If this story is true, and it’s so perfect it may not be, it is possibly the most Reddity of all the posts in Reddit’s Relationships subreddit.
The gist of the story: dude [31m] loses a buttload of money “investing” in cryptocurrency and options trading, enraging his girlfriend [28f] who thinks crypto “investing” is reckless and stupid and maybe so is her boyfriend. So he decides to win her heart (and win her over to the joys of crypto) by proposing to her not with a ring but with an NFT (non-fungible token), which I don’t really understand but apparently it’s basically a worthless crypto token attached vaguely to something in the real or digital world, like say the Nyan cat gif. (Verge has an explainer that might be helpful but I gave up reading part way through because my brain was freezing over due to my complete non-comprehension.)
In any case, girlfriend [28f] did not feel stoked about his proposal.
Let’s let dude [31m] (who calls himself HandHoldingClub) explain his financial and romantic misadventures.
He starts off with a misleading title:
My [31M] fiancee/girlfriend [28F] is upset that I proposed with an NFT instead of a ring. What can I do about this?
Ok, but she’s NOT your fiancĆ©e/girlfriend; she hasn’t said yes to your proposal and may not even stick around as your girlfriend for very much longer if she has any goddamn sense.
For this post my fiance will be Jenna (fake name) I’m 31 and Jenna is 28.
Jenna and I have been together 4 years. We have discussed marriage and agreed we would both be interested in the right situation financially. Jenna has recently been mad at me as I lost a significant portion of my half of our savings in dogecoin.
You lost a significant portion of your savings on a crypto “investment” that was intended as a joke?
I did make half of it back with stock market options but then lost some more and she wanted me to quit so I did.
So in other words you’re still down big time.
Jenna does not have an investing mind and is more interested in saving your money in a checking account and then buying a house or something, but I want to show her how we can multiply our money with investing.
You’re not investing, dude; you’re gambling and you’re not very good at it.
Well things were going okay and then I found something that made my jaw drop. It was an NFT with significance to our life that she would love. I rushed to buy it with almost my entire life savings because I know this is a good one that could be worth a million when we’re older.
Worth a million what, regrets?
I got down on one knee and presented her the NFT and she started crying. She said I was TA [the asshole] and that how could I do this. I explained to her that in ten years we could buy a mansion with this and it’s a symbol of my love and devotion but she sees it as selfish and foolish.
In ten years, if you’re lucky, you may have enough to buy a picture of a mansion.
I don’t want to sell the NFT because it’s once in a lifetime and I don’t want to leave her.
I’m not sure you’re the one who’s going to do the leaving. You might have to buy yourself a NFT of a new girlfriend.
What can I do?
Unfortunately, dude, all of my good suggestions involve using a time machine to go back to before you started “investing” in crypto.
If you’re unable to get hold of a time machine or even an NFT of one I would suggest dumping your NFT for whatever you can get for it. Then never try crypto or options trading ever again. Put what remains of your nest egg into index funds, which are invested in real companies, not crypto will-o-the-wisps. Do your best to forget about your investment so it can grow in peace. Take up a more sensible hobby, like trainspotting, or planking, or heroin addiction.
Unless of course this is all fake, in which case congratulations for writing a post that manages to be horrifying yet completely plausible.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
The art market has always been used to launder dirty money, and NFTs are just the hip new techbro way of doing this. And most digital artists struggle to make money from their work, so they are easy marks for any grifter offering a new way for them to make money – for a fee. One thing the cryptocurrency world has a lot of is grifters.
Amy Castor on NFTs:
https://amycastor.com/2021/07/01/like-high-art-nfts-hit-all-the-right-targets-for-money-laundering/
How to launder money with NFTs:
https://cryptowhale.medium.com/money-laundering-tutorial-how-to-launder-millions-with-nfts-7530b7079a78
Oh, of course Chuck Tingle has thoughts on NFTs:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08ZJN5L49
Don’t fall for this devilman plot!
@ moggie
Indeed. It’s a great way of doing it. Just take some young ‘upcoming’ artist under your wing as their agent. Then when the authorities ask where you got those millions of dollars from, just show them the receipts for the art sales. After all, it’s not like the IRS are in a position to say how much art is worth*.
There have now been steps to address that though.
https://www.artatlaw.com/new-anti-money-laundering-regulations-target-art-market/
How successful that will be remains to be seen.
(*The IRS are probably a bad example here; they do in fact have a load of art experts on their books; but you get my drift)
Some more from Amy Castor about NFTs:
https://amycastor.com/2021/03/18/wtf-is-an-nft-heres-a-rundown-of-the-basics/
I particularly like the idea that you’re just buying a pointer, and what it points to can change or go away at any time. Congratulations on your expensive collection of 404 pages!
