Bitcoin Forum

Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey has made a NFT (https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/5/22316320/jack-dorsey-original-tweet-nft-cent-valuables) (non-fungible token) out of his first tweet ever "“just setting up my twttr” and now is auctioning it at "Valuables by Cent" (https://v.cent.co/). And he is not the only one, actually many people (virtually anyone) can do the same. I think that if this catches speed there may be many more tokenised "moments in history" including videos, first scenes of actors, digital art, ...

Offer's getting ridiculously high.
 (https://twitter.com/justinsuntron/status/1368223699254398976)
Potentially, the content of significant tweets will very frequently become property of someone and that will be carefully registered in distributed blockchain ledgers. I can see a clear market for celebrities, politicians and leaders.

I do not know what the value is about this thing, it is not an art and it is not supposed to carry value.
Frankly, I do not understand NFT's tokens, nor do I think they are ideal investment tools. They are exactly the same as the deals made to buy paintings.
I also think that the founder of Tron is trying to make some indirect profit by buying that tweet. He does not aim to buy it because it is of value, but because this news can move the market.

I'll ride this topic by asking the members of the community if they could enlight me on Non-Fungible Tokens. I've already had my fair share of google search but I would like to know what are your guys stance on it as well.
To me it just seems something that came out of nowhere and that it's making people/artists rich by day. I think this actually gives a negative opinion towards BTC (because, let me honest, anytime the average joe hears about virtual coins , BTC will be the first thing it will come to their mind) because people will start to think that this is a scam or something that just de valuates the message/goal of BTC.

Still it's strange to see Dorsey, someone who was one of the early celebrities to see the value of BTC, to embrace NFT's. Are they they at the same level of BTC in terms of disruption?

Many will do the same thing for sure since NFT are rising and the screenshot of history is quiet easy to do, well its good that its also cheap and I thought it can be sold for $1k and above. I’m trying to do some art for NFT but I’m still on a search about this one and hopefully, I can also share some good art and monetize it as well.

Just in case someone still does not know, NFT are those that are unique, that is, you can distinguish one from another. The best way to understand this is thinking a Picasso versus a USD. Any USD is like any other USD (more or less) at least in value, but any picture is unique.

I have mentioned my view her (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5317135.msg56506931#msg56506931)e, but in essence, it makes sense in videogames and electronic property where ownership has an utility (e.g. Decentraland, etc...), otherwise (e.g. gifs and tweets) makes little sense to me.

Digital art through NFTs we're a total miss for me, and here comes NFT tweets. Like I know Jack Dorsey's like a thousand times smarter than me no doubt, but what the hell I don't know what he's thinking with this. I literally don't get the point of having "ownership" of tweets just by tokenizing it. I mean, what the heck do I do with it? It's bollocks. I actually want to be open minded to understand and embrace it, but I simply can't.

Right, I doubt many countries would legally recognize NFT, and there's no software mechanism for enforcing ownership too. It's pretty much the same as selling Moon land or some distant stars - a pointless record in a database that has no real life consequences. The fact that so many people are jumping this bandwagon just shows how speculative and irrational the crypto sphere is, and how there's a lot of "dumb money" - probably some early ETH investors who now sit on millions worth of ether and don't know what to do with it.

I'm also quite amazed at this rising NFT craze. But it's not really totally surprising knowing how people could be really crazy on anything. Hundreds of billions have been squandered on the most useless of stuff. Would you even imagine wiping that shit off your asshole with a 1.38-million dollar gold toilet paper?^[1] That's how crazy people could be.

So this NFT thing is just another craze, although digital in nature, which suits perfectly in our rising digital age today.

Anyway, I won't compare this with paintings. Paintings could be investments. Since time immemorial, paintings have been given varying values. And they don't just come and go. Your Monet painting, for example, still has that high value after several decades of preservation, and it will likely continue to appreciate a century from now.

[1] https://beamazed.com/amusement/expensive-useless-things-millionaires-spend-money

While I really don't care about legalization, yea I agree. If anything, this is far far worse than buying/selling moon land. I might end up being wrong here, but I'm calling it— the Tweet/digital art NFT hype is going to die down a lot faster and a lot harder than the ICO hype. And I hope it happens sooner.

Thanks to Jack Dorsey for his support in cryptosphere. Even I don't really care with what he did or who will take the offer. He just raising awareness of tokenization. Nft is the new era of digital art ownership.
After this, we're hoping there will be more to come from artist/influencers.

