Tweets as Non-fungible tokens (NFT) - Dorsey's million dollar tweet

[sunsilk]

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.

[satsmainman]

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.

[seagates]

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

[paxmao]

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.

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?

[Ucy]

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?

[Renampun]

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.

[BrewMaster]

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.

[vaultman]

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.

[Kittygalore]

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.

[Leviathan.007]

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.

[Theb]

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.

[Twentyonepaylots]

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.

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.

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.

[TastyChillySauce00]

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.

[cheezcarls]

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?

[Theb]

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. t our generation is.

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.
 

What are the terms of this transaction and what does it mean to own a tweet?

The tweet itself will continue to live on Twitter. What you are purchasing is a digital certificate of the tweet, unique because it has been signed and verified by the creator.

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.

[Flowzer]

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.

[jaysabi]

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.

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?

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.

[nullius]

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

[TimeTeller]

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?

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. 

[el kaka22]

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?

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.

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.