# Chaosium Suspends NFT Plans



## eyeheartawk (Feb 16, 2022)

Reading this sure makes it sounds like they are just doing this "for now". Sure reads like they are still really high on this whole VeVe thing in general.


----------



## Professor Murder (Feb 16, 2022)

Yeah. I do feel that many people who were upset with Chaosium over this are not separating the NFT offering from them despite being a licensing issue. I am glad they are stepping back, at least for now.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2022)

Folks, they have folks who’ve “invested” in digital “collectibles”. I think they are trying to not anger those folks. I read that suggestion elsewhere and it makes sense to me. 

I’m glad they stopped.

But yea I’m going to keep my eyes open.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 16, 2022)

I am glad they listened to the ... well, let's say the impassioned and overwhelming feedback.

That said, and without rehashing the debate in the other thread (which contains links), I want to make sure people understand and do their due diligence when they see references to "environmentally conscious" or "carbon neutral."

This tech is not, and cannot be, environmentally friendly. So when you see these statements, it means the following (either separately or together)-

1. They are buying carbon offsets. That's great! Good for them. But that's the same thing as someone saying, "Sure, this monster truck gets 10 gallons to the mile and dumps crude oil straight on to the road, but it's carbon neutral and environmentally friendly because I buy carbon offsets." The other problem is that the carbon offsets usually only account for the transactions- the actual environmental costs are much greater, because of the amount of waste that goes into mining and gas (it requires hardware, the hardware has short lifespans because it needs to be upgraded on a regular basis, etc.). It's not just a power issue, it's a growing e-waste problem. 

2. They are using some sort of third party- usually referred to for these purposes as a Layer 2 (a layer on "top" of the blockchain), in order to avoid doing single transactions. Which, you know, great. But remember how the whole problem that blockchain "solves" is decentralization? Well, guess what- Layer 2 (and other techs that are springing up) means that you are dealing with ... a centralized point ... that can be attacked and fail.


All that said, please do your research, and continue to support the artists and the creatives in the TTRPG space with your patronage and your money. 

They work hard to give us the products that we love.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Feb 16, 2022)

Just want to point out that, in the other, now closed thread, there was at least one person sort of shrugging at the backlash--that it was just a small number of loudmouths complaining, who cares, not going to matter.

Well it did. It's a small industry, so it's possible to get the attention of even the largest players within it.


----------



## Undrave (Feb 16, 2022)

We HAVE to vehemently attack any company trying o step into the NFT scam if we don't want that naughty word to spread everywhere like a plague. The people already invested constantly need new blood to buy in if they wish to cash out, so they'll do anything to convince corporations there is money to be made. The corporations aren't dumb, they'll go where there is money, but if we make sure they'll lose money by getting into NFTs to please a tiny vocal minority, they should back out.

We just need to hold until the whole scheme collapse and the small minority of suckers are left holding the bag.


----------



## Jer (Feb 16, 2022)

Ah the NFT cycle.  Announce that you're releasing an NFT, take a massive PR hit among the people who actually care about your product, start walking it back.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2022)

Jer said:


> Ah the NFT cycle.  Announce that you're releasing an NFT, take a massive PR hit among the people who actually care about your product, start walking it back.



Yea, hopefully folks begin to notice.


----------



## Jer (Feb 16, 2022)

darjr said:


> Yea, hopefully folks begin to notice.



I literally just want one of these announcements to indicate exactly what they are doing with an NFT in a way where I can go "oh, sure - that's something interesting and worthwhile that is worth the energy it's going to take to keep it running indefinitely".

Instead every one of them falls into two camps - companies where I don't think that the folks writing up the announcement know what they're doing with an NFT release, and companies where their release feels like someone trying to get me to buy into Amway. Neither of which are a good look for a company.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

Heh . . . at the risk of being labeled an NFT apologist or a sealion again . . .

I feel that the fan reaction to Chaosium's NFT plans was an over-reaction. I'm sorry Chaosium felt the need to walk them back, although it was probably their best move under the circumstances.

NFTs are new territory, the wild, digital west, but Chaosium's parternship with VeVe seemed innocent enough, well-intentioned, and most definitely not a "scam".

That said, I also don't understand the desire to own a 3D digital statue or book (_or a license or token for one_) outside of a game environment. So, I'm not personally losing out here.

WotC will likely put any NFT plans they have on ice, at least for a while. I would be more interested in seeing their offerings since I'm a huge D&D fan, although I still can't imagine wanting to own any possible D&D NFTs. But I'm open to the idea, should WotC ever decide to give it a shot.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> NFTs are new territory, the wild, digital west, but Chaosium's parternship with VeVe seemed innocent enough, well-intentioned, and most definitely not a "scam".




I offer to you the point many made in the previous thread:  Whatever Chaosium intended, NFTs as vehicles for art _in general_ are a scam.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2022)

Oh! And another thing, someone pointed out that carbon offsets for wasteful useless luxury status symbols is bad. It’s a shame in and of itself.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 16, 2022)

> While we address the concerns of the tabletop gaming community we have halted our plans for future NFT releases.



That reads to me like they're suspending NFTs for the time being. Not permanently.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> NFTs are new territory, the wild, digital west, but Chaosium's parternship with VeVe seemed innocent enough, well-intentioned, and most definitely not a "scam".



Whether Chaosium's partnership with VeVe was a sterling example of good intentions or not, their good use of questionable technology/practices shouldn't serve to legitimize it. 
The Sackler family may have donated money to a lot of good causes, but it doesn't exactly clean the taint of how they got that money.


----------



## Jer (Feb 16, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> That reads to me like they're suspending NFTs for the time being. Not permanently.



That's corporate speak for you. It's a rare company that comes right out and says "we're changing course" plainly when they can say "we're reviewing our options" instead.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 16, 2022)

Jer said:


> That's corporate speak for you. It's a rare company that comes right out and says "we're changing course" plainly when they can say "we're reviewing our options" instead.



Cool. So I'll just keep on "reviewing my options" by not buying books from them until they simply and plainly come out and say they're never doing NFTs again.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I offer to you the point many made in the previous thread:  Whatever Chaosium intended, NFTs as vehicles for art _in general_ are a scam.



Yeah, even though I bowed out of the discussion, still read through many of the posts. Still don't agree.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 16, 2022)

Thank goodness.  They had me worried there for a minute.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Whether Chaosium's partnership with VeVe was a sterling example of good intentions or not, their good use of questionable technology/practices shouldn't serve to legitimize it.
> The Sackler family may have donated money to a lot of good causes, but it doesn't exactly clean the taint of how they got that money.



That is a terrible analogy.

The Sackler's, and the pharma company they control (Purdue), engaged in deliberately manipulative and dishonest activities in order to convince more Americans to purchase their opiod drugs. Opiod drugs are highly addictive . . . . but have their legitimate medical uses. The drugs weren't the problem, it was Purdue's tactics to put those drugs into as many bodies as possible to drive up their profits, and with the side result of driving up addictions and deaths. How much the Sackler's may have contributed to charities is unrelated to their very real crimes.

I have yet to see any evidence that Chaosium or VeVe are engaging in any deceptive practices. I don't accept that NFTs are deceptive or scams inherently . . . although they are unregulated and problematic, and prime stomping grounds for scam artists.

I get folks viewing NFTs as foolish, dangerous tech, unregulated, environmentally unsustainable, bad investments, and bad ideas. I agree with all of that. There are definitely a lot of bad actors in the NFT space, and a lot of foolish actors as well. But the step further than the entire NFT space is nothing but scams . . . that everyone involved is either the scammers or the scammed . . . I'm just not seeing it. I'm certainly not seeing anything wrong with Chaosium's canceled NFT plans.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Feb 16, 2022)

I'll call this one good enough, for now. I really like NuChaosium's product. There are some valid criticisms with how they handled their not open open license, and their handling of the Cthulhu Reborn thing. But, they're also putting out all time great stuff now and they went back and made sure all the freelancers from the Krank era of Chaosium got paid, which they didn't need to do. Now I can look forward to that new version of Beyond the Mountains of Madness in 2024 (or whenever) and all the other good stuff.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> The Sackler's, and the pharma company they control (Purdue), engaged in deliberately manipulative and dishonest activities in order to convince more Americans to purchase their opiod drugs.



NFTs are a transparent “buy in but leave some other rube holding the bag before it crashes” ponzi scheme.


----------



## John Dallman (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I get folks viewing NFTs as foolish, dangerous tech, unregulated, environmentally unsustainable, bad investments, and bad ideas. I agree with all of that. There are definitely a lot of bad actors in the NFT space, and a lot of foolish actors as well. But the step further than the entire NFT space is nothing but scams . . . that everyone involved is either the scammers or the scammed . . . I'm just not seeing it.



"At each poker table look around for the sucker. If you can't spot them, it's you."


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

John Dallman said:


> "At each poker table look around for the sucker. If you can't spot them, it's you."



So . . . NFTs are all scams like Poker is always a scam? Okay.


----------



## Jer (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> NFTs are new territory, the wild, digital west, but Chaosium's parternship with VeVe seemed innocent enough, well-intentioned, and most definitely not a "scam".



Simple question for determining this.  What do you get when you buy an NFT? And what is the expected value you get from that thing.

For example - when I buy a Funko pop, I get a little bobble head statue to put on my desk. The value is whatever value I get when I look at a little bobble head guy on my desk. When I buy a comic book I get a story with art. 

What do you get when you buy an NFT?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Yeah, even though I bowed out of the discussion, still read through many of the posts. Still don't agree.




I didn't expect you to agree.  I have a different point here.

Imagine two people, A and B, who are having backyard barbecues.  At each place, a bottle of charcoal starter fluid falls into the fire, and a pillar of flame goes up.

Person A calls the fire department.

Person B closes the lid of their grill, and grabs a fire extinguisher.

These two people are in fundamental agreement about what is happening, but one has a more severe reaction than the other.  You might say one of them is over-reacting.

However, you and others are _NOT_ in fundamental agreement on what is happening with NFTs.  Assessing the reaction should be done in the context of what they think is happening, not in the context of what _you_ think is happening.

I submit to you that given what they think, their reaction (which is, let us be clear, _just talking_ about it online), seems pretty mild in the realm of reactions.  And it has, for now, handled the issue with a minimum of real harm to anyone involved. 

Or, do you think just talking about it is too much?  Talking about stuff is an over-reaction, to you?


----------



## Malmuria (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> But the step further than the entire NFT space is nothing but scams . . . that everyone involved is either the scammers or the scammed . . . I'm just not seeing it. I'm certainly not seeing anything wrong with Chaosium's canceled NFT plans.



With regards to Veve, I would say their business model seems _predatory_ in the same way that video game monetization and loot boxes are potentially predatory.  As I understand it, to own a Veve digital collectible, you have to convert real money in "gems," which is their internal currency.  Then you wait for one of their "drops" in which you can purchase a digital collectible.  These are similar to loot boxes in that you don't know the "rarity"of the item you purchase until after.  You might have gotten a common version or an ultra rare version.  Of course, the rarity is artificially produced scarcity.  Then these items can gain in value on the Veve secondary market, where you can buy or sell your collectibles to gems.  But there is no way to cash out these gems back into real currency.

So it's predatory in two ways
1. The use of loot box style gambling mechanics, particularly in products that are aimed at children (Disney, etc), have been shown to exploit those with compulsive gambling problems and children who manage to spend their parents money. 

2. Through the artificial rarity of these items and the secondary market, they are ostensibly selling users investments, things that can increase in value.  But there is no possibility to sell these investments for real world currency, you can only get more digital "gems."

Whether you think the above is predatory will come down to your view of consumer exploitation and responsibility.  The traditional view might be that people with compulsive gambling disorders ought to be the only ones responsible for their decisions.  Similarly, if others mistakenly view these products as good investments, then only they are to blame when their investing strategy fails.  But I'm skeptical that the companies involved--from video game companies to veve--don't know exactly what they are doing here. 

As Frank said: "We used to make s___ in this country, build s___. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket."


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 16, 2022)

I spent so much wasted time on Twitter today slapfighting these clowns in that thread, almost none of which seemed to know what Chaosium actually makes and sells. The one guy who got closest seemed to think they sold board games. Most of them just evaded or didn’t answer when pressed. Every single use case they tried to outline as a benefit of NFTs I had to point out were already being done fine without blockchain for years or were unrealistic pipe dreams.

Everything is an investment to them. Everything has to be able to be resold for a profit. Nobody seems to understand weird concepts like “joy” or “relaxation” or “having friends.” It’s so exhausting.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 16, 2022)

If you want a funny/sad experience, start scrolling through this website-









						Web3 is Going Just Great
					

A timeline recording only some of the many disasters happening in crypto, decentralized finance, NFTs, and other blockchain-based projects.




					web3isgoinggreat.com
				




Of importance, I was surprised to see that Chaosium made the cut! That's right, our little hobby is on there now.


----------



## Jer (Feb 16, 2022)

OblivionDrive said:


> Everything is an investment to them. Everything has to be able to be resold for a profit. Nobody seems to understand weird concepts like “joy” or “relaxation” or “having friends.” It’s so exhausting.