After reading your answer it make sense with what OP said. I also heard NFT all the time over different tweets and it’s always there now and then on my timeline.
Ownership of tweet is something that’s ridiculous idea. Why anyone would want a paid tweet in first place? May be Twitter CEO just wants to increase their fortune with such system in place considering ever growing popularity of crypto currencies. He knows this is perfect time to publish something like this.

I wouldn't go that far just yet. Jack Dorsey made the tweet concerning the NFT in his personal account in the first place, not Twitter's main account. It's not like it's integrated into Twitter or something(at least, for now...).

As others have said, this is just a move to increase his fortune since NFT is hot as hell right now. NFT has use cases for sure, but not for blatantly buying low-quality memes or art printed on the blockchain. I do believe we'll see another "ICO boom" like others, and after that, the market will mature again, which means lots of people will lose their money sooner or later.

Unless you find arts with the same level as Mona Lisa or anything like that, don't pay for any token.

NFT's are all around these days as artwork and digital painting are sold in million dollars in Non fungible Tokens (NFT).Released in 2017 cryptopunks were released as first NFT on the Ethereum blockchain.They are just tokens which provide you the ownership of any assest mostly artworks.But whats the fun of getting a tweet through them.What ownership or usage will be of buying the first tweet of Social media Twitter for $2.5 million which is highest bid at this time? So it's just a wastage and these NFT are gaining much popularity around the news.Some of the famous NFTs bid are :

1)10 sec video sold for $6.6 million  (https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/10-second-video-clip-sold-6-6-million-66-lakhs-beeple-christies-auction-7211217/lite/)

2)Elon's girlfriend Grimes sold 10 paintings for $6 million (https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.indulgexpress.com/gadgets/2021/mar/03/what-is-non-fungible-token-art-and-how-musks-girlfriend-grimes-sold-6-million-worth-of-it-32090.amp)

But I don't really understand how someone can pay such amounts for them.

I don't know how this doesn't make crypto look like a bubble. This is simply "registering" virtual ownership of nonexistent goods. A tweet isn't something that can be owned, or even sold by someone. Yet people are buying into the notion that if we register ownership of this thing that exists on the internet, other people will consider you the "owner" of it.

Yet NFT doesn't grant ownership in any practical way, the ownership is entirely artificial. If you have no property rights over what you own, you don't own the property. You can't stop people from viewing the media you "own," you can't stop people from reproducing it. You have zero real world control over whatever NFT dupes you into thinking you "own."

It's different if you're registering ownership of things that exist in the real world and it creates a legal right of ownership. But that does't exist for things like buying tweets or "owning" the Nyan cat meme.

Oh this is a very fucking dumb idea. I saw it on twitter, and I don't see a point to it?

Like yeah ok I get Jack Dorsey loves crypto, but come on he can do better than this ridiculously dumb NFT "valuables" thing that he has set up.  Its not just his own tweet, I saw some really questionable tweets getting ridiculous offers and I am no fan of it.

And their FAQ is a fucking google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBx-HXY8ow_7bElsJZ6Sk3r2V9cQjSRdWFyKCUXZtAs/ ??

Given Jack Dorsey's mind, and his love for crypto one would expect better. But right now the Valuable thing is nothing but a meme to people. 

Im not understand too, how about if Jack Dorsey's tokenize his tweet in another NFT platform? Can the first buyer sue that issue?

The battle bid between Estavi and Justin Sun also irrational with The highest offer is $2500000 by @sinaEstavi.

Ye yeah, I know jack is really a huge backer of bitcoin, and extending it to other crypto related thing is normal and can be expected. Collectible arts as NFT is still understandable, but for a tweet? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't know if twitter and vcent had something in partnership in related to this since it gives hype to CT and now there are lots of twitter handles offers there tweet as NFT as if it was kind of gold, collectible or what. I may prefer to do it if it came from satoshi himself but still that doesnt make sense.

Think of it like an autograph or something that can be a collectible as NFTs can take the form of collectibles. I can explain NFTs although I am not sure whether it is accurate, for me NFTs are like online baseball cards that you collect hoping that it will appreciate in value overtime. Your claim about it not being an ideal investment tool could be debatable as there are a lot of NFTs popping up but that means that you have to sift through the mud to find the best one and when you find it, everything that you invested in it will multiply by a lot because NFTs are unique tokens and that uniqueness is what makes it a good investment tool. NFTs are for the poor as Artworks are for the rich.

Am I the only person who can't understand what are NFT tweets needed for? I also can't understand this NFT craze.

I'm still in the sense of understanding about it but, the easiest word for us to understand is that it's about ownership of a digital thing. Whether it is a historical tweet or those digital arts that can be made online and by buying it will make you the owner of it.

