vmception

Good dips to buy, I rarely see literal FUD by the definition of the acronym. Some crypto is being firesold, COIN stock is being firesold

Is it the bottom idk

> So I had to dump everything I had built up in that account into USD and withdraw it.

Had to?

You had the option of withdrawing it all to unhosted wallets on the respective networks.

Oh wow literal fear uncertainty and doubt! This is where I make my best trades because the information asymmetry is so high!

My favorite kind of dip

Not your keys not your coins

from what I can tell, consensus hasn't been made and there is a lot of regional consensus. For example, I see US English honing in on "man/woman refers to gender, male/female refers to sex" while some Commonwealth English not having that exact distinction. On the internet, this makes things very confusing because its not clear where consensus is, and its not clear if someone is saying something exclusionary when they're critiquing the nomenclature. obviously, if you are fearing something that doesn't make sense, this ambiguous regional discourse masquerading as consensus only will validate your suspicions.

all it takes is one court case for everyone to learn what not to say, while doing the same action

how much operating capital we need for some stuff like this designed to spec out of shenzhen?

I don't consider this a criticism. I also don't find the analogy applicable. Their updated analogy is more applicable "a sheet of paper with a URL to a photo of the mona lisa" that a consumer buys.

I understand and use and create and sell NFTs, I can understand where your assumption came from given what responses one might expect to see on this forum.

I think this is an interesting nuance of this technology that is not well understood by NFT traders or NFT critics. Many malicious actors are also doing more than they have to do to sell "forged" NFTs. Developers can perceive whats going on though.

> And I assume, in the final stage of a SPAC’s lifecycle, there will be de-listing, liquidation and/or distressed debt fees.

lol, are these target companies saddled with debt though? I don't think so

could sell shares of the management company that the sponsors come from

> If you're defining it as not fraudulent and not copying anything, then what's absurd about the situation at all? It might be amusing that someone might buy something that you personally don't value at all, but that's hardly unique to NFTs.

We're agreeing then.

nice, wondering how that conditional logic works. I've played with getImageUri() methods for some time. Maybe they actually setImageUri() within the transfer() method and it checks the owner address for certain ABI characteristic of a smart contract versus an EOA (individual's address). or actually never needing to setImageUri() and just have that last check in getImageUri to serve different metadata based on the type of owner address.

thats hilarious.

> but about other problems such as trademark infringement, misrepresentation, etc.

right but specifically what?

which one and how would that play out

if there is no logo or phrase in the picture, then it couldn't be a trademark infringement. and even if there was I would have to look at it case by case, with many cases I don't think it would be applicable. the consumer has to discern with the features that the blockchain provides. if there is a valid consumer protection issue thats with the marketplaces and wallets UI. the lister doesn't have to misrepresent anything if the consumer is buying by looking at pictures alone. and the lister could likely make a compliant and accurate name. "NFT showing Bored Apes"

and if the consumer doesn't care about additional NFT's that simply point to the picture that the creator uploaded, then whoever the consumer bought from has violated nothing

that's my point

> Isn't that ultimately how anything works? I can print out a cheap copy of the Mona Lisa, say "I'm selling the Mona Lisa," and someone can purchase it if they choose to. Of course, I may have broken some laws in the particular government jurisdiction this transaction occurs in, like trademark, copyright, fraud, etc., but that's just as true with NFTs.

Well no the difference here is that my example has nothing copied either. Your example has something copied. They are not analogous as they lack that similarity.

The person selling this NFT that contains no copy does not have to misrepresent anything. Hence no fraud. The contract address is obviously different.

Theft requires something to be moved. Copyright infringement requires something to be copied. Fraud requires misrepresentation.

None of that is necessary here.

I don't consider what I wrote to be a criticism of NFTs, I find it amusing.

its not about a pronoun, so looks like you're also conflating concepts

no pronouns need to be added or used to correct the malformed FOIA request

it conflates sex and gender, I said what I said, its accurate that it is doing that.

> Total number of male persons who identify as female, non-binary, or any other gender identity

The request would be "Total number of male persons that identify as women". The sex doesn't change, the gender does. The FOIA request would say invalid, or zero, and be accurate, regarding the ones identifying as "female". The "other gender identify" may cover it, but not necessarily. Males identifying as men wouldn't have been transferred. So "other than what"? "Female" is not a gender, unless we are accepting that any arbitrary identification is valid, but would that be grounds for transfer?

