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

[jaysabi]

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.

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.

[verita1]

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

[sana54210]

Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey has made a NFT (non-fungible token) out of his first tweet ever "“just setting up my twttr” and now is auctioning it at "Valuables by Cent". 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.

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.

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.

[Josefjix]

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.

[alchemister]

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.

[Oasisman]

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.

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.

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.

[ingiltere]

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.

[tbterryboy]

Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey has made a NFT (non-fungible token) out of his first tweet ever "“just setting up my twttr” and now is auctioning it at "Valuables by Cent". 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.

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 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.

[Lorence.xD]

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.

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.

[bitgolden]

Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey has made a NFT (non-fungible token) out of his first tweet ever "“just setting up my twttr” and now is auctioning it at "Valuables by Cent". 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.

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.

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.

[worle1bm]

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.

[masterzino]

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!

[darewaller]

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.

[perfect999]

Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey has made a NFT (non-fungible token) out of his first tweet ever "“just setting up my twttr” and now is auctioning it at "Valuables by Cent". 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.

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.

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.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

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!

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.

[Anonylz]

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. 

[mazdafunsun]

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.