too, them being aesthetically pleasing is the other vital one. >I'm confused, in the example of digital art then, where is the "original" or a digital art piece? You're stating that the receipt is just a receipt, okay, then where is the original? Is there one? There is no such thing as an original digital asset. Digital media/assets are infinitely reproducible with mathematically indistinguishable differences. We even have programs to verify this reality when downloading software to make sure it hasn't been modified anywhere in the download pipeline. My copy of linux is identical to your copy of linux. If there is a discernible difference between two copies of the same version of linux then something has gone wrong or the server has been compromised.

>>3981 >A piece of paper saying I purchased that piece of paper and it's vaguely related to a JPG is fucking useless. If it isn't transferring the rights to that image then there's no point. It is transferring the rights to that pictures specific encoding on the block chain, of which their can only be one, which makes it rare and exclusive as a digital asset. >That is one aspect of why gold and silver are used as currency. I listed a number of other reasons why they are too, them being aesthetically pleasing is the other vital one. Well digital art also has aeshetic value, so I suppose NFTs are trying to add the addition of exclusivity, but again you don't seem to understand the difference between the image itself and owning the NFT of the image, and why that generates value. >There is no such thing as an original digital asset. Digital media/assets are infinitely reproducible with mathematically indistinguishable differences. We even have programs to verify this reality when downloading software to make sure it hasn't been modified anywhere in the download pipeline. My copy of linux is identical to your copy of linux. If there is a discernible difference between two copies of the same version of linux then something has gone wrong or the server has been compromised. So you're saying there's a need to generate originals for monetary purposes for digital assets?

>>3987 >It is transferring the rights to that pictures specific encoding on the block chain Usually what you actually get is a URL, which might currently point to a particular image but could at any time turn into a 404 or be silently replaced with something else. It's inherently volatile.

Nfts are purely speculations. People buy them because they expect to be able to sell them later at a higher price. For the price to rise you need to create hype which is the result of good marketing. Personally I would look at the team's marketing budget before deciding whether to invest in a particular project. I would say that $10k is the bare minimum marketing budget for the project to take off. In order to successfully launch a nft you need a relatively large initial investment and it is risky business. That being said shilling on an obscure board with 12 users is a waste of time. ETH gas fee is super high right now due to nft.

>>3987 >It is transferring the rights to that pictures specific encoding on the block chain, of which their can only be one, which makes it rare and exclusive as a digital asset. The rights of what? You don't get copyright, you don't get permission to use that image in any way. You're transferring nothing. You're transferring a receipt for a receipt associated with an image. If you wanted to buy the rights to an image you would just go buy the rights to the image. >So you're saying there's a need to generate originals for monetary purposes for digital assets? There is zero need for it. I suppose you could maybe technically do it, but it would be utterly pointless. NFTs could perhaps serve a purpose for authenticating real art. Meaning you buy a physical piece of art and are also transferred the NFT for that piece so you can cryptographically verify the authenticity or ownership of that physical thing. But there is no good faith use in doing that for an infinitely reproducible intangible thing like digital assets. Maybe if you wanted to implement some orwellian DRM crypto based bullshit that would be a bad faith use. Artificial scarcity is immoral. But as NFTs are being interacted with here and now it's just stupid.

I have to pay 0.2 ETH gas for a $400 NFT. I am already 200% down just from buying the jpg and I need to flip it for at least 3x to break even. Opensea also rugged the entire collection. What the fuck...

>>3995 To verify the art is yours, just use PGP signature. We already got that. No need to expensive blockchains.

>>5079 >People are screenshotting my NFT. I will never financially recover from this purchase.

Just so you know: NFTs are a PsyOps to make the stupid masses believe "fungability" is bad, because that's Moneros strongest selling point. Monero has fungability in the sense that ever coin is worth exactly as much as every other coin. The non-fungability of NFTs on the other hand relates to the uniqueness and authenticity of the owner certificate. But in the ends it's just being pumped to make Monero seem like a scam to normies, because normies into crypto currencies started to believe that Monero and privacy are good. Non Fungable Token assosiate fungability with something that takes away worth. I'm just a friendly messenger delivering the truth.

>>5111 NFT's are retarded but not as retarded as you for thinking normalniggers give a single fuck about monero or performing psyops against it. No one buying NFT's has any fucking clue what "non-fungible" even means. They just think it sounds like cool crypto shit and means they can scam epic monies out of other people. All the feds need to say is that monero is what people use to buy drugs and CP and that is more than enough of a psyop against it. The second people realized bitcoin wasn't even remotely anonymous it went from being a spooky evil thing to the normalniggers biggest pump and dump scam.

>>5114 You call me dumb, but my claim is just as valid as yours. They are both claims. I'm just trying to make peoples brains work.

>>5115 >but my claim is just as valid as yours. No it isn't. >They are both claims. Correct. >I'm just trying to make peoples brains work. Try making yours work first.

>>5116 Mr. glower, you might want to try less ad hominem attacks, because they make you seem very immature and take away from the original point you tried to make. It's simply stupid to be overly emotional in your posts, if you want people to take you seriously.

I managed to sell my worthless jpg to another fool for 3 EFFERIUMS(ticker: EFF). The NFT market is really just scammers trying to scam one another for a quick buck. >>5121 NFTs are a ponzi pyramid scheme just like art and most people will end up bagholding bullshit pictures when they all drop to 0 after a bear market. Simple as.