Yeah this is definitely the mindset of a lot of folks.  If it weren't for the various negative impacts I'd actually be happy to let these folks go off and trade imaginary collectibles in their blockchain. It would keep them out of actual collectible markets where these kind of folks just drive up the prices for the folks who aren't looking to buy them as an investment.


----------



## J.Quondam (Feb 16, 2022)

OblivionDrive said:


> Everything is an investment to them. Everything has to be able to be resold for a profit. Nobody seems to understand weird concepts like “joy” or “relaxation” or “having friends.” It’s so exhausting.



This!
Setting aside the technical, ethical, and economic issues surrounding this stuff, what disgusts me most is that it's all driven by an attitude that everything must be "monetized"; that everything should be regarded through the lens of "investment"; and even implicitly that it's okay to rip off someone else because "_caveat emptor,_ ngmi!"
It _is_ exhausting, and disheartening.


----------



## Jer (Feb 16, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> If you want a funny/sad experience, start scrolling through this website-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you scroll down they also have the mtgDAO brouhahah from last week earlier this week (my god was that this week?) so the ccg crowd also gets to be in the news. 

As you say that site is simultaneously hilarious and depressing.  The story about Samsung creating a sustainability themed VR scavenger hunt where players earn NFT badges on Etherium (one of the worst offenders when it comes to power consumption) when they complete tasks like planting virtual trees and picking up virtual garbage is the kind of thing that you might have found in an early 90s cyberpunk novel.

(Also if you browse that site with noscript turned on they have a link to a "Web 1.0" version of the site, which I appreciate!)


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 16, 2022)

Jer said:


> Yeah this is definitely the mindset of a lot of folks.  If it weren't for the various negative impacts I'd actually be happy to let these folks go off and trade imaginary collectibles in their blockchain. It would keep them out of actual collectible markets where these kind of folks just drive up the prices for the folks who aren't looking to buy them as an investment.



Exactly. They don’t grasp that it’s the destructive tech we object to, not the idea of it existing. If NFTs were 100% clean and didn’t interface with crypto/blockchain stuff? Knock yourself out. Trade all day. Have fun.

But that’s not how this works. And “carbon offsets” are just handwaving hokum. It’s like promising to have a baby for each adult you throw into a blender.


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 16, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> This!
> Setting aside the technical, ethical, and economic issues surrounding this stuff, what disgusts me most is that it's all driven by an attitude that everything must be "monetized"; that everything should be regarded through the lens of "investment"; and even implicitly that it's okay to rip off someone else because "_caveat emptor,_ ngmi!"
> It _is_ exhausting, and disheartening.



I had a guy ask me today “wouldn’t you prefer your Chaosium books appreciate in value rather than depreciate?” I told him since I have no intentions to sell them it literally does not matter either way to me. He could NOT comprehend that I felt that way. Just sad and rather scary.


----------



## Teo Twawki (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> So . . . NFTs are all scams like Poker is always a scam? Okay.



I took the initial comment to be aimed at the suckers who buy into the idea of a scam as being akin to the suckers who think they're good at poker but aren't. Inferring from that comment that poker is a scam like NFTs is likely a misreading of the comment.

i.e.
• I'm a sucker who believes NFTs are legitimate. _Wow! I gotta own that digital nothing!_ The seller knows I'm a sucker and laughs while taking my money.
• I'm an awesome poker player! _I sit down at the table and look at each person there to spot the sucker but can't figure out who it is... _The other players eye me knowing I'm the sucker. I soon leave the game--broke--wishing I'd stuck with purchasing my incredibly unique one-of-a-kind priceless valuable digital nothings.


----------



## darjr (Feb 16, 2022)




----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

Jer said:


> Simple question for determining this.  What do you get when you buy an NFT? And what is the expected value you get from that thing.
> 
> For example - when I buy a Funko pop, I get a little bobble head statue to put on my desk. The value is whatever value I get when I look at a little bobble head guy on my desk. When I buy a comic book I get a story with art.
> 
> What do you get when you buy an NFT?



Heh . . . I like Funko Pops about as much as I like NFTs . . .

If I purchased a digital Cthulhu statue from the Chaosium/VeVe partnership (_I think they did sell some before pulling the plug?_) . . . I would be purchasing a license, a token, for a digital statue of Cthulhu that I can display through the VeVe app. There were some augmented reality capabilities of the app as well, so I could display my statue on my front lawn . . . digitally . . .

I get the same value you mention for the bobbleheads. I get to put it on my (virtual) shelf and admire it. You can resell your Funko to somebody else if you want, not sure if you can do that with the Chaosium NFTs. It's all art, via different mediums. Owning a digital Cthulhu statue holds no value for YOU, it holds no value to ME, but that doesn't mean it holds no value to others. Just like your Funkos . . . I hate those things, and they hold no artistic value to me, but I don't begrudge my buddy who's obsessed with them . . .

Do you need NFTs to do something like this? No. Were the terms of what you would be purchasing laid out clearly? Yes. If VeVe goes belly-up, would I lose all of my NFT art pieces purchased through them? Probably.

I'm not trying to defend the Call of Cthulhu NFTs as a good deal! But a scam? No. In my mind, that requires deceit and misdirection from Chaosium and/or VeVe . . . which I'm not seeing here.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I didn't expect you to agree.  I have a different point here.
> 
> Imagine two people, A and B, who are having backyard barbecues.  At each place, a bottle of charcoal starter fluid falls into the fire, and a pillar of flame goes up.
> 
> ...



I'm not frustrated with folks who think NFTs are bad news, or even have the opinion that they are scams. There's been a lot of good posts in the various threads on this explaining the problems with NFTs, and why some folks are of the opinion the entire category is scammy. I don't agree with that position, but I can respect those who arrived at it logically.

But there are a LOT of posts in these threads that are super emotional about it, name-calling me and others who disagree, and yes, over-reacting to something that just doesn't have much impact on most folks. It's the insistence that, because I and others disagree, we're more than WRONG, we're fools, we're apologists, we're naive or ignorant, we're sealions . . . yadda yadda.

I may have missed a post, but I haven't seen any evidence at all that the Chaosium/VeVe partnership is scammy or dishonest in any way, shape, or form. A stupid product idea? Sure. I provided a link to an article about an independent pair of artists who leveraged NFTs of their own cartoon ducks to save their home (Dastardly Ducks) . . . I might not have the full story on that one, but again, it seems NFTs can be used for something other than evil, but good artists promoting their own art. No one addressed that one directly (_or if so, I missed it_).

Anyway . . . I'm not going to be purchasing any NFTs anytime soon, and I'm not super worried about anyone else doing so. Anyone thinking about purchasing an NFT should definitely educate themselves about the issues with the tech, and read the fine print on whatever deal they are thinking about . . . . but if they go in with open eyes, purchase a digital Cthulhu statue to display on their augmented reality lawn, and are happy with that purchase . . . . I've got no issues with Chaosium and VeVe providing that service. The calls for boycotts I find overwrought (but, hey, fair enough), especially the voices who are demanding a firmer anti-NFT stance from Chaosium before ending their boycott . . . .


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 16, 2022)

Teo Twawki said:


> I took the initial comment to be aimed at the suckers who buy into the idea of a scam as being akin to the suckers who think they're good at poker but aren't. Inferring from that comment that poker is a scam like NFTs is likely a misreading of the comment.
> 
> i.e.
> • I'm a sucker who believes NFTs are legitimate. _Wow! I gotta own that digital nothing!_ The seller knows I'm a sucker and laughs while taking my money.
> • I'm an awesome poker player! _I sit down at the table and look at each person there to spot the sucker but can't figure out who it is... _The other players eye me knowing I'm the sucker. I soon leave the game--broke--wishing I'd stuck with purchasing my incredibly unique one-of-a-kind priceless valuable digital nothings.



Certainly, folks get taken in poker games. There are sharks who swim in those waters. And, of course folks have already been taken in by scammy NFT deals. Chummed, shark-infested waters.

Doesn't make the game of Poker a scam, or anyone who thinks they are good at Poker the "sucker". Doesn't make all NFTs scams, or those who sell or purchase them all "suckers" or "scammers".

This is the over-reaction in these threads that bugs me. The leap from "_we disagree_" to "_you're wrong and you're an idiot, we've laid it out so clearly for you_".


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Feb 16, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Certainly, folks get taken in poker games. There are sharks who swim in those waters. And, of course folks have already been taken in by scammy NFT deals. Chummed, shark-infested waters.
> 
> Doesn't make the game of Poker a scam, or anyone who thinks they are good at Poker the "sucker". Doesn't make all NFTs scams, or those who sell or purchase them all "suckers" or "scammers".
> 
> This is the over-reaction in these threads that bugs me. The leap from "_we disagree_" to "_you're wrong and you're an idiot, we've laid it out so clearly for you_".




I think it's worth noting that you're spending a lot of time talking about how unconvinced you are that it's a scam, that it's predatory, etc. but you aren't actually offering any counter-arguments that are specific to NFTs, crypto, etc, other than, Jeez, I don't really get this (despite the fundamentals being explained over and over, succinctly at times and in excruciating detail at others), but hey guys.... _overreacting much?_

So produce some facts, some examples, something like what NFT critics have, including in this (and the other) thread. Otherwise, I mean, we get it. You're unimpressed by the arguments. But why bother repeating that? You're not anti, you're not pro, you're waiting and seeing. Cool. Duly noted. Why continue to broadcast your abstention, and then act appalled when people get frustrated--as one does when being trolled.


----------



## Malmuria (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> . . . . but if they go in with open eyes, purchase a digital Cthulhu statue to display on their augmented reality lawn, and are happy with that purchase . . . . I've got no issues with Chaosium and VeVe providing that service.



From what I've seen the large part of why people are interested in these collectibles are as investments.  It's not just they are selling limited edition whatever, and then a secondary market develops; they have their own internal secondary market and people can see how their "portfolio" is gaining value.  Do Veve execs really think that the digital spider man comic their users own is worth $50,000?  I wonder if the reason they don't let users cash out, is because if they did a lot of these collectibles would drop in value quickly.  So from that perspective it seems like a pump and dump scheme.


----------



## darjr (Feb 17, 2022)

What?!?


----------



## J.Quondam (Feb 17, 2022)

darjr said:


> What?!?



Weird. Sounds like someone might have got into NFTs without actually understanding what they were getting into?
Almost like a... like a.. oh, the word eludes me! But I think it rhymes with "spam."


----------



## Malmuria (Feb 17, 2022)

darjr said:


> What?!?



This is why it's predatory. I don't believe that Veve doesn't know there are people who will invest hundreds to thousands of dollars in these "rare collectibles" that they know are worthless.


----------



## Malmuria (Feb 17, 2022)

Part of what they are taking advantage of is this OCD will-to-collect.  If there is something marketed as rare and worthy of collecting there will be people paying any amount of money to collect it.  We see the mild version of this even in wotc's dnd books.  Some people need to have them all, and/or have all the alt-covers, and maybe the self-justification is that books with these covers will (and do) appreciate in value.  

I don't collect wotc books, but I do feel this way a bit with kickstarter offerings.  There is fomo, in the sense that if you miss out on the kickstarter sometimes you really are missing out on getting a physical version of a product. Personally, I don't value digital products in the same way, but I can see people wanting to just get in on the action.  I do know that I have a relatively modest shelf of gaming products, and yet more content than I'll probably ever get to play with any depth.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Do you need NFTs to do something like this? No. Were the terms of what you would be purchasing laid out clearly? Yes. If VeVe goes belly-up, would I lose all of my NFT art pieces purchased through them? Probably.
> 
> I'm not trying to defend the Call of Cthulhu NFTs as a good deal! But a scam? No. In my mind, that requires deceit and misdirection from Chaosium and/or VeVe . . . which I'm not seeing here.




So, ask yourself a question:  If you do not _need_ NFTs, which don't actually even manage most of the effort of displaying digital art, when this platform is known to be more expensive in the long run, why use them for this?  What, exactly, is the point of making this an NFT product?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 17, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, ask yourself a question:  If you do not _need_ NFTs, which don't actually even manage most of the effort of displaying digital art, when this platform is known to be more expensive in the long run, why use them for this?  What, exactly, is the point of making this an NFT product?



Which speaks to it being a crappy product. Not a scam.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Which speaks to it being a crappy product. Not a scam.




I note you didn't answer the question.  You dodged around it. 

Please, I ask again - why would they choose that platform if it is crappy?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 17, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I note you didn't answer the question.  You dodged around it.
> 
> Please, I ask again - why would they choose that platform if it is crappy?



I didn't dodge the question. I don't care.

The platform is crappy. The product is crappy. Okay. Doesn't make it a scam. Makes it a bad idea.

Hell, I'm beginning to think I'm operating on a different definition of "scam" then a lot of folks here.

Why would they choose that platform? Because they like the art? Because they want to be on the "cutting edge" and think NFTs are nifty? They are impulsive? They are Call of Cthulhu completists? These VeVe products have no appeal for me, but they do for others. As long as no one's being, well, scammed, I don't care why they would choose a VeVe NFT product.


----------



## Malmuria (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I didn't dodge the question. I don't care.
> 
> The platform is crappy. The product is crappy. Okay. Doesn't make it a scam. Makes it a bad idea.
> 
> ...