It's a craze just as the ICO but this time, the product isn't consistent as the tokens before. But it can be different things that can be sold online as an NFT. I'm still learning to know more about it because it just popped like mushrooms and it's everywhere.

NFTs are gaining a lot of attention especially in the recent times. The truth is they are making a huge waves, we have seen a lot of unspeakable things being auctioned in the NFT markets at surprisingly very huge value, some even argue that the NFT market sentiments contributed to the current green markets we are experiencing. The hyip increases by the day, now my fear is only for the average Joe not getting seriously burnt from this hyips.

Tweets cant be transfered between accounts. Thats why this nft "sale" is pure scam

Actually, by buying the NFT the owner is not buying any enforceable property right. He is just buying a blockchain registered proof that he purchased a digitally autographed tweet.

It is a very doubtful investment isn't it?

Interesting.
Does that mean he will no longer own the tweet or something? I wonder if the buyer will have the right to resell the NFT for profit?
I guess people are willing to buy it that high because the creator/owner is popular, and it's signed and verified by him?

Honestly, I'm totally new to NFT, not sure what it's...
seen on Twitter, NFT more in discusses a lot and I can only see silently what they write without knowing what it is 'lol'. but I'm sure Jack Dorsey knows what he's doing and good luck with his NFT.

this is just another passing fever, and it is the grandchild of the same ICO scams that we saw in 2017. and its a good thing because sooner or later we have to see million of different useless tokens be created by millions of people and fill the market to over its capacity and finally put an end to token creation because at some point people will realize that things have a value when (1) they are useful (2) there isn't unlimited number of them.

NFT has a great idea, but at the moment NFT projects are used very stupidly. Some mediocre pictures, inscriptions and so on are for sale. In fact, at the moment NFT projects are used only for the purpose of enrichment and nothing more, and the sale of this tweet is a confirmation of this.

That is the beauty of it, everyone can make their own NFTs, just like in cryptocurrency where everyone can make their own coin. I think that this is a good thing because this ensures that there is no possibility of monopoly in NFT because anyone can create one and they might become a sought after like the other established NFT. Now considering Jack Dorsey's tweet, I think that it is a pretty stupid one, he could have made an NFT where it is just his signature, I mean real signature from celebrities can fetch good price and a digital one can be a possibility.

NFT is rising these these days and since Jack Dorsey is interested in cryoto surly he would do such thing. Jack also provided the possibility to buy bitcoins through his company, square. He even said bitcoin whitepaper is a literary poetry. With this big interest in crypto people could expect dorsey doing such thing. However, the NFT is really new and I don't deeply understand it. The idea of NFT tweets seems good but I don't really understand the idea of having ownership tweets by just NFT tokens.

Even collectibles are now reaching to the point that even objects (not even assets) that only digitally exists are getting valuable but this isn't the first time that I have seen things like this being auctions off. The first time I have seen this is through games particularly games that have a massive player base such as DOTA and CSGO which they even have their own marketplace in Steam for in-game items. For me it is getting clearer and clearer that as the world goes digital the things we do and see online will have value now as for the right person they will see that what you have might something to be more valuable for them.

I'm not even sure how they would be able to claim and collect this lmao. I feel like this is the same stuff with the guy who created shares of himself with himself and then ultimately the internet jumped in on the train for fun. Still, it's important that we're discpvering that NFTs aren't just for games, or art pieces or forms of media, but a very versatile venture that could revolutionize collections of the future. Because it is still at its infancy. I think it is made aware to everyone at this point when iDubbz literally sold a pic of his balls as an NFT collectible. But yeah, at the end of the day, when NFTs have gone too far from the million dollar tweets and the pics of testicles to much more important stuff in the future, we can all look back at this period of time and laugh our asses off thinking about how stupidly intelligent our generation is.

Is it possible that in the future there gonna be a market where people could sell tweets and the like for ads aswell?  ::) just trying to get that very little share of what celebs got from endorsement LOL.

If in the future there gonna be an ads platform that instead of being managed by some company we have the leeway and freedom of auctioning it in some decentralized platform thats gonna be great LOL.

I respect the fact that tweets can be turned to NFTs, in which it’s unique and cannot be replicated by anyone. However, I don’t wanna see myself having a collection of those tweets for now. I would rather go for digital art collection, in-game stuff, etc., that are into NFTs. That’s just me you know?

The Tweet itself will remain on Jack Dorsey's accounts, what you are actually buying is a digital certificate that is signed by the author itself which is Jack Dorsey so I think that is how things will work for auctioned off tweets.
 

