The Ape is a lie.
6 Likes
8 Likes
I guess he doesn’t realize he can create his own image of an ape any time, and even turn it into an NFT if he really wants.
3 Likes
No, we’re not f**king doing Stonehenge.
1 Like
These things are frequently sold with the promise, explicit or not, that you can somehow monetize your ownership, for example by creating a TV show. This guy apparently both believed that and tried to turn it into reality. Even if this were legally possible, why some cartoonish ape that looks pretty much like any of the other cartoonish apes would be valuable in this way is a mystery.
1 Like
Euan, his mirth overflows.
9 Likes
Harold’s cat, disturbed by his laughter.
8 Likes
It is a sign of the times that I knew who “Bored Ape” is, but had to Google “Seth Green”.
10 Likes
Not a Buffy fan, eh?
4 Likes
Big Buffy fan at the time; poor memory for names. 
3 Likes
It’s marketing hype bullshit scam action in progress. He transferred it to a friend’s wallet to drum up all this free press.
2 Likes
On Saturday, Green teased a trailer for White Horse Tavern at the NFT conference VeeCon. A twee comedy, the show seems to be based on the question, “What if your friendly neighborhood bartender was Bored Ape Yacht Club #8398?”
Guess we’ll have to reconcile ourselves to the certainty that we’ll never learn the answer to that age-old mystery.
6 Likes
In this case it sounds like the publishers of the NFTs actually have issued a license that confers rights to the intellectual property associated with the NFT to the owner of the NFT. It’s unclear whether this actually means anything legally (though IANAL) but it’s at least a bit more substantive an ownership claim than the fools who thought getting an NFT of the Jodorowsky Dune book would give them the rights to sell its content.
Further thoughts: One thing that makes NFTs weird is that possession becomes 10/10ths of the law, at least as far as the NFT per se is concerned. If we were actually going to countenance an economy where mere possession of a digital artifact confered some kind of concrete ownership of something of economic value beyond the artifact itself, suddenly we’re in a weird universe where stealing the digital ducal signet ring could mean that you magically become the ruler of the digital dukedom.
3 Likes
Doesn’t this sort of completely destroy the value premise of NFT’s (or any crypto asset)?
If they can be stolen or scammed, how exactly are they more secure than any other certificate of ownership?
5 Likes
Is it really?
The “null hypothesis” is pretty straightforward 
2 Likes
“jpeg stolen”
4 Likes
The silver lining is that nothing of value was lost.
4 Likes
They’re not. The only “security” provided is that GET YER GUMMINT HANDS OFF MY PROPERTY – you can’t force someone up to give their credentials and do a transfer. On the other hand, since the only source of truth is The Ledger, if you get scammed into giving up the thing, there’s no recourse – The Ledger says they own it now, so they own it now.
Basically, permissionless blockchain is a way of formally implementing one of the most problematic systems pathologies: “If it isn’t official, it hasn’t happened”.
1 Like
Even if the NFTs in this marketplace include some kind of publishing rights, and even if obtaining an NFT through theft, fraud, or deception is acceptable to this marketplace, there is no way those publishing rights transfer with an NFT obtained through theft, fraud, or deception. NFTs may be an unregulated wild west, but intellectual property rights are definitely not. There are very clear laws about those rights. If Green actually obtained the publishing rights to that ape, he still has them. It’s past time for Congress to step in and regulate the cryptocurrency and NFT markets. But I have zero confidence they will until some Republican gets scammed out of a shitload of money.
2 Likes