I just made a NTF gif thing and don't really know what I just made. Well hopefully I get some money out of it. If any kind Anon can give me some pointers and advice on what's the best way to make NTF money, please help. Here's the link to my first NTF thing: https://opensea.io/assets/matic/0x2953399124f0cbb46d2cbacd8a89cf0599974963/111641724337188721219547095861710318411503891717093378807749200947617843904522/

>>5140 Anon people aren't just going around buying random NFT's of shitty art. They're money laundering. No one is actually buying these retarded things thinking they have any value. If you want free money then just beg for free money. It would be a better time investment than trying to sell NFT's.

>>5140 You have two options available to you. Making enough shitty art on a consistent enough basis that at some point someone deigns to notice you and you take off like Beeple. This ploy takes about 5 years, a lot of luck, and you actually doing something intersting. I recommend 3D modeling over pixel art but honestly it's about as much of a scam as actual art speculation so who fucking knows. Your main obstacle on this route is that whenever you want to sell something, you, you personally, have to pay to have it listed. This means you are constantly sinking resources into it trying to bait someone into buying your piece of shit at some point to recoup costs. Pretty fucking dangerous, but hey, maybe if enough schizos latch onto you you can be Beeple. Now here's the real fucking grift. You make a collection of NFTs that basically look the exact same with shuffled traits. What you are going for is a collectable card game type of situation, there are multiple NFTs in the collection, some are more valuable than others, you want your customers to play lottery with which NFT they get. You set up a website where people can generate these NFTs by paying you, the NFTs generated have random traits and then get sent directly to them, those idiots now have to find a way to display their NFTs, they pay the minting costs, meaning you are not in the red from the start (besides time spent making the NFTs and hosting the website of course). If you have the warfunds you can hire someone to do marketing for you and create "hype". Your end goal is to have the entire collection soldout. Technically, you make money if anyone at any point buys one, but we want more. NFTs allow you to collect a percentage of all future sales, this means if you can convince your little gaggle of idiots who pulled your slot machine website into trading with each other you are making money each and every time some idiot you don't know is selling your NFT to some other idiot. You are paying nothing, but they are generating money for you. This goes on until the entire NFT market for your bullshit stabilizes or crashes, I don't give a shit which, and you've already made out like a bandit. There you go.

>>5141 >money laundering How? You literally cannot launder money with crypto and NFT.

>>5147 Note that the NFT wackiness started when all of the "art museums" and galleries were more or less shuttered because of the meme flu. NFTs are "art" and are treated accordingly, I believe.

>>5147 It sounds like you have zero clue what money laundering is so I'm interested in hearing your explanation for how you can't money launder with NFT's.

>>5148 You don't know what you're talking about. >>5149 >It sounds like you have zero clue what money laundering is I haven't a clue about how you can launder money with crypto and NFT, but so do you.

>>5152 >I haven't a clue about how you can launder money with crypto and NFT, but so do you. I want to buy $100,000 of illicit goods from a vendor. I want to be able to account for that transaction on my taxes. The vendor makes an NFT for $100,000. I buy that NFT from him to mask the transaction. The fact you needed that explained to you clearly shows that you don't know what the fuck money laundering even is.

>>5153 And how do you convert the dirty money to crypto in the first place?

>>5154 Buy monero, convert to ETH.

>>5155 Why do you pretend to know something when you clearly don't? You can't buy $100,000 of crypto without anyone noticing.

>>5156 Acquiring crypto has nothing to do with masking transactions of illicit goods. You're asking to separate questions. There's laundering money you acquired from illicit goods and there's laundering money at the time of that transaction. Or are you telling me that paying someone a $100k for drugs by purchasing their NFT isn't money laundering? Don't worry, I know you won't answer that question because then the onus would be you to put effort into your post rather than moving the goal posts. Feel free to continue rambling on about how it's impossible to use art to launder money.

>>5156 The problem isn't buying the cryptocurrency, that money has already been accounted for by Mr. Moneybags' income from his business/investments/whatever. It's when he wants to buy 100 grand of drugs or firearms that he runs into a problem. He has to report where that money is going, or end up looking suspicious. So he just buys some ETH and then uses that ETH to buy an NFT from the guy selling the drugs/firearms/sex slaves. The seller gets his 100,000 (in crypto), and if anyone comes along asking them what they were doing with such large transactions, both buyer and seller can report that they exchanged "art" (a jpeg of a monkey). On a related note, I've noticed that a lot of people who are proponents of cryptocurrencies in general seem to be pretty fucking clueless about how both cryptocurrency works and how taxes work.

>>5158 >>5159 Thank you for spoonfeeding me, love you.

There are several classes of people buying NFTs: >rich retards, particularly those who got rich from crypto and want to show off >poor retards who heard about it and don't want to miss out on what rich retards insist is bitcoin 2.0 >people running schemes, trading them between friends or solo to establish a fake price history to pump their own products >criminals using the variable values of the medium and the fact that they're not a currency to mask payments for illegal activity >institutions speculating with huge swathes of money to burn You can only really target the first two. I would probably be trying to make something that is quite distinct, not ugly and dedicate an effort to market it on Twitter and Reddit and other places, probably organize some kind of sales mechanism to create a sense of scarcity and pressure. Just listing it is not going to get you to 1.8m in sales like Stonetoss anymore, I think.

>>5142 and >>5161 are absolutely correct. You need to be popular or have good marketing to sell out a 5k items collection though. Flipping NFTs is easier for quick profit. The best way is to buy when bots sell them below mint. Favor the ones with rare attributes and good combinations. If you end up bagholding just keep selling to yourself until a sucker falls for it. You need a starting capital of at least $10k to flip comfortably. Stick to this strategy and you will become homeless with massive debt in no time (and that is a good thing!)

Costly pngs