						Pump-and-Dump: Definition, How the Scheme is Illegal, and Types
					

Pump-and-dump is a manipulative scheme to boost the price of a security through fake recommendations based on false, misleading, or exaggerated statements.




					www.investopedia.com
				




Again, I would ask you: do you think Veve actually thinks its products are $50k investments?  Or does it promote that idea knowing that collectors and nft enthusiasts will spend their money in fake commodities?


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Feb 17, 2022)

Malmuria said:


> Pump-and-Dump: Definition, How the Scheme is Illegal, and Types
> 
> 
> Pump-and-dump is a manipulative scheme to boost the price of a security through fake recommendations based on false, misleading, or exaggerated statements.
> ...




He doesn't care. In fact, he cares so little he's going to make sure to post about exactly how much he doesn't care. This is what someone who does not care about a thing does.


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 17, 2022)

darjr said:


> What?!?



Yeaaah I remember that guy. He thought he should be reimbursed lol.

Everyone wants an unregulated financial system until they get the rug pulled out from under them. Then they demand security! 

And this wasn’t even a rug pull. They still got their “items.”


----------



## darjr (Feb 17, 2022)

OblivionDrive said:


> Yeaaah I remember that guy. He thought he should be reimbursed lol.
> 
> Everyone wants an unregulated financial system until they get the rug pulled out from under them. Then they demand security!
> 
> And this wasn’t even a rug pull. They still got their “items.”



It’s as if the $600 plus they spent was for nothing. Huh?


----------



## Cordwainer Fish (Feb 17, 2022)

OblivionDrive said:


> Yeaaah I remember that guy. He thought he should be reimbursed lol.
> 
> Everyone wants an unregulated financial system until they get the rug pulled out from under them. Then they demand security!
> 
> And this wasn’t even a rug pull. They still got their “items.”



At least he can plant those bulbs and get tulips... oh wait.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I didn't dodge the question. I don't care.




If you want to be convincing about there not being a scam going on, or understanding why others think there is, you probably need to care.



Dire Bare said:


> Why would they choose that platform? Because they like the art?




I don't mean why do people buy art on the platform.  I mean why did Chaosium (or anyone else) choose this platform to sell art on?

It is a crappy platform for selling art.  Why choose to sell art on it?


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 17, 2022)

That tweet thread is ridiculous.


----------



## darjr (Feb 17, 2022)

Did I say it was the vested interest members that ruin the conversation? That Twitter thread is a prime example. Do they not know how awful they sound? Or is it that their need to dump that NFT on the next fool forcing their verbiage? Does it matter?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 17, 2022)

Umbran said:


> If you want to be convincing about there not being a scam going on, or understanding why others think there is, you probably need to care.



I'm not really trying to convince anyone NFTs aren't scams, I'm just not convinced by the arguments and evidence presented so far that they are. And I'm responding as such.



> I don't mean why do people buy art on the platform.  I mean why did Chaosium (or anyone else) choose this platform to sell art on?
> 
> It is a crappy platform for selling art.  Why choose to sell art on it?



Okay, I did misunderstand you there. Sorry. Why did Chaosium choose to go the NFT route with VeVe? To hoodwink or scam their customers and fans? Or was Chaosium hoodwinked by VeVe . . . or by the shadowy allure of NFTs in general?

I would guess that someone high up at Chaosium wanted in on the new trend, the new hotness, and seriously misjudged the backlash from folks who consider NFTs a harbinger of the apocalypse. They saw a potential interest from some of their fans, and decided to capitalize on it. Was it a good idea? Certainly not in hindsight, probably not even at the time of the decision. But . . . a scam? An effort to deceive and cheat Call of Cthulhu fans?

Why NFTs and not some other delivery system? I'd guess that VeVe offered them a complete solution, making the creation of the digital products easy. Could Chaosium have released digital art pieces via some other method? Sure, but is there a turnkey solution out there just waiting for that scenario? I honestly don't know, but even if there is, was Chaosium aware of it, and is it "hot" like NFTs are?


----------



## Hex08 (Feb 17, 2022)

Chaosium should offer NFTs because they are obviously creations of Elder Gods....


----------



## MGibster (Feb 17, 2022)

It's weird.  Since this Chaosium thing hit the web I've read up on NFTs and I have a much better understanding of what they are and how they work.  But I still don't understand why anyone would spend serious money on an NFT.  And this isn't just me being old fashioned, I understand why people spend money on all sorts of things that I wouldn't spend my money on.  I honestly don't get how anyone could look at an NFT and think, "Yeah, that's a good place to spend my $600."  But then I would have felt the same way about tulips in the 17th century.  

I'm glad Chaosium decided to drop their NFT project (for now at least).  The venerable company has been around for more than 40 years and during that time I haven't really seen a lot of negativity thrown their way until the last few days.  It kind of sucked seeing them dragged through the mud like that.  Though I gotta hold them responsible for getting on their bellies themselves.


----------



## Bohandas (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I get folks viewing NFTs as foolish, dangerous tech, unregulated, environmentally unsustainable, bad investments, and bad ideas. I agree with all of that. There are definitely a lot of bad actors in the NFT space, and a lot of foolish actors as well. But the step further than the entire NFT space is nothing but scams . . . that everyone involved is either the scammers or the scammed




The problem isn;t that it's all scams, the problem is that it's all nonsense, whether it's meant to decieve or said in good faith. 

Don Quixote was honest, but Sancho Panza was still decieved by him. Do not be Sancho Panza.


----------



## darjr (Feb 17, 2022)

May Chaos be kind to the fool who bought in honestly, thinking this was a good investment.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2022)

This thread makes feel confident of an inevitable NuTSR / NFT crossover scam involving digital art that is somehow at stab at @Morrus and ENWorld.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 17, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> This thread makes feel confident of an inevitable NuTSR / NFT crossover scam involving digital art that is somehow at stab at @Morrus and ENWorld.



We can only dream.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 17, 2022)

MGibster said:


> It's weird.  Since this Chaosium thing hit the web I've read up on NFTs and I have a much better understanding of what they are and how they work.  But I still don't understand why anyone would spend serious money on an NFT.  And this isn't just me being old fashioned, I understand why people spend money on all sorts of things that I wouldn't spend my money on.  I honestly don't get how anyone could look at an NFT and think, "Yeah, that's a good place to spend my $600."  But then I would have felt the same way about tulips in the 17th century.
> 
> I'm glad Chaosium decided to drop their NFT project (for now at least).  The venerable company has been around for more than 40 years and during that time I haven't really seen a lot of negativity thrown their way until the last few days.  It kind of sucked seeing them dragged through the mud like that.  Though I gotta hold them responsible for getting on their bellies themselves.



The answer to “why would anyone spend money on NFTs” is “because they were scammed”.

It’s basically a variation on the “pump and dump”, as someone mentioned above, combined with a pyramid scheme. You hype up a worthless product, sell it at an inflated price, then get out before the market crashes.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 17, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> Chaosium should offer NFTs because they are obviously creations of Elder Gods....



Yeah! meaningless numbers written on ephemera that will drive the world insane


----------



## Jer (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Heh . . . I like Funko Pops about as much as I like NFTs . . .
> 
> If I purchased a digital Cthulhu statue from the Chaosium/VeVe partnership (_I think they did sell some before pulling the plug?_) . . . I would be purchasing a license, a token, for a digital statue of Cthulhu that I can display through the VeVe app. There were some augmented reality capabilities of the app as well, so I could display my statue on my front lawn . . . digitally . . .



Here's the thing that makes this a scam rather than an actual product - you can do the above without an NFT.  There's a centralized authority that is in control of the digital trophy - VeVe. There is no technical reason that they can't just have a database of people who own the rights to have that image through their app.  In fact they DO have a database of people who have the rights to own that image through their app because they have to have some method of connecting your login on their app to your tokens that are on the blockchain.

The value you are getting is NOT coming from the NFT - it's coming from the VeVe app setup.  Which has to be able to be independent of the blockchain because blockchain only stores token information.  So you are getting no value from the fact that this is an NFT in your formulation.

So why put it out as an NFT?  Because being an NFT allows you to RESELL your trophy to other people.  With the promise/assumption/wink-wink that these "limited edition trophies" will rise in value from what you paid for them originally.  That's the only thing that can't be done with the app setup off the blockchain. And they could set up a shop to do that in their app BUT crucially it would flop hard because it doesn't have the hype of being an "NFT" around it.

ALL of these NFTs are the same "limited edition collector's edition" scam.  But when they're done you don't even have the Funko pop to put on your desk anymore because the company will have packed up their money and left so you won't even have your virtual trophy to enjoy anymore.


----------



## Jer (Feb 17, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> This thread makes feel confident of an inevitable NuTSR / NFT crossover scam involving digital art that is somehow at stab at @Morrus and ENWorld.



NuFTSR?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 17, 2022)

Remember those commercials in the 1980s for collector plates from the Franklin Mint?  You could get plates depicting scenes from _Gone with the Wind, Star Trek, _John Wayne, Princess Di, the Three Stooges, etc., etc.  I saw some old Trek plates for sale at a flea market the other week.  NFTs remind me of those.  Except, you know, you actually own something if you have the plate.


----------



## Jer (Feb 17, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Remember those commercials in the 1980s for collector plates from the Franklin Mint?  You could get plates depicting scenes from _Gone with the Wind, Star Trek, _John Wayne, Princess Di, the Three Stooges, etc., etc.  I saw some old Trek plates for sale at a flea market the other week.  NFTs remind me of those.  Except, you know, you actually own something if you have the plate.



I often refer to NFTs as "digital pogs" to my friends.  Has the Simpson's done an "Alf is back in NFT form" joke yet?

But yes - NFTs are 100% an attempt to create a digital collectible market.  And the Franklin Mint stuff was an attempt to create a collectible market from scratch as well it's a pretty good analogy in my mind.  

True collectible markets depend on having a group of people who want the collectible for its own sake - the fact that a Beanie Baby or a Funko Pop has intrinsic value for a group of people and they want to own multiples of them creates the market for them and opens up space for speculators who want to profit from being the middleman in those purchases.  That's why the NFTs are being pushed so hard in fan spaces - in the hopes that they can get enough fans who have to have everything from their favorite fandom to create a pool of collectors that speculators can profit off of.


----------



## Cordwainer Fish (Feb 17, 2022)

MGibster said:


> Remember those commercials in the 1980s for collector plates from the Franklin Mint?  You could get plates depicting scenes from _Gone with the Wind, Star Trek, _John Wayne, Princess Di, the Three Stooges, etc., etc.  I saw some old Trek plates for sale at a flea market the other week.  NFTs remind me of those.  Except, you know, you actually own something if you have the plate.



The Franklin Mint was neat.  You could get the Civil War chess set and the Star Trek chess set and have the South fight the Klingons.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I didn't dodge the question. I don't care.
> 
> The platform is crappy. The product is crappy. Okay. Doesn't make it a scam. Makes it a bad idea.
> 
> ...




I hesitate to engage in this, given the multiple, "I don't care, but I'm going to keep insisting that I don't care" comments, but this is something I addressed in my first post in the other thread. In essence, whether you want to say NFTs are a "scam," or a "terrible idea," or a "blight to modern society" becomes a fool's errand, because you end up engaging in pedantic disputes over the exact definition of, for example, what exactly constitutes a pyramid scheme, or when an MLM is or isn't "legal" in the U.S., or the finer distinctions between people engaging is a knowing fraud and asset bubbles. In other words, I'm not sure it's productive to debate the distinction between a "scam" and a "terrible idea that takes advantage of people that we should try and make sure reputable companies aren't involved with." 

But I think it might help to concentrate on the following- there are people that are very, very invested in the idea of "disclosure." Right? In other words, these might be a terrible Idea (and investment), but since you can find out it's a terrible idea, it can't be a "scam," (which isn't really a defined term, but whatever). But think of some of the following scenarios-
A. Someone cold calls your elderly mom and convinces her to sign paperwork they send her. Now, the call is recorded, and the documents disclose what she did, but she didn't actually understand that she engaged in a process that would mortgage her paid-for house in exchange for needless renovations and, because of her income, would lose the house. Scam?
B. You click through on a shrink-wrap agreement. Buried somewhere in that agreement over 70 pages of legal-ese is a clause that does something you don't like. Maybe it compels arbitration in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Maybe it offers up your first born. At some point, even though it was disclosed, you'd probably feel that you were "scammed" because that's not something you expect, right?
C. A casino in a remote location identifies problem gamblers. Once it identifies these gamblers, and they are on a losing streak, it stops them from playing the regular games and tell them that they can leave, or they can play separate games that allow them higher payoffs, but worse odds of winning. They disclose the odds (which are much worse). Scam?
D. A person sells you property in a state you haven't visited. While the documents disclose the actual property details, the seller relies on the fact that your knowledge of the state is limited. (This was the primary basis of the great Florida real estate scams of the '20s, where sellers assumed they were getting beach-front property, but were in fact buying swampland in the middle of the state). 

There are a multitude of examples like this, but the point should be clear. We have long recognized that while disclosure and transparency are incredibly important, they are not the be-all, end-all of want constitutes a "scam," or, at a minimum, conduct that we should not approve of. 