I myself personally don't see any value in this but like what I have said earlier it will take a certain individual to see any value in it, this is just similar to paintings and other physical collectibles. I can see that this is something that will go big since we are in a stage that the world is going digital and people see value in a lot of things that exists in it.

Isnt it ironic, when just a tweet (which cannot be more than 140 character) more pricey than a thick book full of words.
How to people decide the price, its more like a fight of wealth and greatness.

This is my main issue with it. It's an entirely arbitrary ownership over a digital form of something. The only thing that that gives it value is people agreeing that 1) NFT ownership connotes actual ownership over something that only digitally exists, and 2) this is valueable.

But then again, that's cryptocurrency in a nutshell, so it's quite ironic that people think bitcoin has value but NFT "goods" don't.

How much do I need to pay to keep twit-@jack’s tweets off of my computer?  ???

There are people that will want to get a hold of those kind of collections.
It is a funny world now, holding an NFT for a tweet of the Twitter Founder.
Will it really be valuable in the future? Or just another wasted money?
And same here. But will go for physical art collection and real estate, more on tangible assets.
Later on, these celebrities and known personalities or basically everyone will create their own NFTs.  ::)

That is exactly what it is. What gives bitcoin value? Why did it reached 60k? I mean we all know that it doesn't have an actual "value" considering that if we all sold our coins all together that would make it worth zero, even a stock has a value because company makes a profit, but this makes no value at all. Which is why I really think that it is quite obvious people are valuing NFT just like they value crypto.

Only weird part is, we have seen as much as 69 million dollars for one NFT so far, where can this lead to? I mean bitcoin is at least a currency but these are art stuff and one person giving it a worth doesn't mean that others agree with that, in crypto we agree together on a price and that becomes the price but me paying 1 million dollars for an NFT doesn't mean that anyone else would, hence suddenly it becomes something a bit difficult to value in that case.

What you're describing is the art market at large though. Some rich guy sees a panting of squiggly lines or a bunch of paint splotches and pays millions for it with the knowledge that other ultra rich people will also consider it worth millions, so it has a value of millions.  I look at a jumbled mess and say I wouldn't pay to own that.  Are either of us right or wrong?  Things have value between any two parties that agree they do.  The difference with bitcoin is there are a lot more people who think it has a certain value, so the more consensus there is the easier it is to find someone to sell to, which confirms the value.  10 years ago, bitcoin was a lot more like art.  Maybe you could find someone who would buy it (like the millionaires who find another millionaire to buy the painting), but there weren't very many of them as a whole so the market was very illiquid.

I have noticed that the creators of the NFTs that have been sold for very high figures belong to artists, rich people, very influential people and etc. Not everyone can sell such an expensive NFT.

However the creation of NFTs is booming. If you have any interest in creating them, you can do your search on the internet and choose the most convenient one.
While learning about this new move in crypto I came across Avalanche. A tutorial for creating NFT on its network.
Explore, learn and create your first master piece and enjoy.

https://support.avalabs.org/en/articles/4840311-how-do-i-create-an-nft-within-the-avalanche-wallet (https://support.avalabs.org/en/articles/4840311-how-do-i-create-an-nft-within-the-avalanche-wallet)

Everyone is already hopping on this new trend, I have been seeing a lot of tweets being auctioned on this platform already , so many of them and a lot of them are celebrities and influencers, this is going to be their new method to start making some money.

It is a really interesting thing, and that of Jack Dorsey is the highest amount I have seen so far, I have seen a lot of people placing huge amounts of money on his first tweet, last I saw was around $69 million and I don’t know if it has gotten passed that. This is quite interesting and whether you’re a celebrity or not, you can even give it a shot as long as you believe that the tweet you’re about to auction has really good value.

Overtime auctioning these tweets would worth what amount for their buyers? What do the buyers plan to do with them at the long run? I've seen CZ Binance sold one of his tweets as well. I'm beginning to think people are wasting money instead of donating them to charity and homeless people instead.

Trump is about to open a new and unique social network
If the first message of SNS is converted to NFT token, it will be expensive.

Well, I somehow agree. I remember the Luka Doncic rookie card that sells $4.6m. Though I don't really understand how these collectibles has this huge value, one thing I know is that the person behind this so called "collectibles" were either famous or very rich.
Now, this is no different as a form of digital art. We all know art could be in any form, but rich people could actually make an expensive art over everything they want to appreciate as art. Nevertheless, this is just another an ICO like hype from the NFT, and will definitely gone eventually.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I believe NFT's have a good future in certain cases such as games but tweet NFT's are useless as hell. Why would anybody pay ridiculous amount of money for this? The only reason could be marketing. It's still too much for advertisement. I don't understand and I don't think I ever will, this is definition of tulip mania seriously. This is not a collectible at all.