I am assuming there are NFTs made from pictures of 17th century Dutch tulips?
@moregeekthan;
I am assuming there are NFTs made from pictures of 17th century Dutch tulips?
I was waiting for someone to drop that wooden shoe!
(One ephemeral Fadzilla whose tangible product was permanent and unrescindable: Sorrows of Young Werther ostensive suicides.)
As an old friend of mine mentioned on Usenet (to tell you how long ago this was): Investing in collectibles is based on the ‘Greater Fool’ principle. To make any money, you have to find someone who’s a greater fool than you were when you bought it.
He was talking about comic books at the time (this was early 1990s) but really, it applies to things like NFTs as well. A few people who managed to get into the market before the vast majority of people even heard about it may have made a lot of money. But once that large amount of money became public and now lots of people are getting involved as both buyers and sellers, that pretty much guarantees none of them are going to make much of anything. Action comics #1 (200,000 printed in 1938, maybe 100 still exist) can sell for millions today, but your copy of MacFarlane’s Spiderman #1 (over 2 million printed in 1990 with multiple variants, many pre-bagged as collectibles, and most of them probably still exist) is unlikely to ever go for more than the $120 that certain variants have sold for this year.
It’s like the story about Joseph Kennedy Sr. deciding it was time to get out of the stock market when his shoeshine boy started giving stock tips in 1929. Once everybody’s involved, none of them are likely making much.
Non-forceable tulips.
(In horticulture, “forcing” refers to brief greenhouse cultivation of bulbs or similar dormant plant bodies, typically to produce cut flowers off-season in minimal greenhouse space. This is generally how cut tulip flowers are produced, from bulbs grown in the field.)
@Jenora Feuer:
He was talking about comic books at the time (this was early 1990s) but really, it applies to things like NFTs as well. A few people who managed to get into the market before the vast majority of people even heard about it may have made a lot of money. But once that large amount of money became public and now lots of people are getting involved as both buyers and sellers, that pretty much guarantees none of them are going to make much of anything. Action comics #1 (200,000 printed in 1938, maybe 100 still exist) can sell for millions today, but your copy of MacFarlaneās Spiderman #1 (over 2 million printed in 1990 with multiple variants, many pre-bagged as collectibles, and most of them probably still exist) is unlikely to ever go for more than the $120 that certain variants have sold for this year.
A further point about those legendary Golden and Silver Age comics: it never occurred to anyone at the time that theyād be treasured heirlooms, much less investments; although many of their creators would hone and polish their work into an iconic American art form (and thereās a whole ānother thesis on how innovation always rises from the vernacular) comics (and pulps) were published as ephemeral mass junk entertainment, printed on shit paper andāduring World War IIārecycled for the war effort.
My way to resume NFTs:
Buy a sale’s receipt and pretend you own the sold product.
A common question you see on guitar forums is some variation on “What guitar can I buy today that will be worth lots in the future?” This is based on the fact that some guitars, like 1958-1960 Gibson Les Pauls, pre World War Two Martin acoustic guitars etc. can be worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. “Imagine if I bought one when they were worth X, I’d have made lots of money!” But most people will respond by pointing out that most new guitars all but certainly won’t be worth huge amounts. Most models of guitars are made in too high of numbers for there to be future scarcity, and guitars as a whole are made in too high of numbers. They might hold their used value relative to inflation, but won’t increase in value.
Some will respond that in fact the future of collectible guitars may be questionable. A lot of guitars have the worth they do because they’re associated with the rock stars of the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s. But it’s baby boomers and Gen Xers who are the most interested in that music. Younger people are less interested in guitar based music in general, and those specific artists, so they may not be as interested in buying vintage guitars. The baby boomers are aging out of playing guitars, which may lead to an increasing number of guitars on the market as they and their families try to sell them off, making it a buyer’s market. So even investing in guitars that are currently seen as collectible might not be a good idea.
And to get back to business, here’s an idea I’m surprised we haven’t discussed. Manly men don’t lean towards women. The green lines tell us so.
‘Don’t Lean In’ Memes: The Green Line Alpha Theory, Explained (melmagazine.com)
So, erm, speaking of money … I got a call today from a recruiter wanting to talk with me about a job that would pay triple my current pay, aka “more money than I’ve made in my life.” I hope to have an interview scheduled this week.
Nothing’s for certain, but for today I’m going to dream about what that extra money would mean. (Boring stuff, for the most part. “Extravagance” will mean buying that new Barbara Hambly novel now rather than later.)
@ Vicky P
Ooh, that is great news. Good luck! I’m sure you’ll rock this.