_There is an inherent tension in a civil society between allowing people to ruin their lives if they so choose, and understanding that some things are frauds, schemes, deceptive, unconscionable, wrong, need to be regulated, or just "scams." The boundaries are not always easy to see. _

So let's turn to the instant product (NFTs). As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is not a solution for a problem that is not already solved in a better (and much more environmentally-friendly) way. Any claims of "decentralization," when it comes to NFTs are demonstrably false- the actual "products" are located elsewhere, and could simply disappear (which is likely a feature, not a bug, for scammers). Any real use of the product requires multiple third parties (aka, centralization). They don't have any inherent protection for artists and creatives- in fact, it is incredibly common for the people trying to make money off of these to have absolutely no knowledge of the relevant copyright laws and to simply be using other people's work in order to make themselves money. The people that are pushing this repeatedly refer to this as an asset- in other words, not really a cool object that you enjoy, but more an investment, like a stock or a bond (but not subject to the regulations that most real investments would have).

Now, before getting into the real nitty gritty, let's address the point you raised. "What about that one example of the artist who made money?" Yes, there will be people who make money. But ... there are already a lot of artists who pay the mint fee and don't make any money. What about the artists whose work is bring ripped off because most of the people involved in this don't understand copyright? I am happy for the very people (like those early ones who made memes and got paid out ... in questionable circumstances) who made a little bank, but that pales in comparison to the people who lose money. Which ... you know, that's pretty much how a lot of "scams" works; you trumpet the winners in order to bring in the suckers.

*Jump down to here for the "Big Deal."*
What is the big deal, anyway? Well, think about why people are pushing these NFTs. If you follow the news at all (or looked at the links provided) you are more than aware that NFTs are rife with outright scams already (not just lack of disclosure, but pump and dumps, outright fraud, malware, theft, etc.). But theoretically, if you have "trusted central authorities" then maybe it will work. But.... you don't need NFTs if you have those trusted central authorities dealing with digital collectibles, do you? What does it do, then? Well, it does make more common people "get into" NFTs, and "get into" crypto ... which, as we have repeatedly seen, is rife with hacks and scams, and has no real consumer protection or recourse. It's almost as if there is a drive to get people to pump more money into this so that current large stakeholders can cash out leaving the new entrants holding the bag. 

But I know you don't care. So I will say that you are right, in a way. NFTs are not _necessarily a scam_, in the same way that _Napster (the original) _was not necessarily about sharing music unlawfully- after all, you could have a distributed copy of a cookie recipe, amirite? Instead, it might be better to say, "If you truly don't care about the underlying e-waste and power problems, and you have a real understanding of the technology (such that you aren't a victim of hacks, etc.), and you've done real due diligence on the product, and you want to get involved in this either because you have the disposable money that you're willing to lose, or because you think it's an asset bubble and you intend to flip it to a bigger fool, knock yourself out. Just be aware that if it goes south, no one is going to be looking out for you, no consumer watchdog is going to help you, and your money is gone, likely so someone in Russia can enjoy their mini-giraffes.  "

Personally, I feel strongly that I don't want reputable companies being involved with this and encouraging this, in the same way I don't want them involved in other activities I find harmful. YMMV.


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 17, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> That tweet thread is ridiculous.
> 
> View attachment 152013



My mentions are still unusable today because they’re still going in those threads even though I tapped out last night.


----------



## Jer (Feb 17, 2022)

OblivionDrive said:


> My mentions are still unusable today because they’re still going in those threads even though I tapped out last night.



What always amazes me is how many of them either don't understand the tech they're boosting or are just outright lying about how it works.  Fighting with NFT/crypto boosters online is like punching air sometimes.


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 17, 2022)

Jer said:


> What always amazes me is how many of them either don't understand the tech they're boosting or are just outright lying about how it works.  Fighting with NFT/crypto boosters online is like punching air sometimes.



Yeah this is very true. I didn’t think I could find a group of people less educated on a topic/more dishonest about what they were trying to push than GamerGaters back circa 2014-2016 or so, but I was proven wrong. Plus ça change, I guess…


----------



## Professor Murder (Feb 17, 2022)

In todays social media landscape, if you condone, you endorse. There is no neutral position. If you do not resist, it means you permit.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 17, 2022)

"I don't care" and "I will die defending this hill" are incompatible stances to take.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 17, 2022)

Professor Murder said:


> In todays social media landscape, if you condone, you endorse. There is no neutral position. If you do not resist, it means you permit.



"What you permit, you promote."


----------



## Bohandas (Feb 17, 2022)

Professor Murder said:


> In todays social media landscape, if you condone, you endorse. There is no neutral position. If you do not resist, it means you permit.




It's my personal policy to oppose anyone who says "If you're not with us, you're against us"



Snarf Zagyg said:


> But I know you don't care. So I will say that you are right, in a way. NFTs are not _necessarily a scam_, in the same way that _Napster (the original) _was not necessarily about sharing music unlawfully- after all, you could have a distributed copy of a cookie recipe, amirite?




That's probably a bad analogy. The NFT thing is wrong but potentially not illegal, whereas the Napster thing was illegal but not morally wrong. Ultimately there is no difference between sharing a recipe and sharing a music file - not even authorship in most cases - you probably got that recipe from someone else too and probably don't have their explicit consent to share it. The only difference is the presence of big greedy corporations abusing a law that was meant to protect starving artists from big greedy corporations


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 17, 2022)

NFTs are as pure form of speculation as you can see; the value of them is tied only very lightly to any real-world effects; as far as I can see the only thing that might affect their value is the perception of the popularity of their creator. When you are buying one you are risking money in the hopes that the future perception of the creator, and of NFTs in general, will rise, resulting in a profit for you. 

As historians shown us, any time there is speculation, there is strong potential for scamming. If a company actively hides the knowledge that there is a strong risk of loss in the speculation, that is when it becomes evil.

Their value as a non-investment is essentially in the eye of the purchaser. You buy a small piece of uniqueness that can be independently verified. It's much like buying an autograph -- the value to you is really in your own reaction to it. 

As far as the environmental cost is concerned, NFTs are awful. Each NFT requires about the same amount of energy as the average European uses in a month. But carbon offsetting is not a form of scam, as several people seem to be indicating. For example, using carbon offsets to protect forests directly leads to carbon reductions that  balance out the cost. It is a tricky business to evaluate, but simply writing off carbon offsetting as as scam is a bit extreme.

Are NFTs good for the environment? Nope, but then neither are cows and we're not seeing all the people complaining about NFTs becoming vegans. Are NFTs a good investment? I guess it depends if your definite of good is "massively speculative with high potential fro complete loss." Are they fun to own? That totally depends on you.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2022)

GrahamWills said:


> NFTs are as pure form of speculation as you can see; the value of them is tied only very lightly to any real-world effects; as far as I can see the only thing that might affect their value is the perception of the popularity of their creator. When you are buying one you are risking money in the hopes that the future perception of the creator, and of NFTs in general, will rise, resulting in a profit for you.
> 
> As historians shown us, any time there is speculation, there is strong potential for scamming. If a company actively hides the knowledge that there is a strong risk of loss in the speculation, that is when it becomes evil.
> 
> ...



Largely agree.  However, some NFTs are being used for more than just speculative vehicles.  BAYC (Bored Ape Yacht Club) is being used as an access token to real life social events and to online social spaces.  Same with a few others.  Some other NFTs are tied to games, and generate income for those games that can be used to add to the games.  The thing with NFTs is that they allow you to attach a snippet of something -- this can be code, or in many cases, a URL pointer.  URL pointers are just terrible -- you don't control anything and if the host moves then the URL goes dead, so you have the NFT but the link it tokenizes is dead.  But it can be more, and sometimes that more can be useful.  I've yet to see anything done I'd consider useful, but the capability exists.

So, then, what are NFTs actually for?  The monetizing of anything.  BAYC and many of the other big NFTs are effectively attempting to monetize social relationships.  They're creating vehicles for attaching money to a social relationship, and then the ability to buy and sell that relationship.  I think this is horrid.  It's not a scam, per se, but it's certainly taking advantage of a lot of psychological quirks and exploits, and then obfuscating that it's doing so.  Maybe not "scam" but certainly icky.


----------



## Bohandas (Feb 17, 2022)

Yes. Even in the cases where they're not a scam they still contain the same spirit of Mammon that scams descend from


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 17, 2022)

GrahamWills said:


> Are NFTs good for the environment? Nope, but then neither are cows and we're not seeing all the people complaining about NFTs becoming vegans.



If it helps, I won't own a cow either.  I'm not interested in cows, no matter how many vapid articles about "getting rich quick" get retweeted.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 17, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Largely agree.  However, some NFTs are being used for more than just speculative vehicles.  BAYC (Bored Ape Yacht Club) is being used as an access token to real life social events and to online social spaces.  Same with a few others. <snip>...



Again this begs the question Why? Real life social events have sold tickets or been invite only for centuries. What does NFT bring to this. It is like hunting bunny rabbits with a 700 Nitro Express.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 17, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> If it helps, I won't own a cow either.



Free milk and eggs! I think, I get my farm animals confused . . .


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> Yes. Even in the cases where they're not a scam they still contain the same spirit of Mammon that scams descend from



So do a lot of things.  I mean, gambling in general is in this category.  That include lotteries.  Beanie-babies certainly latched onto many of the same concept spaces.  To me, collector editions for RPGs with gold foil, leather bound, heavy paper are in the same boat.  All are taking advantage of a FOMO and collector driven obsessive tendencies.  I'm largely not someone that cares about completing a collection or even collecting.  These things tend to hold no value at all for me, but I've seen friends sink waaaay too much money into things like 1st-1st printings of fantasy novels and collector editions versions of the same, not to mention nearly ruinous obsessions with MtG.

I guess what I'm saying here is that while I don't see any utility in NFTs, they seem quite a lot like some things that get easy passes.  I'll admit that digital, ephemeral collections are absolutely on the worse end of the scale, but the vehemence with which NFTs are attacks seems like it should drift back up a little bit into these other things -- but it doesn't.  Which makes me wonder if it's the scale of dollars involved?  I mean, that's legit, I certainly think anything generating this much cash over what amounts to collectibles is a problem.  At best it's a fad that will destroy the people holding the bag when it crashes, at worst it's rife for really unsavory practices to keep it aloft.  

In shorter words, I'm a bit taken aback by the strength of hate for NFTs and the lack of any discernable hate for things that are on the same spectrum but aren't as capitalized.  It seems odd.


----------



## Bohandas (Feb 17, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> but I've seen friends sink waaaay too much money into things like 1st-1st printings of fantasy novels and collector editions versions of the same, not to mention nearly ruinous obsessions with MtG.




This is like a "collectable" "first printing" of a pdf-only fantasy novel


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Again this begs the question Why? Real life social events have sold tickets or been invite only for centuries. What does NFT bring to this. It is like hunting bunny rabbits with a 700 Nitro Express.



Why sell tickets?  Why not make it first come first serve, or a lottery, or anything else?  This argument is one that says "we have 1 way already to do this, therefore all other ways are bogus."  That's not a solid argument -- it doesn't hold together.  It's not a detriment to NFTs that they're a different approach to other methods.

That said, I'm not fond of this method at all.  The method makes the value of the NFT entirely dependent on the social status of other owners -- BAYC is so expensive because of who else holds them (or who held them long enough to tout them and bailed without making the bailing public).  It's not really a method of ticketing so much as it's a method of creating scarce access to high level social access.  If I buy a BAYC, I can hang (maybe) with Jimmy Fallon and Paris Hilton and other famous people (pardon, those are the only two I'm really aware of in relation to BAYC, I know there are more famous people involved, but cannot recall them and I'm not searching for it).  To me, monetizing said access is not a good idea.  It provides the idea that I can buy access to fame if I spend my life's savings on a Bored Ape NFT, but that access isn't really useful (those people are still going to be using normal methods to screen access) and if they bail I'm left holding a worthless investment that wasn't what I thought it was.  Not a scam, but not good, either.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 17, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> Ultimately there is no difference between sharing a recipe and sharing a music file - not even authorship in most cases - you probably got that recipe from someone else too and probably don't have their explicit consent to share it.



My understanding is that recipes generally aren't protected by copyright, because they are just descriptions of how to do a thing. A particularly embellished recipe might have those embellishments protected (e.g. "Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger. Watch it dissolve, spreading the fires of the Algolian Suns deep into the heart of the drink." instead of "Add one Algolian Suntiger tooth."), and you can certainly protect any narrative around a recipe ("I remember when..."), but not the recipe itself.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2022)

Bohandas said:


> This is like a first printing of a pdf-only fantasy novel



No, only the lazy set of NFTs (far too many) are like this, but that's really like a link to the 1st printing of a PDF-only novel on a specific website.  So, it could be worse.  It might also be the crytographic key that decrypts a pdf of a fantasy novel so that only you can read it.  NFTs are extremely varied in capability.  For the record, I think that latter example is pretty stupid as well.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2022)

GrahamWills said:


> As far as the environmental cost is concerned, NFTs are awful. Each NFT requires about the same amount of energy as the average European uses in a month. But carbon offsetting is not a form of scam, as several people seem to be indicating. For example, using carbon offsets to protect forests directly leads to carbon reductions that  balance out the cost. It is a tricky business to evaluate, but simply writing off carbon offsetting as as scam is a bit extreme.
> 
> Are NFTs good for the environment? Nope, but then neither are cows and we're not seeing all the people complaining about NFTs becoming vegans.