I do not think that we need to "understand" the logic behind it, if we do not see that as a valuable thing then we do not spend our money on it, if we see it as a valuable thing then we pay as much as we value it and if someone else values more they will get it, if they do not value more then they will not get it.

Long story short we are in a situation where we really do not need that much understanding of why people pay that much because some people just value these things, they believe it should worth a lot and that is why they buy it.

I have seen a painting that I think worths the biggest amount of money ever paid for a painting, but in reality it was just 10k dollars, I still didn't had that kind of money but if I did I would totally buy it, it was better than Mona Lisa or anything else ever painted ever, but people valued it at 10k dollars, these are all subjective things, we should not try to understand it.

Ridiculous as it may sound, you still have to accept that people are getting into it and NFTs are here to stay maybe it will go down in prices since the saturation of NFTs is really high but it won't get out of fashion. If we are talking about advertisement, I wouldn't really say that the Tweet NFT was too much for it because there are bigger companies that are spending more than that and considering the effectiveness of that I think that they saved a lot of money for advertising the tweet as NFT.

It is obvious that people are overpaying these NFT deals a lot, none of these worth this much, but at the same time it shows that anything could be hyped in the crypto world as long as it could be promoted well enough, we like new stuff. NFT is not brand new, it has been around for a while, we could even call those kitty things few years ago an NFT as well, but it is obvious that people were not really fine with them, they were basically saying all the time that kitties were bad investment but at that time it got very famous.

Now we have these, and they worth a lot and I can promise you that in few years this tweet will not worth few thousand dollars let alone millions, because this was priced with hype and that's it. Hopefully people will not lose too much money, it is something that would put crypto a bit back if NFT world suddenly started to crash.

NFT are new market trend these days and it will stay for long period but at current people are indulging in paying very high prices just to own these tweets or digital artworks in just fashion trend of NFT.Jack Dorsey first tweet which was auctioned as NFT was sold for whopping $2.9 million and now the digital ownership is with Bridge Oracle CEO, Sina Estavi.But will it be valuable in the future I don't know?So why spend millions on something which will not any returns in future to you.But still people pays for them is their wish.

Tweet as a NFT... the whole NFT mania is getting ridiculous.

I think that many of the 'artists' are pumping their creations with second wallets. This is also a perfect solution to come out with 'clean money'. I'm not buying it!

I think there are two sides of this story and both of them are quite right at their own ways. I get that it is like Art market and I get that some paintings worth some money while others do not, and same could be applied to NFT as well and that is why it could be worth money as well for some people.

However I understand who do not understand as well, there are so much idiotic things, yeah sure some guy selling his hard worked painting for few million "may" look a lot, but that could be argued, but some guy sharing some gif for 6k dollars a piece and sell 50 at a time, that is no longer art, in the art world and specially in the painting world, we have real paintings that worth something, not just 50+ copies for 6k each, that rarely ever happens, photocopy is not really worth any money, just because I can print mona lisa and hang on my wall doesn't mean I own mona lisa. So the art part at 1+ million artsy things are right, but that weird 5 eth copies sold in bulk is not art.

It’s already happening, lots of people are hopping on this train. I have seen a lot of celebrities who have used the Valuables by Cents platform and they have been using it to auction their tweets, I don’t really see anything much from the tweets that they are auctioning and some of them are for real auctioning every single damn tweet that they tweet lol.

I would have expected that they auction things that really makes sense, like you have pointed out here in this your post; things like digital arts and first scenes, auctioning such things would have made a lot more sense than the way they are trying to abuse it now.

Best way to deal with the mania is get the most money out of it to be honest, whining about how it is a bubble is not gonna make you a lot of money, yes it is a bubble and it is still on the early stages before bursting and what you can do is make money out of it while it still hasn't burst yet. And besides after the burst, NFTs are here to stay just like the dot com bubble.

People say defi is overhyped, and full of crap,  NFT will be the worst, since anyone can make nft out of anything they like, soon the space will be filled with all sort of nft's,
Why would I want to buy a piece of tweet for huge price, if it is a rare ornaments or arts I may consider spending money on, certainly not a tweet,  sounds ridiculous even to my hearing.  :-\

I see this as interesting trend regarding tweets, but at the same time it means little to most people as they can not sell their tweets and can not buy them at such huge prices. This is another playgraund for the rich and famous and we are just spectators.