Thanks, Alan! I’m currently bouncing between “Think of the things you could do with that money” (yes, that’s a Jesus Christ Superstar reference) and “What would make me turn this down?” and “What would I dislike but tolerate?”
The job basically is a lot like one I used to have – in fact, they are wanting to hire somebody with experience at my old company. Thank goodness I didn’t burn any bridges AND kept in touch with some of my old co-workers. I’ve got 3 references lined up already.
@Alan Robertshaw
NFTs and art! You’re just the fellow! What distinguishes a “real” NFT from a “fake” NFT? See, e.g., this story in which someone made a “fake” Banksy NFT. Why was that not a real NFT of a Banksy painting, just generated by someone else? Or for example, the museum generated a Blake painting NFT… but why couldn’t someone else do it if they have a copy of the painting (either print or digital)? Are there any actual laws about this kind of thing or is it basically just whatever you can get away with?
“Tell the rabble to be quiet, we anticipate a riot!”
(That’s my favourite)
But I’m sure you’ll knock them dead.
Here’s the usual interview guidance I post whenever the topic crops up on Linkedin.
Take it away Spud! (Obviously don’t really do this)
@ big titty demon
Heh; I assuredly am not! :-). Luckily though, my friend Katarina is.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/know-your-rights-march-nft-1954800
But in essence, no(ish), you can (probably) only legally make an NFT of something you own the IP rights to.
It’s all still a bit nebulous though in practice. The Whitfield does actually own the physical Blake. Now that of course doesn’t mean they own the IP rights; they’re still with the Blake estate. For the auction they may well have got permission from the estate*.
Also, there’s a general accepted practice in the art world that galleries and museums do have an implicit licence to make copies of the work and/or display the image elsewhere for publicity or promotional purposes. It’s a form of ‘fair use’. But there are limits. There have been rows in the past about using works on the cover of catalogues as opposed to just featuring them inside; especially when the catalogues are sold at a profit.
Notwithstanding the legal position though there still are a lot of people minting NFTs of other artists’ work. Here’s a good article on that.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2021/03/16/nfts-and-copyright/
Really though, so long as there’s no fraud as to provenance, an NFT is worth what it’s worth to the purchaser. Like how in the real world, someone might insist on a real vintage comic; someone else might be happy with a facsimile.
There is however an entire field called “Appropriation Art”. As the name suggests, that’s where someone builds on an existing artwork. If there’s been enough skill and creativity applied in doing that, not only is it not a breach of copyright, it creates a separate copyright in the new work. The test is whether the copying artist has been ‘transformative’ enough. So that could apply to some NFTs.
This is one of my favourite areas of art law (and just art generally). I can bang on about this for hours. But in deference to everyone else I won’t. š
(* I should really know this. The sale was organised by an organisation I’m a part of. I should probably go back and actually read some of my messages.)
@Alan
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsy5sJy5_34&
@ dali
Oh gawd, I loved that! They’re right up my street. I’ll be checking the rest of their oeuvre out.
But of course, when it comes to predicting riots, nobody beats Girls Aloud!
I expect the person who paid $69 million for an NFT did it for the same reason most such people spend absurd amounts of money for art: So they they can tell their wealthy peers how much they spent. It’s pure conspicuous consumption.
The collectibles thing, and speculating on them, has gotten my interest lately as I decided (for various reasons) to sell off most of my collections of action figures and board games.
Fairly early on in my research, I made the decision just to sell stuff that I already had, rather than trying to speculate by buying items in the hope of selling them at a profit. I never did that even when collecting toys and comics in the early 90s before the bubble burst, as I collected them for themselves.
I was wise to do so back then, because (shockingly) the things that were going to be super-valuable in 20-30 years aren’t. My 90s Star Wars collection is worth slightly more than the retail price of new toys today.
They things have have proven to be super valuable, resulting in bidding wars or huge offers out of the blue, were other stuff. By far my most valuable toys are vintage Masters of the Universe figures, which as anyone who remembers the mid-80s were not exactly hard to come by back then. Although the value of individual toys is heavily affected by their rarity – my most valuable item was a figure from the last production year, made after sales had plummeted catastrophically ($400 million in sales in 1986, then $7 million in sales in 1987), and so were produced in much smaller quantities. And the figure in question is a variant with an accessory in a less-common color than the majority of that figure.
But of course, I had no idea when I bought it that the figure might become valuable, or that the other figure I bought at the same time would only be worth $10-15 (he was from an earlier wave). I was a kid who thought they were cool toys – and they’re in tip-top condition, not because I tried to preserve their collectible value, but because I was the kind of child who took good care of his toys.
@ allandrel
Apparently it was an anti-racist statement. How successful that was is an exercise for the reader.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/beeple-buyers-metakovan-twobadour-1953418
But a couple of points to note.