We need to be a little more precise here. 

Carbon offsets are great, in the sense that they are better than no carbon offsets. I don't think anyone should disagree with that.

_However_, and this is a crucial point, people should always pay attention to greenwashing like this. So let's pay attention to what the actual issues really are:

A. It's easy to claim carbon offsets; however, not all of these claims are accurate. This may shock you, given how upstanding people are in the world of NFTs and crypto ... but some people are just flat-out lying about having carbon offsets. So first, verify that they are in fact real. Are they working with a reliable vendor? Do they provide documentation? 

B. Next, even assuming they are purchasing and using valid carbon offsets from entities that are using best practices, most studies have shown (for a variety of reasons) that the carbon credits aren't actually offsetting the amount of pollution claimed. Sometimes it's because these things are hard to measure, and sometimes it's because of the weird incentives that distort the market (for example, if you have a place in China that deliberately increases emissions, and then you pay them to decrease emissions back to the baseline in order to get a carbon offset ... was any good accomplished?).

C. So when you look at the first two, you see that carbon-offsets, in general, are better than nothing, but hardly the perfect answer. Moving to the instant issue, the bigger problem is that when they claim that they are going "carbon neutral," they aren't measuring the actual energy costs and environmental costs- instead, they are usually only capturing some portion of the transaction costs. Then, even if they did manage to capture the entire use-costs, they still wouldn't be capturing the growing and terrible e-waste problem.

D. Which leads to the most important point. Eating meat might be bad for the environment, but still provide calories. Extracting oil may be terrible, but it's providing energy. I have yet to see a positive case for this- it's a technology that literally depends on extreme energy use for value. It has no other intrinsic qualities. And it solves no problems. 

Importantly, we already see, in the decade since this started, and most importantly in the last few years, how insane the environmental costs scale up. I honestly can't think of anything else that has such a lopsided benefit / environmental impact ratio.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 17, 2022)

Point D in @Snarf Zagyg's post is the most damning one for me.


----------



## ReshiIRE (Feb 17, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Point D in @Snarf Zagyg's post is the most damning one for me.



They solve the 'problem' of grifters in the technology space not being able to use their tech abilites to scam people.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 17, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Why sell tickets?  Why not make it first come first serve, or a lottery, or anything else?  This argument is one that says "we have 1 way already to do this, therefore all other ways are bogus."  That's not a solid argument -- it doesn't hold together.  It's not a detriment to NFTs that they're a different approach to other methods.
> 
> That said, I'm not fond of this method at all.  The method makes the value of the NFT entirely dependent on the social status of other owners -- BAYC is so expensive because of who else holds them (or who held them long enough to tout them and bailed without making the bailing public).  It's not really a method of ticketing so much as it's a method of creating scarce access to high level social access.  If I buy a BAYC, I can hang (maybe) with Jimmy Fallon and Paris Hilton and other famous people (pardon, those are the only two I'm really aware of in relation to BAYC, I know there are more famous people involved, but cannot recall them and I'm not searching for it).  To me, monetizing said access is not a good idea.  It provides the idea that I can buy access to fame if I spend my life's savings on a Bored Ape NFT, but that access isn't really useful (those people are still going to be using normal methods to screen access) and if they bail I'm left holding a worthless investment that wasn't what I thought it was.  Not a scam, but not good, either.



100 ticket are cheap to print, even professionally done, 100 newly minted NFT's on Etherium could cost north of $100k


----------



## GrahamWills (Feb 17, 2022)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> D. Which leads to the most important point. Eating meat might be bad for the environment, but still provide calories. Extracting oil may be terrible, but it's providing energy. I have yet to see a positive case for this- it's a technology that literally depends on extreme energy use for value. It has no other intrinsic qualities. And it solves no problems.



And here is the difficulty -- measures of "value" are highly subjective. What is the value of happiness? How do you compare energy cost to happiness generated? You might discount the joy of owning something unique, but I just paid a non-trivial amount of money for map of Ireland made in 1743. It's out of date and in Italian, which I don't speak, and you can get a PNG of it n the internet, so it has absolutely no intrinsic value. But it makes me happy.

Personally I'm very unlikely to buy an NFT for the joy of ownership, but I think it's pretty clear that some people do. I am not prepared to say that my definition of value applies to them.

BTW, you missed another very important con for carbon offsetting -- one that gives me a lot of pause also. It is often used as a form of colonialism, for example where a rich country offsets carbon by forcing a lifestyle change on people living in poorer, forested countries. I completely agree with you that skepticism about carbon offsetting is a good default state of mind!


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2022)

GrahamWills said:


> And here is the difficulty -- measures of "value" are highly subjective. What is the value of happiness? How do you compare energy cost to happiness generated? You might discount the joy of owning something unique, but I just paid a non-trivial amount of money for map of Ireland made in 1743. It's out of date and in Italian, which I don't speak, and you can get a PNG of it n the internet, so it has absolutely no intrinsic value. But it makes me happy.
> 
> Personally I'm very unlikely to buy an NFT for the joy of ownership, but I think it's pretty clear that some people do. I am not prepared to say that my definition of value applies to them.
> 
> BTW, you missed another very important con for carbon offsetting -- one that gives me a lot of pause also. It is often used as a form of colonialism, for example where a rich country offsets carbon by forcing a lifestyle change on people living in poorer, forested countries. I completely agree with you that skepticism about carbon offsetting is a good default state of mind!




I think value is subjective ... but (and this is, to invoke Sir Mix-A-Lot, a BIT BUT) NFTs don't provide that value. 

That's the killer, right there. It's not ownership of the thing. There are a ton of ways to buy digital collectibles that would allow you to "own" that thing. All the NFT does is provide you, in effect, the contract (the receipt). That's it. The underlying object isn't unique- just the receipt. In fact, you can have an infinite number of "unique" receipts that have purchased the same thing.

It's an exercise in speculation. Which, again, is fine. If that makes you happy, go for it. But there are a lot of things that people enjoy that aren't necessarily a good idea, and that we shouldn't encourage. I mean ... I'm sure some people out there enjoy shooting speedballs, but I wouldn't want Chaosium to issue "Limited Edition Cthulhu Speedballs."


----------



## Tun Kai Poh (Feb 17, 2022)

One factor behind the rise of NFTs is related to the culture of a niche of people who have what this article calls "money as a hobby." Ugh.









						The internet turned "money" into a hobby
					

Why (mostly) 20- and 30-something dudes made crypto and sports betting their personality.




					www.vox.com
				




The overlap between tabletop hobby gamers and these "money as a hobby" people is...probably very small.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 17, 2022)

Staffan said:


> My understanding is that recipes generally aren't protected by copyright, because they are just descriptions of how to do a thing. A particularly embellished recipe might have those embellishments protected (e.g. "Drop in the tooth of an Algolian Suntiger. Watch it dissolve, spreading the fires of the Algolian Suns deep into the heart of the drink." instead of "Add one Algolian Suntiger tooth."), and you can certainly protect any narrative around a recipe ("I remember when..."), but not the recipe itself.



Have you written and published your cook book yet? If not . . . you need to!


----------



## J.Quondam (Feb 17, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> I guess what I'm saying here is that while I don't see any utility in NFTs, they seem quite a lot like some things that get easy passes. I'll admit that digital, ephemeral collections are absolutely on the worse end of the scale, but the vehemence with which NFTs are attacks seems like it should drift back up a little bit into these other things -- but it doesn't. Which makes me wonder if it's the scale of dollars involved? I mean, that's legit, I certainly think anything generating this much cash over what amounts to collectibles is a problem. At best it's a fad that will destroy the people holding the bag when it crashes, at worst it's rife for really unsavory practices to keep it aloft.
> 
> In shorter words, I'm a bit taken aback by the strength of hate for NFTs and the lack of any discernable hate for things that are on the same spectrum but aren't as capitalized. It seems odd.



For me, personally, the enormity of the money involved is precisely the biggest worry. The wealth and influence of people pushing these things is normalizing them, despite the fact that they have no legit use-cases that can't be addressed in other more efficient, better-regulated, and less exploitable ways. 

Many of these people, recall, are openly derisive of things that happen to be very important to me: stable government, environmental concerns, trust-based social contracts. And they potentially have the cash to foist their vision on the rest of us. They can and do effectively bribe public officials to open up to crypto; buy up infrastructure to repurpose to their ends; exploit tax and subsidy rules; and so forth. And of course, they're able to do these things _because_ they are so "wealthy" off these airy-fairy psuedo-assets. They're charging ahead full speed with vast amounts of wealth momentum.

And the normalization of this scam-laden, get-rich-quick scheme _is_ taking root in the form of constant newsmedia chatter; interest by NYSE, investment banks, etc; celebrity endorsements and Super Bowl ads; campaign platforms. Even some TTRPG companies.

That's why I am so vehemently opposed to these things: because the world these obscenely rich cryptobros is pushing is one that very well _could_ impact me, no matter how much I don't want it.  And _that_ disgusts me to the core.

Perhaps that's overly paranoid hyperbole. But since I'm not one of those ultra-privileged hundred-billionaires who can tank the stock market or multiply a crapcoin with a single tweet, I do feel a somewhat justified in my fears. 
Because fear is really all that most of us have got.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 17, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> For me, personally, the enormity of the money involved is precisely the biggest worry. The wealth and influence of people pushing these things is normalizing them, despite the fact that they have no legit use-cases that can't be addressed in other more efficient, better-regulated, and less exploitable ways.
> 
> Many of these people, recall, are openly derisive of things that happen to be very important to me: stable government, environmental concerns, trust-based social contracts. And they potentially have the cash to foist their vision on the rest of us. They can and do effectively bribe public officials to open up to crypto; buy up infrastructure to repurpose to their ends; exploit tax and subsidy rules; and so forth. And of course, they're able to do these things _because_ they are so "wealthy" off these airy-fairy psuedo-assets. They're charging ahead full speed with vast amounts of wealth momentum.
> 
> ...



Here's to hoping lots of rich people buy in and it all crashes, wiping out all the "wealth". Then maybe we can get some good things done.


----------



## Bohandas (Feb 17, 2022)

Staffan said:


> My understanding is that recipes generally aren't protected by copyright




There's a legal distinction but my point is that there isn't a moral one.





Snarf Zagyg said:


> D. Which leads to the most important point. Eating meat might be bad for the environment, but still provide calories. Extracting oil may be terrible, but it's providing energy. I have yet to see a positive case for this- it's a technology that literally depends on extreme energy use for value. It has no other intrinsic qualities. And it solves no problems.




As an addition to this, this is also one of the reasons why fiat currency is superior to the gold standard. As gold gains its value the same way. It's a pain to find it and get it out of the ground and that the only reason it has any value. It's almost completely useless (although admittedly not quite as useless as bitcoin mining or NFTs)


----------



## Staffan (Feb 18, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Have you written and published your cook book yet? If not . . . you need to!



I'm afraid that my florid recipe prose is the work of one Douglas Adams, not myself. It's from the recipe for a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 18, 2022)

Staffan said:


> I'm afraid that my florid recipe prose is the work of one Douglas Adams, not myself. It's from the recipe for a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.



I really, really should have picked up on that!

Well, maybe a licensed "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Kitchen" . . . .


----------



## Teo Twawki (Feb 18, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Certainly, folks get taken in poker games. There are sharks who swim in those waters. And, of course folks have already been taken in by scammy NFT deals. Chummed, shark-infested waters.
> 
> Doesn't make the game of Poker a scam, or anyone who thinks they are good at Poker the "sucker". Doesn't make all NFTs scams, or those who sell or purchase them all "suckers" or "scammers".
> 
> This is the over-reaction in these threads that bugs me. The leap from "_we disagree_" to "_you're wrong and you're an idiot, we've laid it out so clearly for you_".



1) There is ample evidence that all NFTs _are_ a scam.
2) Show me anywhere in my message that implies in the slightest that I called anyone an idiot.
3) Over-reaction bugs you (welcome to three decades of web commentary) and yet you use hyperbole to make a point about something that wasn't present in the comment you replied to...?
4) From your hyperbole it seems that you take singular analogous examples to be encompassing declarations.
5) In this vein, from your examples, should I believe that all sharks are horrid, dangerous, human-eating-machines? Again, hyperbole that clouds any reasonable point you are attempting to make.


----------



## Tally Isham (Feb 18, 2022)

I am the owner of a Type40 limited edition Call of Cthulhu leather document wallet with book.
This required the slaying of an animal and tree to make, and maybe one day I will resell it.
Why does this get a pass, but not a renewable energy sourced NFT?

If I buy a Star Spawn or Tiamat NFT to showoff in my apartment in the metaverse, and am happy with my purchase, how is this "a scam?" Who is being scammed?


----------



## Professor Murder (Feb 18, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Here's to hoping lots of rich people buy in and it all crashes, wiping out all the "wealth". Then maybe we can get some good things done.



