‘Bored Ape’ - ‘Monkey’s Paw’?
No they do not. No one is going to open up a game so that a foreign asset came be imported without review. And if the NFT is only useful in one game then why put it on a public blockchain that the Developer has no control over? If the NFT is on a private blockchain controlled by the Developer, then it’s really just a database with extra steps.
NFTs were always a means to induced demand for crypto.
The NFT for the first-ever tweet dropped from $2.9 million to under $2k, but I definitely wouldn’t count on that being the bottom either. Even though the bidders may just be trying to buy it as a conversation starter rather than an actual investment at this point.
The only lasting power of those Bored Apes images will be when someone does some “Remember when?” memorabilia article on the Tacky Twenties.
Em. Because Bored Ape, or rather their parent company Yuga Labs, explicitly grants exclusive commercial licensing rights to the owner of the NFT. Yuga keeps the actual copyright though.
So buying an NFT, at least for them, really was buying an exclusive perpetual license with rights to redistribute.
Still a weird way to license IP.
Edit: See actual terms. I have no idea why the NFT smart contracts just don’t include actual contracts.
If that’s the case then the whole situation is even dumber than I thought.
Like if a movie studio paid for the rights to adapt an author’s work, but then someone broke into the movie studio and stole the contract out of the safe and everyone agreed that meant the thief had exclusive rights to the story now.
Oh it’s definitely dumb. Had the NFT been something like a legal contract, just stored in a blockchain with actual legal names filled in and everything, that would at least be mildly interesting.
But no, someone decided what licensing needed was the ability for it to be stolen (or lost!) like physical artwork.
Still not quite as dumb as “buying a receipt” - though it would hardly shock me if NFTs from other vendors didn’t grant a license and you were, in fact, just buying a receipt.
Of course, why anyone thought the rights to a image of a cartoon ape were worth spending millions on is beyond me, especially given how many cartoons were produced.
I don’t think he is ignorant of it. I think he saw the writing on the wall and wanted a way to back out.
Ah, now I get what you’re saying. Yes, the “bragging rights,” among a select group of people.
That’s what the bros say is so wonderful about crypto! No courts, no contracts, no names, no police enforcement. Mathematics will do it all for us! Mathematics can’t lie! The thief probably even gets to ask Elon to make sure no one but him can use the image on ex-Twitter.
So what would be the theoretical consequence if Seth Green went ahead and made his stupid ape cartoon without the NFT?
Reminds me of that story that made the news about the Wu-Tang Clan including an item in a legal contract stipulating that it was OK for Bill Murray to steal back the album in a heist with no legal repercussions.
(Very sad that the story turned out to be a hoax.)
I would absolutely spend $4 bucks on it, just because of how silly it would be. I have no idea how Opensea works, but it looks like the minimum bid is still 100 eth? Boooo.
Edit: Wait no, that’s “Jack Dorsey’s first tweet in pixel format 800_800px”. God, that’s even more stupid. I’ve already spent way to much time looking at those terrible things. I take back my offer of $4.
Even Harlan Crow’s NFT — Justice Clarence Thomas — is worth less.
I’ve recently found a coffee can full of beer receipts from the early 2000s. PM me for collector and investment advice!
I agree with you. The only difference in games is that a digital asset actually has some value. A kid will pay [$1.99] for a cool batman skin in a game, but it really only has value while a game has an audience. Everquest had millions of players in the late 90s early 2000s and has something like 20,000 players today. Same thing will eventually happen to WoW, PubG and Fortnite. You’re fancy gun or outfit can and will have some utility and value today, but in 10 years it will be worthless. Making a digital asset an NFT is silly, but it does add to the feeling of scarcity or value.