But yes that can just say "males transferred", because they remain male.

Its a conditional argument because legal circumstances follow conditional logic. So if it seems obtuse, oh well, thats how it works.

> The thing here that NFTs references an asset.

I find this part amusing. It makes me wonder if it is even possible to actually plagiarize an NFT. Like, sure if you copy a picture shown in an NFT, reupload it and wrap it in a new NFT, that's plaigarism, but the way around that is even simpler! Just deploy the new NFT and reference the location of the existing picture! If people are willing to purchase your NFT anyway, who cares?

Its like buying a picture frame, holding it up over your face and looking through it to a picture hung 5 feet away. If people are willing to pay for that, then sell picture frames. NFT are the picture frames.

The difference is that I find it merely amusing, while this person finds it like their missionary duty to stop the practice. But why? Who cares? The contract address of the digital picture frame is different and can't be plaigarized, its up to the consumer to discern. If consumers don't want to..... then sell digital picture frames!

There are overlapping similarities to a selling a TV as well, or cable box, you can set the channel to one thing elsewhere, or you can change the channel. NFTs are the TV or cable box here.

I think the most similarities would be like those digital photo frames you can buy at stores, the ones w/ tiny android computers in them that show a digital photo that you set. That's the NFT, except the NFT is completely digital, so its more akin to a digital digital photo frame.

Maybe Matt Levine could write it that way and more people would get it that way. But maybe you're already perceiving the world correctly, congratulations, you perceive the world correctly. The market is saying sell those, so sell those.

this FOIA request arbitrarily mixes sex and gender, which actually does show a lack of understanding towards trans and non-binary people (as well as willingness to understand, materialized as fear. fear is the phobia part of transphobia)

so even though GP tried to be accurate and progressive-enough in their admonishment of the ACLU to find a way to have a rational way of expressing and discussing their fear, the people involved have made a malformed FOIA request and are expressing their calcified opinion conflating sex and gender identity.

Can someone explain Goldman's role? What are they underwriting? SPAC's merge with companies with capital that SPAC's already have collected. Was Goldman underwriting the formation of new SPACs when those SPACs are initially collecting money?

and you can always just be an investor in a business with simple % ownership and splitting net revenues at any interval you want. no multiple share classes, no liquidity preferences, no need for infinite growth or growth at all

all this is still around ya know

people act like they just forgot

Yeah thats because its an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which undermines its credibility right out the gate

Any theory or hypothesis that has zero criteria for being proven wrong is not science and has no place being repeated at all

So you’re not wrong about it not contradicting, because nothing does since its a bullshit saying masquarading as a hypothesis, there’s just no point in leaning on it

I feel like you have the quote backwards

and also need to update the amounts

Because its still a very relevant and not old joke that is told with updated amounts

It contradicts whichever part you want it to

But that was the biggest rally in a very long time, 3% on broad indices, only to erase all gains and continue lower

Somebody created exit liquidity

Have you seen time square anytime over the last 2 years? its atrocious, worse than the ICO days

> didn't he lose everything?

.... 5 years ago? how do you think that works?

I just don't think there is enough information to extrapolate anybody's financial position, anyone anywhere

exactly, the market mooned on the same information after Jerome Powell's speech than the ongoing decline the day after

> long-term

what's your time horizon exactly?

also there may be a steeper discount tomorrow, when the forward estimates in the conference call talk about how something related to the macroeconomic environment and declining volumes and empty NFT marketplace, but who knows

its just that its not always about the earnings themselves

if "they" is referring to "me", I don't feel that the new one doesn't inherit or replicate other incumbent system problems. I like that its easy to try out, compared to attempting to try in the incumbent systems. for better, or for worse. its up to the all users to be just as discerning and pragmatic about participating or not. its great that many users are pragmatic supporters that accept things can go wrong and that they become a case study. less discerning users should also be like that, or not participate at all.

if GP is referring to me, I wasn't making that point, I was mostly thinking about how ideation in the crypto space rapidly evolves because people are willing to try, all levels of the stack improve, consumers and investors rapidly become more discerning. lifecycles that are decades long in other markets play out in months or weeks in the crypto space.

to the semi-invisible flagged comment, I met Carlos at Art Basel last year absolutely crushing it on the dance floor! what a guy

memes galore