For me, this is the crux. NFT/Crypto is just the endgame of the wealth circle-jerk. We can blithely state that "money isn't real" but there are degrees of unreal. 

But all this fails to strike at the real issue for this forum. What value can NFT/Blockchain tech have for gamers? I argue zero. It's a scam.


----------



## darjr (Feb 18, 2022)

And if you still have any questions about NFTs, I give you.





From @David Flor


----------



## OblivionDrive (Feb 18, 2022)

darjr said:


> And if you still have any questions about NFTs, I give you.
> 
> View attachment 152067
> 
> From @David Flor



Literally was only a matter of time. Well… there we have it folks. All the proof we need that it’s a scam.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 18, 2022)

Tally Isham said:


> I am the owner of a Type40 limited edition Call of Cthulhu leather document wallet with book.
> This required the slaying of an animal and tree to make, and maybe one day I will resell it.
> Why does this get a pass, but not a renewable energy sourced NFT?
> 
> If I buy a Star Spawn or Tiamat NFT to showoff in my apartment in the metaverse, and am happy with my purchase, how is this "a scam?" Who is being scammed?




First of all, you are, because you were overcharged for your artwork. You paid a premium because your artwork was an NFT. It’d be like someone charging you double for your limited edition book because they included a receipt written in neon green ink. You may still be happy with your purchase, but that doesn’t change the fact that you were scammed.

Second, part of the scam pertains to the idea of NFTs as investments. The NFT scam isn’t just the idea that NFTs are worth more than other forms of digital art, it’s that NFTs are being promoted as things that will inevitably rise in value. Products like your limited edition book have potential investment value because people like you want those books in and of themselves. Someone might buy one, then wait for demand to go up and sell it to you. But NFTs have investment value because people have been told they have investment value, not because of the inherent value of the product themselves. People have been buying them because they’ve been told that people like you will in the future want to buy them to show off in your metaverse apartments, but there’s no evidence such a market exists. It’s basically a pump ‘n dump: convince people that a worthless product has investment value because it has real inherent value, the price shoots up, you cash out and then the poor sucker is left with the worthless product.


----------



## Jaeger (Feb 18, 2022)

I had no idea what an NFT was until I clicked this thread and didn’t understand what people were even talking about.

So I searched the internet for answers!

A few clicks and less than sixty seconds of reading about non fungible digital frippery that sells for 5 to 6 figures, and all was made clear...

NFT = Yet another digital money laundering scam...


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Feb 18, 2022)

Tally Isham said:


> I am the owner of a Type40 limited edition Call of Cthulhu leather document wallet with book.
> This required the slaying of an animal and tree to make, and maybe one day I will resell it.
> Why does this get a pass, but not a renewable energy sourced NFT?
> 
> If I buy a Star Spawn or Tiamat NFT to showoff in my apartment in the metaverse, and am happy with my purchase, how is this "a scam?" Who is being scammed?




This is a complete misunderstanding of what NFTs are for. They aren’t about displaying the thing—in many cases anyone else could display an NFT-associated piece of art, for example by copy-pasting. It’s solely for investment. What you’re imagining would be like buying stock in a company and framing a screenshot of the transaction.


----------



## darjr (Feb 18, 2022)

In the meantime, did gripnr misappropriate someone else’s art?


----------



## MGibster (Feb 18, 2022)

Tally Isham said:


> If I buy a Star Spawn or Tiamat NFT to showoff in my apartment in the metaverse, and am happy with my purchase, how is this "a scam?" Who is being scammed?



That's not how an NFT works.  With an NFT, you likely don't own the image nor do you have exclusive rights to the image.  If I sold you a Star Spawn NFT I could turn around and sell someone else a different NFT associated with that identical Star Spawn image.


----------



## Jer (Feb 18, 2022)

Tally Isham said:


> I am the owner of a Type40 limited edition Call of Cthulhu leather document wallet with book.
> This required the slaying of an animal and tree to make, and maybe one day I will resell it.
> Why does this get a pass, but not a renewable energy sourced NFT?




I mean depending on where you are you will get flak for it.  My father, for example, would call you a dope for wasting your money on gaming garbage and collectibles when you could be investing it into something actually profitable   (Or maybe he'd be more polite to you and reserves such language for his own children).


Tally Isham said:


> If I buy a Star Spawn or Tiamat NFT to showoff in my apartment in the metaverse, and am happy with my purchase, how is this "a scam?" Who is being scammed?



First of all, what did you buy?  That's the heart of the scam. You did not in fact buy the image - you bought the right to display the image inside your virtual workspace. The only thing you own is a token on the blockchain that says that says you completed a transaction with that company and they will then use that token to grant you access to that image to display.  The company could shut down at any point taking their servers offline and leaving you with nothing but the token of ownership.  So that's the first thing - the muddling up of language to confuse people about what they're actually buying.

Secondly in order to do that there is no reason that that token of ownership needs to be stored in a database that uses the same amount of energy to process a single transaction that a US household uses in an entire week. Your access to the virtual statue is already logged in the company's databases to provide you access to the statue - it has to be because blockchain has no bearing on that aspect of the transaction.  The company could even set up a marketplace for trading their collectible statues that would use a fraction of the energy that a blockchain solution costs.  The reason it's on the blockchain instead is to be able to use the hype to scam people into buying something that they otherwise would look at and pass by because of some belief that they'll be able to resell it later at an increased value.

It's a scam - and as I said elsewhere I'd be perfectly happy to let these people all scam each other out of their money if they would  use a technology that doesn't annually consume the entire annual energy budget of a European country just processing trades.


----------



## Jer (Feb 18, 2022)

Grendel_Khan said:


> This is a complete misunderstanding of what NFTs are for. They aren’t about displaying the thing—in many cases anyone else could display an NFT-associated piece of art, for example by *copy-pasting. *



NTF enthusiasts will call people who suggest such things "right clickers".  Which is the most hilarious bit of namecalling I think I've ever heard someone come up with.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 18, 2022)

Tally Isham said:


> I am the owner of a Type40 limited edition Call of Cthulhu leather document wallet with book.
> This required the slaying of an animal and tree to make, and maybe one day I will resell it.
> Why does this get a pass, but not a renewable energy sourced NFT?
> 
> If I buy a Star Spawn or Tiamat NFT to showoff in my apartment in the metaverse, and am happy with my purchase, how is this "a scam?" Who is being scammed?



First off, nobody sells any type of thing in digital space. All things in digital space are expressions of data of some type and so infinitely copy-able.
The best you can hope to own, is a copy of the digital data needed to display the object and a perpetual licence to display it. If you suffer a data loss and the entity that sold you the thing is gone then you are so out of luck.
An NFT does not even give you the above, it usually gives you a link to the data, that some one else is maintaining and they may not even know of your dependence on their stored data. You may have no actual licence and could be liable for IP violations of one sort or another.

VeVe as far as I can make out were using NFT more or less as a marketing ploy, what they were offering was the equivalent of an armour skin for a game character. The thing you were getting was only usable inside the VeVe ecosystem, not even a true NFT, there is no way to cash out or pawn the thing off to some other poor fool.


----------



## Jer (Feb 18, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> VeVe as far as I can make out were using NFT more or less as a marketing ploy, what they were offering was the equivalent of an armour skin for a game character. The thing you were getting was only usable inside the VeVe ecosystem, not even a true NFT, there is no way to cash out or pawn the thing off to some other poor fool.



I don't believe that that last element is true - I think (though I agree it's muddy) that the tokens of ownership are being held on the blockchain and that they were using that token to determine who had access to the image, making it an NFT for every purpose that NFT enthusiasts like to push NFTs for including speculation.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 18, 2022)

Jer said:


> I don't believe that that last element is true - I think (though I agree it's muddy) that they tokens of ownership are being held on the blockchain and that they were using that token to determine who had access to the image, making it an NFT for every purpose that NFT enthusiasts like to push NFTs for including speculation.



I mean fair enough I did not look that hard.

Edit (for clarity): It was a complaint I saw being thrown at them by people that appeared to favour NFTs. I did not read their EULA or TOS or anything like that.


----------



## Jer (Feb 18, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> I mean fair enough I did not look that hard.



To be honest if they were using a scheme like you suggest I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it except for the shady marketing of calling it an NFT.  At least the power usage would be down to our normal 21st century of wasteful for our entertainment purposes and not the Captain Planet Super-villain levels of waste that blockchain solution use.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 18, 2022)

Jer said:


> To be honest if they were using a scheme like you suggest I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it except for the shady marketing of calling it an NFT.  At least the power usage would be down to our normal 21st century of wasteful for our entertainment purposes and not the Captain Planet Super-villain levels of waste that blockchain solution use.



The impression I got (from a very brief scan through some google results) was that they were using their own blockchain, that only they were entitled to append to. In this case there is no need of proof of work, they can manage their own credentials. 
Now i am not saying that they are not using proof of work, but they would be a bit mad to do so. Not saying that they are not mad though. Some of this has Cargo Cult attributes.

"All hail the holy blockchain"


----------



## Jer (Feb 18, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> The impression I got (from a very brief scan through some google results) was that they were using their own blockchain, that only they were entitled to append to. In this case there is no need of proof of work, they can manage their own credentials.
> Now i am not saying that they are not using proof of work, but they would be a bit mad to do so. Not saying that they are not mad though. Some of this has Cargo Cult attributes.
> 
> "All hail the holy blockchain"



Oh grod - I missed that part.  Using blockchain tech as a centrally managed database almost levels up this up as a scam.  They can be technically correct when they say it's an NFT on a blockchain and yet it's utterly meaningless since the only reason to use a blockchain is to avoid centralizing credentials.

Shadiness all around.  Scams within scams...


----------



## Hex08 (Feb 18, 2022)

A great, short summary of NFTs:


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 19, 2022)

Hey, @Morrus. 

Yeah, so turns out not so much. According to a VeVe AMA on their official Discord server, Chaosium is still planning to release NFTs. Just delaying things so the uproar goes away.


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> Yeah, so turns out not so much. According to a VeVe AMA on their official Discord server, Chaosium is still planning to release NFTs. Just delaying things so the uproar goes away.



Well that's disappointing.


----------



## Crusadius (Feb 19, 2022)

Not unexpected from a guy whose income is from a platform that sells NFTs and has to sell a reason why one partner might have suspended planned drops (and perhaps implied they may exit permanently). Anything not positive might put Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt in customers and make them question the value their own purchases. After all, The Line Must Go Up.


----------



## overgeeked (Feb 19, 2022)

“Here's the actual VeVe AMA, time-stamped to start of the discussion of the situation with Chaosium. At 12:30 they state directly that their association with Chaosium is only suspended, not terminated, and they're expecting more Chaosium NFT's once the audience has been placated. Oh, and according to them tabletop gamers are twitchy geriatrics easily chased off by "misinformation" who have to be gently coaxed into accepting spooky new non-organic technology. Nice guys, I hope they get nothing less than their karma has earned.” —E.T.Smith on RPG.net


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 19, 2022)

Okay, so a company trying to sell you things is going to be very motivated to tell you that an ordered halt by a supplier is no big deal -- that it's temporary and meaningless and please keep buying.  This doesn't say _anything at all_ about what Chaosium plans to do.  And the first step to breaking up is quite often to go on a break.  If there's a contract, it's quite possible that Chaosium cannot back out until the time has elapsed without penalties, but can pump the breaks and just do nothing with it.


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Feb 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> “Here's the actual VeVe AMA, time-stamped to start of the discussion of the situation with Chaosium. At 12:30 they state directly that their association with Chaosium is only suspended, not terminated, and they're expecting more Chaosium NFT's once the audience has been placated. Oh, and according to them tabletop gamers are twitchy geriatrics easily chased off by "misinformation" who have to be gently coaxed into accepting spooky new non-organic technology. Nice guys, I hope they get nothing less than their karma has earned.” —E.T.Smith on RPG.net




I'm as weirded out by this community as the next non-crypto bro, but I listened to the Chaosium-related portion of that AMA, and it wasn't anywhere near as dismissive or aggressive as that RPG.net user framed it. Plus, in Chaosium's announcement they never said they were cutting ties with Veve, just holding off. So, let's maybe pump the brakes here, until Chaosium finalizes their plans.


----------



## éxypnos (Feb 19, 2022)

Another reason children should be WELL inculcated in the concept and reasons for the practice of caveat emptor


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 19, 2022)

overgeeked said:


> “Oh, and according to them tabletop gamers are twitchy geriatrics easily chased off by "misinformation" who have to be gently coaxed into accepting spooky new non-organic technology."



I'm inclined to agree that there is a loud part of the TTRPG fanbase that reacts pretty negatively to new things. The Chaosium/VeVe partnership, the new Doctor WHO game based on D&D 5E, the old classic edition wars . . . .

Although I don't think it's completely an age thing, and I don't think it's truly a fear of technology. It's simply an (unreasonable) fear of change, a fear that this hobby many of us have built our identities around might not be _just for us_ anymore . . . .


----------



## eyeheartawk (Feb 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm inclined to agree that there is a loud part of the TTRPG fanbase that reacts pretty negatively to new things. The Chaosium/VeVe partnership, the new Doctor WHO game based on D&D 5E, the old classic edition wars . . . .
> 
> Although I don't think it's completely an age thing, and I don't think it's truly a fear of technology. It's simply an (unreasonable) fear of change, a fear that this hobby many of us have built our identities around might not be _just for us_ anymore . . . .



