So many companies do this. Attempting to get quick sales boosts quarter by quarter while avoiding doing anything sustainable because it doesn’t generate instant profit. It’s one of the worst effects of the investor-first way of doing business
Kinda don't see what the big deal is. Probably best use for "unique" goods. Dunno if they use blockchain because as I've understood it that's just a resource hog.
But selling users unique avatars? Don't see the appeal and they are fugly and seem dumb but like that's so inoffensive nothing burger.
The avatars also have a visual effect to them next to comments.
I think people don't like this at all not just because NFTs bad, but also because it changes reddit more and more from the website it used to be for commenting on articles & images into crypto social media.
If you don't think of it in the context of Reddit's bullshit, the idea of having special avatars that you have to pay for as a form of monetization isn't the worst thing imo. As long as it doesn't negatively affect users and isn't on top of other predatory forms of monetization.
True, a nice horse armor is not that bad if at a decent price, but it's after that you have to be careful to not exaggerate and drift off in waay worst, although I couldn't pay for something like that personally
It's like they are trying to get rid of users. I had seen the nft on the browser version ages ago but all of this is the reason why we preferred 3rd party browsing experience. Instead of fixing reddit they took that away
Yeah I looked at this screenshot and thought, I don't know who their target market is, but it's clearly not me.
Makes sense they would actively try to drive us away, so all their bandwidth is going to whoever the hell would give them money for these ugly pictures.
My theory is Musk is trying to bankrupt Twitter quickly so he can minimise his losses, after his impulsive ego finally had some consequences. I think Huffman thinks Musk is a genius and is trying to emulate him by pivoting into crypto, to create his own PayPal style pay day.
I also don't think he's going to be able to create the perpetual motion money machine he's expecting, but it's not like he's going to go personally bankrupt trying. Graphic artists are a cheap labor business expense compared to the potential gain, and at worst you get your own marketplace out of it.
It would be easy enough to launder cash through such a system that he'll probably make more money than most will ever own in their lifetime. Even if 99% of it is only ever traded for less than a dollar.
The question I have is whether he's competent to keep enough users for a long enough time to buy a personal fortified island or just a personal apocalypse fort.
They've been doing it a while. They even gave some free ones away to encourage people to buy more. I actually have some of the free ones because why not. I would never pay for them though
It’s quite different, and your purchase seems more sensible to me.
When you buy a skin, you’re buying an asset that you’ll see and use in your game. Sure, it’s just cosmetics, but it’s kinda usable cosmetics. If the game goes down, your skin is probably lost as well, but at least you had some fun with it.
When you buy an nft, you buy your rights to a link to an image. It’s way more “protected” than simply buying a skin, in a similar way to how owning crypto works. Your right to that link is saved on a blockchain and you become the sole “owner” of that link. You could technically resell it (not sure if it’s allowed on Reddit though), but if a server hosting that image goes down, you’re left owning a broken link.
And while there’s no other way to get an asset into a game other than to buy it (or mod the game), you could just save an image you like and use it as an avatar anyway, so you’re not even required to buy nfts to use those as an avatar/banner. It’s more of a trading service.
That technology seems great for proving your rights to some documents or IDs, but it’s still weird to me that people decided to use NFTs for selling link rights to generated jpgs. You don’t even get the licence or usage rights to an image itself, it could be copyright-protected and owned by someone else.
The thing I don't get is that, afaik, there's no real limitation on the size of the nft. To my knowledge there's nothing stopping you from making a Blockchain that supports full images in each nft. However, instead they decided to sell receipts.
Fun fact, you don't even buy the rights to the link. You can make an infinite amount of NFTs that go to the same link. It is a common scam tactic to try and sell duplicated NFTs.