Beeple actually owns a part of the organisation that bought his work.
The work is a collage of 5,000 photographs. However each of those individual photos is a work in its own right. So prior to the sale of the main work, Beeple sold NFTs in those photos for $1 each. But with an artist resale royalty built into the smart contract.
Obviously after the main sale, Beeple stuff went through the roof (despite his previous record sale being $100).
But now you have a load of people pushing Beeple art and doing all the work in selling it; but every time one changes hands, Beeple gets a cut.
All totally legit of course, and so much easier than selling Monorails.
It is anticipated though that the new model might be artists making more from resale royalties than first sales.
@tim gueguen:
If the seller expected a guitar (or comic book, or etc.) to be an insanely valuable collector’s item in the future, they wouldn’t be willing to sell it for an ordinary-guitar price now. So, you can’t buy a surefire money-maker guitar, or anything else. If it was a surefire money-maker it would cost so much already that you wouldn’t actually make any net from its future sale …
I must quibble with the “too many are manufactured for them to become rare” thing though. Assuming that individual items are destroyed in the future in essentially random and independent events, then the amount of the product in circulation can be expected to a) ramp up initially, as production is increased over time until demand is saturated; b) plateau at an equilibrium until the manufacturer discontinues the product; and then c) decay exponentially toward zero starting the moment the last-ever shipment leaves the factory. Because the decay is exponential, an order of magnitude increase in the volume of manufacture will only push back the future date at which they become rare by a linear amount. So, making 1000x as many of some modern guitar as there ever were Gibsons might just make the modern one take a few more years or a decade or two longer to become rare once discontinued than the Gibsons took.
Of course, if many people anticipate the things becoming valuable, they might take special efforts to preserve the ones they own, and then they won’t become as rare as soon, diluting the price down the line. It’s a bit like the anti-inductiveness of the stock market: if there’s an exploitable pattern to make a lot of money, once the pattern is noticed by enough people the trick will stop working. This applies anywhere that’s zero-sum: the early exploiters of a stock market trick, or the lucky few with surviving Gibsons, or whatever basically transfer a bunch of other people’s money to themselves, and once enough people are able to do so (too many have learned the trick, or have preserved their guitars) they can’t “all win” anymore as there’s only so much to go around.
Consider this, too: any random garage sale, storage yard, or junk pile likely has a few super-rare whatsits or gizmos in it. The last screw with a particular manufacturer and size is in some rusting old tractor up on blocks at a scrapyard. The last surviving instances of some manufacturing run of embroidered pillows are going for $4.99 at a yard sale at 471 Elm Street, Buttfuck, New Jersey, 79441. There’s a piece of furniture in your own attic that is one of only five of its exact make and model left in the entire world, and nobody in your household has given it a second thought in a decade. And so on. It has to be associated with something to give it fame in order for it to become a valuable collectors’ item, and most makes and models of random things never get that fame-rub-off effect. What are the odds the make and model of that new guitar you’re contemplating purchasing will happen to become one of them? How many guitar brands were being manufactured and sold when Gibsons were new, and among which the Gibsons didn’t (yet) particularly stand out?
Fame and associated collector value are retroactive. Short of an actual ESP talent for prescience there is just no way to arrange for yourself to have such a thing … unless, of course, you’re already famous yourself. Then you just play your guitar at your gigs and make sure the logo is visible …
Inspired by our discussion above, I thought I’d mint a Dutch Tulip related NFT and see if anyone would buy it.
But someone beat me to it…
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/nft-crypto-dutch-tulip-bubble-bitcoin-meme-stocks-gme-amc-2021-08
@Surplus to requirements:
Agreed on most of that. Part of the reason that (to pick an example I already used) the MacFarlane Spiderman #1 hasn’t increased in value so much is because so many copies were explicitly sold pre-bagged as collectibles,along with the variant covers. One comic book shop in Kitchener was literally giving the ‘normal’ copies away at their Grand Opening event.
It’s one of the things that makes Antiques Roadshow and such interesting: how do these folks actually decide what something is ‘worth’, especially since the worth is pretty much only defined as ‘what somebody else is willing to pay for it’, so it’s mostly based on historical analysis. I remember seeing one such show where somebody was getting an old New York Yankees team photo appraised, one that had been signed by all the players, plus one other signature. And the appraiser was commenting on the fact that normally being signed by somebody who wasn’t actually on the team would reduce the value of something like this, but in this case that wouldn’t apply… specifically because the extra signature belonged to the then-wife of Yankee Joe DiMaggio… Marilyn Monroe. Especially since they were only married for the one year, so it was a bit of a historical artifact.
Update to my report on Tuohivirta: The company has now removed the far-fetching claims from its website, after Finnish media began picking on them.