It's pretty wild to me that you lump being against a planet killing greater fool scam in with some kind of nerd gatekeeping. Tomato, tomatoe, I guess.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Although I don't think it's completely an age thing, and I don't think it's truly a fear of technology. It's simply an (unreasonable) fear of change, a fear that this hobby many of us have built our identities around might not be _just for us_ anymore . . . .



I don't think I've heard a single argument for or against NFTs from a gaming point of view.  The connection between NFTs and gaming is tenuous at best and is present only because Chaosium is a gaming company.  A gaming company with a long and well deserved reputation as a pillar of our community.  I don't think you've got the motivation behind the opposition to NFTs correct.  It's not really about gaming.


----------



## J.Quondam (Feb 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm inclined to agree that there is a loud part of the TTRPG fanbase that reacts pretty negatively to new things. The Chaosium/VeVe partnership, the new Doctor WHO game based on D&D 5E, the old classic edition wars . . . .
> 
> Although I don't think it's completely an age thing, and I don't think it's truly a fear of technology. It's simply an (unreasonable) fear of change, a fear that this hobby many of us have built our identities around might not be _just for us_ anymore . . . .



To be sure, not every fear is an "unreasonable" one. Disgust for NFTs comes of very diverse, very real, and very _reasonable_ concerns. It's _nothing_ like a subjective distaste for some hobby opinion like "story first" or "videogamey".


----------



## Hex08 (Feb 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I'm inclined to agree that there is a loud part of the TTRPG fanbase that reacts pretty negatively to new things. The Chaosium/VeVe partnership, the new Doctor WHO game based on D&D 5E, the old classic edition wars . . . .
> 
> Although I don't think it's completely an age thing, and I don't think it's truly a fear of technology. It's simply an (unreasonable) fear of change, a fear that this hobby many of us have built our identities around might not be _just for us_ anymore . . . .



I can only speak for myself, but I am old enough to have played Basic & Expert D&D, AD&D 1e & 2e and 3.x/Pathfinder before I stopped playing D&D as my primary game and I did so because _I craved change_, I needed to try other systems and settings to ensure I didn't lose interest in the hobby. Also, I love that the hobby has grown beyond its much smaller audience of my youth. The problem is that the whole cryptocurrency/NFT thing is really bad for the environment, and I fear for the future of our planet.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 19, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> To be sure, not every fear is an "unreasonable" one. Disgust for NFTs comes of very diverse, very real, and very _reasonable_ concerns. It's _nothing_ like a subjective distaste for some hobby opinion like "story first" or "videogamey".



True, not all criticisms or fears regarding NFTs are unreasonable. Didn't say that, did I?

But there are also a lot of very unreasonable fears . . . IMO, of course . . . and a very unreasonable overreaction towards Chaosium's plans.


----------



## J.Quondam (Feb 19, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> True, not all criticisms or fears regarding NFTs are unreasonable. Didn't say that, did I?
> 
> But there are also a lot of very unreasonable fears . . . IMO, of course . . . and a very unreasonable overreaction towards Chaosium's plans.



No. If there are concerns about NFTs in general, then those concerns most _certainly_ apply to Chaosium's involvement with NFTs. Hence the hubbub. Whether you consider those concerns "unreasonable" is irrelevant.  (Doubly irrelevant, since practically all those concerns actually _are_  very reasonable, as has been explained quite thoroughly already.)


----------



## Tun Kai Poh (Feb 19, 2022)

Hex08 said:


> I can only speak for myself, but I am old enough to have played Basic & Expert D&D, AD&D 1e & 2e and 3.x/Pathfinder before I stopped playing D&D as my primary game and I did so because _I craved change_, I needed to try other systems and settings to ensure I didn't lose interest in the hobby. Also, I love that the hobby has grown beyond its much smaller audience of my youth. The problem is that the whole cryptocurrency/NFT thing is really bad for the environment, and I fear for the future of our planet.



Exactly the same here. Started playing with AD&D, started GMing with Fighting Fantasy, Basic/Expert, and Ghostbusters RPG. Now I do a mix of storygaming (Blades in the Dark et al) and tactical combat RPGs (Lancer). I've transitioned my games entirely online due to Covid (my partner is immunocompromised and I have no desire to expose us to unnecessary social contact), and I welcome new ideas in the hobby.

But NFTs in gaming are just a spin-off of a scam industry.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 19, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I don't think I've heard a single argument for or against NFTs from a gaming point of view.  The connection between NFTs and gaming is tenuous at best and is present only because Chaosium is a gaming company.  A gaming company with a long and well deserved reputation as a pillar of our community.  I don't think you've got the motivation behind the opposition to NFTs correct.  It's not really about gaming.



There have been concerns expressed in the various ENWorld threads here on NFTs that companies, like Chaosium, could tie gaming elements into their NFT offerings. An adventure, a map, a character option. But that hasn't been the main thrust of the discussion here.

The discussion here is covering NFTs as a category, rather than being hyper-focused on what Chaosium and VeVe are doing . . . . but that's why we're talking about NFTs, because of what Chaosium is (or isn't) doing with them. It has everything to do with the gaming community, as the upset is over Chaosium's choices to partner with an NFT company with their Call of Cthulhu brand.

I agree, the motivation behind the strong NFT stances expressed here isn't ALL about gaming. But that is a part of it, folks are concerned about what a gaming company is doing now, and what they might do down the road. I see strong parallels in how folks are reacting to Chaosium's NFT plans to how folks are reacting towards Cubicle 7's decision to do a D&D system-based Dr. Who game, and many other industry choices in the past.

Of course, many of the video links provided are from non-gamers . . . or I suppose from folks whose gaming hobbies aren't the focus in the videos . . . and plenty of folks who don't play TTRPGs feel strongly that NFTs are _all-evil, all-the-time_. That conservative impulse, _fear-of-change_, isn't limited to the gaming community. And it isn't all bad, as change isn't always for the better. But an overwhelming and unreasonable fear-of-change, IMO, has an unhealthy foothold in a lot of lifestyle hobbies, including the TTRPG community.


----------



## theCourier (Feb 20, 2022)

Whatever they could put out in terms of an adventure, map, char-op, or any other type of gaming resource can already be done in other, non-environmentally destructive formats.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Feb 20, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> I agree, the motivation behind the strong NFT stances expressed here isn't ALL about gaming. But that is a part of it, folks are concerned about what a gaming company is doing now, and what they might do down the road. I see strong parallels in how folks are reacting to Chaosium's NFT plans *to how folks are reacting towards Cubicle 7's decision to do a D&D system-based Dr. Who game, and many other industry choices in the past.*




I... don't see the comparison here. Disagreeing with a system choice is very different from the objections to NFTs, which are grounded in more objective measures than system preference.


----------



## Smackpixi (Feb 20, 2022)

So, it’s clear that Caosium is very much on board with selling overpriced nothings to their fans for money, why wouldn’t they, like Disney and others, this NFT scam is GREAT business, it cost nearly nothing to produce, sells for absurd amounts, it’s free money from suckers.  Treating your fans as suckers to grift is why there’s hostility.

But wait, Veve is not a scam like other NFTs because you can’t get your money back, you can’t sell your Veve naughty word for real money, and while you’d think that would make it even more of a scam, the opposite is true.  This is why real brands like it.  

Normal NFTs are a straight up grift, Veve is instead just the worst possible pay to win game.  It’s a game because its a closed system, you can’t get your NFTs or money out.  So you pay a silly amount of money to buy into the game, use your in game gems to get some “NFTs” and then sit on them, use the games augmented reality tools to take a picture of yourself next to the image of what your NFT points to in their system.  

Maybe you sell them for more than you paid in in game, and then take those in game currency gems and buy some other NFT things.  Since they have a closed system with no cash out option, so long as they meter new item drops to the amount of new money buying, the system won’t crash, and in fact ever escalate if the new sucker gem buyins exceed the value of the new item drops.  

It’s a game, if you’re playing for fun, you just augmented reality selfie next to your fictions, if you’re playing to win, you trade this in game stuff to escalate your gems, your in game currency.  it’s pay to win cause you can always spend more real money to increase your in game currency.

The only reason that stupidest of stupid games VeVE is running uses NFT blockchain is because it’s the new hotness and gives the appearance of real value, it’s an NFT!  They don’t need to, closed system is a game, your NFTs can’t exit, nor can your money.  But saying NFT and using blockchain, appearance of value.  Such horrid naughty word.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 20, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> I... don't see the comparison here. Disagreeing with a system choice is very different from the objections to NFTs, which are grounded in more objective measures than system preference.



If you've been following my posts in these threads (_and its okay of course if you haven't been_), I'm not defending NFTs or encouraging folks to purchase them. I don't have issue with folks distrust and dislike of NFTs, nor do I have a problem with folks who think D&D 5E isn't a good choice for Dr. Who . . . . .

Its the binary nature of SOME of the complaints, the entitlement, the over-reaction . . . ._ right-vs-wrong, black-vs-white, if you're not with us, you're against us_ . . . .

There are a lot of good reasons to be wary of NFTs, they've been covered well in these threads. I'm reacting to the NFTs _are-all-evil-all-the-time_ extreme reaction, which is more emotional and negative than simply, "_NFTs are not good products for gaming or society_". Some of the responses (few, here) have gotten toxic, accusing me and others who aren't convinced of the completely-scammy nature of NFTs as fools, apologists, or sealions.

This isn't the same as some of the toxic reactions to the new Dr. Who powered-by-5E game announced, but there are parallels. Some folks feel that D&D 5E isn't a good fit for Dr. Who, and that opinion is of course fine. Some are taking that opinion much further into toxic attacks on C7 for daring to give a 5E Dr. Who a try. C7 is getting a drubbing on social media right now, mostly on Twitter.

It isn't the anti-NFT opinions, or the anti-5E for Dr. Who opinions themselves that I take issue with, it's what I see as the extreme over-reactions to something _not-for-me_ that some folks are taking, taking too far, IMO.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 20, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> There have been concerns expressed in the various ENWorld threads here on NFTs that companies, like Chaosium, could tie gaming elements into their NFT offerings. An adventure, a map, a character option. But that hasn't been the main thrust of the discussion here.



Sure, but I don't consider that the same thing as being alienated by a new edition and no longer feeling like they belong in a hobby they love.  That seems to me like a legitimate concern regarding a business tactic that would hurt a lot of customers.  



Dire Bare said:


> I agree, the motivation behind the strong NFT stances expressed here isn't ALL about gaming. But that is a part of it, folks are concerned about what a gaming company is doing now, and what they might do down the road. I see strong parallels in how folks are reacting to Chaosium's NFT plans to how folks are reacting towards Cubicle 7's decision to do a D&D system-based Dr. Who game, and many other industry choices in the past.



I just don't see the same parallel you do.  To me, it's more akin to fans of Warhammer 40k when they complain about how Games Workshop conducts business.  



Dire Bare said:


> Of course, many of the video links provided are from non-gamers . . . or I suppose from folks whose gaming hobbies aren't the focus in the videos . . . and plenty of folks who don't play TTRPGs feel strongly that NFTs are _all-evil, all-the-time_. That conservative impulse, _fear-of-change_, isn't limited to the gaming community.




I was largely indifferent to NFTs just a few days ago knowing very little about them and not caring one way or the other.  But when Chaosium made their announcement and I started seeing people talk about it I went ahead and did a little research.  NFTs are a scam, and, like homeopathy, just because it's legal doesn't mean its not a scam.  On top of being a scam it's a colossal waste of energy.  You want to characterized this as fear of change go ahead but I don't think that's an accurate description of the criticisms for NFTs.


----------



## macd21 (Feb 20, 2022)

Yeah, “conservative fear of change” is nonsense. It’s just a non-argument used to dismiss the real concerns people have about NFTs. The problems NFTs present have been thoroughly explained (repeatedly) in this thread. Responding with “gamers really don’t like new things” is just a distraction from the fact that there isn’t really a good counter argument to those concerns.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 20, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I submit to you that given what they think, their reaction (which is, let us be clear, _just talking_ about it online), seems pretty mild in the realm of reactions.  And it has, for now, handled the issue with a minimum of real harm to anyone involved.
> 
> Or, do you think just talking about it is too much?  Talking about stuff is an over-reaction, to you?



Several people have mentioned boycotts. Me included. Chaosium really can't afford the bad press and loss of income a well organized boycott would bring.

Which is an actual and credibly social engineering threat vs them; Vs WotC wouldn't be a credible Social Engineering threat, for reasons of adoption rates of game engines and the D&D player base.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Several people have mentioned boycotts.




Still just talk, though.  We didn't see any activity suggesting a boycott was really happening, did we?

Including in our assessment of the reactions things that didn't actually happen seems... less that fair.  Should people include in their judgements of you things that you haven't done?  If not, the Golden Rule should apply, no?


----------



## darjr (Feb 20, 2022)

> Chaosium's reply over Twitter to a message I sent:
> " Sorry, didn't see the AMA on Discord.With our licensee TYPE40 (who create the digital collectables) we've mapped out what future items might be. But we meant what we said in our statement "Chaosium Suspends Plans for Future NFTs" (16 Feb 2022). While we address the concerns of the tabletop gaming community we have halted our plans for future NFT releases. There are no Chaosium-related digital collectables drops scheduled for VeVe, or any other NFT marketplace. This decision was made in cooperation with VeVe and TYPE40."
> 
> So naturally I sent the video posted above









						Chaosium NFTs (and other RPG companies?) [READ THE REDTEXT IN POST #1.]
					

And yet the would-be NFT TTRPG project named themselves "gripnr", it's like they aren't even a Crypto project when "bag of hodling" was right there.  I assume they wouldn't want to their marks to think about who will be hodling the bag when it all comes crashing down.




					forum.rpg.net


----------



## Hex08 (Feb 20, 2022)

Dire Bare said:


> Of course, many of the video links provided are from non-gamers . . . or I suppose from folks whose gaming hobbies aren't the focus in the videos . . . and plenty of folks who don't play TTRPGs feel strongly that NFTs are _all-evil, all-the-time_. That conservative impulse, _fear-of-change_, isn't limited to the gaming community. And it isn't all bad, as change isn't always for the better. But an overwhelming and unreasonable fear-of-change, IMO, has an unhealthy foothold in a lot of lifestyle hobbies, including the TTRPG community.



You keep coming back to "_fear-of-change"_ but as near as I can tell, at least in this conversation, no one is expressing that concern. Most, if not all, of the posts here seem to be focusing on why NFTs are bad in general and have nothing to do with gaming. That the discussion is being had in relation to a gaming company isn't relevant to the concerns people have regarding NFTs, I would feel the same way if my local grocery store or a car dealership started selling them.

The "_fear-of-change" _argument doesn't really address the concerns being presented, it seems more like a red herring.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 21, 2022)

Umbran said:


> Still just talk, though.  We didn't see any activity suggesting a boycott was really happening, did we?
> 
> Including in our assessment of the reactions things that didn't actually happen seems... less that fair.  Should people include in their judgements of you things that you haven't done?  If not, the Golden Rule should apply, no?



I did state that, if they are still in the NFT business when KAP6 releases, or the samurai adaptation of KAP releases, I won't buy them.

I am not _calling for a boycott,_ but I'm personally willing to forego the two Chaosium products I'm actually interested in, as a matter of principle.

I'm not averse to a boycott, and Chaosium's half-hearted walkback looks like damage control but not an actual withdrawal from the business.

Several other people across a variety of sites have made similar statements to mine; not a call for, but a statement of personal objection.


----------



## LongTimeLurker (Feb 21, 2022)

"We just need to hold until the whole scheme collapse and the small minority of suckers are left holding the bag."

LOL. People have been saying this since BTC was less than $1. It's trading at what, 60k+ right now? I wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Feb 21, 2022)

In slightly adjacent news; 
A bunch of NFT stolen in phishing attack. This is the central problem of NFT and any thing unique on the internet, not just NFT but any unique item. Current security is not up to protecting that kind of data.


----------



## Mannahnin (Feb 21, 2022)

LongTimeLurker said:


> "We just need to hold until the whole scheme collapse and the small minority of suckers are left holding the bag."
> 
> LOL. People have been saying this since BTC was less than $1. It's trading at what, 60k+ right now? I wouldn't hold your breath.



It was in the $60ks back in November.  Since midnight last night it's ranged between a bit over $39k and a bit over $37k.

Of course, people in this thread have _mostly _been conscientious about differentiating between cryptocurrency, which does have potential real uses and I think has sincere people believing in such uses, and NFTs, which don't seem to have any real use-cases, and which the person you're responding to was talking about.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 21, 2022)

LongTimeLurker said:


> LOL. People have been saying this since BTC was less than $1. It's trading at what, 60k+ right now? I wouldn't hold your breath.



As I'm typing this $37,784. So about %60 of its peak value last November.


----------



## Crusadius (Feb 22, 2022)

Bitcoins are unregulated. It is "known" that NFTs undergo what is called "wash trading" where an investor sells their NFT to themselves** to create the illusion of demand for their NFTs and also drives the price up.

So given the volatility of Bitcoin prices is wash trading being done to keep the price of bitcoins artificially high? There is no regulation to ban or punish people from doing it.

** It is done by selling between wallets that they own, or perhaps more complicated schemes where they organise a group of people and sell amongst people in this group at ever increasing prices until it ends up with the original owner - this is risky for those involved because one of them might be the "mark" and that person ends up with an overpriced thing that no-one wants to buy from them but not to worry, they should HODL because the price can only go up, or perhaps they should find themselves a "mark" to offload it.


----------



## Tom B1 (Feb 25, 2022)

Undrave said:


> We HAVE to vehemently attack any company trying o step into the NFT scam if we don't want that naughty word to spread everywhere like a plague. The people already invested constantly need new blood to buy in if they wish to cash out, so they'll do anything to convince corporations there is money to be made. The corporations aren't dumb, they'll go where there is money, but if we make sure they'll lose money by getting into NFTs to please a tiny vocal minority, they should back out.
> 
> We just need to hold until the whole scheme collapse and the small minority of suckers are left holding the bag.




NFTs are an odd generalization of things like games selling you gear that only exists in the digital world or cards for your MTG decks, etc. It's value is artificial. NFTs _might_ be able to have great one-off digital artworks represented (which might be valid) but I don't ever recall the case where a file couldn't be copied so really, is it a one of a kind in the way that an oil painting in the real world was? Not really. 

Like the free to play, pay to win online games. Or spending real money for badges or... ? 

My rule is simple: If it needs a platform to be accessed, if it requires ongoing tax to keep my access up, or if the product purports an intangible value, I'm gonna pass. P.T. Barnum knew this tactic and had a statement... something like "There's a sucker born every minute...".


----------



## Undrave (Feb 25, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> Bitcoins are unregulated. It is "known" that NFTs undergo what is called "wash trading" where an investor sells their NFT to themselves** to create the illusion of demand for their NFTs and also drives the price up.
> 
> So given the volatility of Bitcoin prices is wash trading being done to keep the price of bitcoins artificially high? There is no regulation to ban or punish people from doing it.
> 
> ** It is done by selling between wallets that they own, or perhaps more complicated schemes where they organise a group of people and sell amongst people in this group at ever increasing prices until it ends up with the original owner - this is risky for those involved because one of them might be the "mark" and that person ends up with an overpriced thing that no-one wants to buy from them but not to worry, they should HODL because the price can only go up, or perhaps they should find themselves a "mark" to offload it.



I'm gonna find the source later but an article looked into and found only 400 000 Wallets or so did ANY trading of NFT and not all of them currently own one. It's not a 'trend' or something on the rise, it's as you say: all smokes and mirror. 

They're being aggressive with trying to rope people into it now because they can't cash out without anyone to sell to.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Aug 19, 2022)

/thread necromancy powers on

I was reminded of this thread by an article on Kotaku about the *Untamed Isles* Kickstarter, which raised ~ NZ$800,000 to make a Pokemon-like game. But the plan was always to sink a bunch of the funds into crypto, and since the market has tanked they have had to shutter development. Which is bad for the backers, since there will be no refunds. Some of the backers apparently didn't read the full project page before pulling the trigger, as they are just now realizing the project's motto ("game first, crypto second") _guarantees_ that they will be doing at least some crypto. Makes me glad Chaosium decided to put their NFT plans on hold, since they really can't afford to lose money.


----------



## Jer (Aug 19, 2022)

RealAlHazred said:


> /thread necromancy powers on
> 
> I was reminded of this thread by an article on Kotaku about the *Untamed Isles* Kickstarter, which raised ~ NZ$800,000 to make a Pokemon-like game.



I'd never heard of this game before this week but is the story really that they "invested" their kickstarter funds heavily into crypto in order to fund development?  Or have I been misreading things in the reporting? All of the stories make it seem to me like they just took the kickstarter money and bought into crypto with it.

If that's the case then it's hopefully different from what Chaosium was planning on doing - which was I think was basically licensing their assets out to have NFTs created of them.  Taking your kickstarter money and "investing" it into cryptocurrency is another level entirely - not quite "taking your kickstarter money and using it to buy scratch-offs" level, but definitely worse than the standard "take your IP and turn it into NFTs for a quick buck" crypto pitch.


----------



## Tom B1 (Aug 19, 2022)

RealAlHazred said:


> /thread necromancy powers on
> 
> I was reminded of this thread by an article on Kotaku about the *Untamed Isles* Kickstarter, which raised ~ NZ$800,000 to make a Pokemon-like game. But the plan was always to sink a bunch of the funds into crypto, and since the market has tanked they have had to shutter development. Which is bad for the backers, since there will be no refunds. Some of the backers apparently didn't read the full project page before pulling the trigger, as they are just now realizing the project's motto ("game first, crypto second") _guarantees_ that they will be doing at least some crypto. Makes me glad Chaosium decided to put their NFT plans on hold, since they really can't afford to lose money.



You know, this is depressing. Am I going to have to look at every RPG publisher's kickstarters in earnest to see if they are diddling around in risky vehicles with the money or depending on that maybe-never-come-in-money to actually produce their product on kickstarter? Makes me want to only ever support small companies with 1 or 2 employees (creators) and only when the costs are low so there's not much at stake. Especially since these companies could be doing these stupid shenanigans without disclosing... 

Chaosium, I guess I'll be sticking with your older legacy products since this just shows I ought not to be trusting you...

I sometimes think is 'No ******* Thinking'.... buyers and creators with ridiculous expectations. 

And crypto is like futures or other bubble-driven systems where the big fish and the insiders can make money by sheering the little guys...


----------



## RealAlHazred (Aug 19, 2022)

Jer said:


> I'd never heard of this game before this week but is the story really that they "invested" their kickstarter funds heavily into crypto in order to fund development?  Or have I been misreading things in the reporting? All of the stories make it seem to me like they just took the kickstarter money and bought into crypto with it.



They mention "cryptocurrency integration" exactly two times on the campaign page, and I haven't gone through all 23 Updates but the few I did look at didn't mention anything. My thought is, they bought into the fantasy sold by cryptobros, and thought it would be a great way to turn NZ$800 thousand into NZ$800 million. If they were already researching crypto for game integration it was probably a very easy step to take.


Tom B1 said:


> Am I going to have to look at every RPG publisher's kickstarters in earnest to see if they are diddling around in risky vehicles with the money or depending on that maybe-never-come-in-money to actually produce their product on kickstarter?



Probably? I'm in the same boat. Like I said above, they did mention they intended to integrate crypto into the game (somehow) so I guess that's the warning sign to look for?


----------



## RealAlHazred (Aug 19, 2022)

There is nothing in the Updates about crypto. I did find the March update amusing because of this line:


> "We’re aiming to bring a good game and we don’t feel like not rushing something that’s not ready or polished to market. It’s an ambitious title for a new studio, *we are well-funde*d and we are aggressively hiring talent, we’re not being naïve, about this, it is just a big job.”


----------



## darjr (Aug 19, 2022)

Tom B1 said:


> You know, this is depressing. Am I going to have to look at every RPG publisher's kickstarters in earnest to see if they are diddling around in risky vehicles with the money or depending on that maybe-never-come-in-money to actually produce their product on kickstarter? Makes me want to only ever support small companies with 1 or 2 employees (creators) and only when the costs are low so there's not much at stake. Especially since these companies could be doing these stupid shenanigans without disclosing...
> 
> Chaosium, I guess I'll be sticking with your older legacy products since this just shows I ought not to be trusting you...
> 
> ...



Chaosim isn’t doing NFTs or crypto. They walked away from it as far as I know.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Aug 19, 2022)

darjr said:


> Chaosim isn’t doing NFTs or crypto. They walked away from it as far as I know.



To be clear, they said they were "suspending" their plans for now. They did _not _say they would _never _do crypto.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Aug 19, 2022)

RealAlHazred said:


> To be clear, they said they were "suspending" their plans for now. They did _not _say they would _never _do crypto.



I noticed that too, but with the absolute pummeling crypto and crypto derived assets have taken of late I'm guessing it'll probably become permanent.


----------



## RealAlHazred (Aug 19, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> I noticed that too, but with the absolute pummeling crypto and crypto derived assets have taken of late I'm guessing it'll probably become permanent.



Eh, there's always someone who'll fall for the grift. Otherwise, there wouldn't be grifters!


----------



## Grendel_Khan (Aug 21, 2022)

Tom B1 said:


> You know, this is depressing. Am I going to have to look at every RPG publisher's kickstarters in earnest to see if they are diddling around in risky vehicles with the money or depending on that maybe-never-come-in-money to actually produce their product on kickstarter? Makes me want to only ever support small companies with 1 or 2 employees (creators) and only when the costs are low so there's not much at stake. Especially since these companies could be doing these stupid shenanigans without disclosing...




Untamed Isles was supposed to be a MMORPG, which you should always be extremely leery of on Kickstarter. So yeah, always exercise a ton of caution with any videogame Kickstarters. But no, you don't need to assume TTRPG Kickstarters are crypto-involved. If they are, then chances are you're backing some pretty grifty nonsense anyway.


----------

