Crypto Art record! 69M for a Beeple

[TedMosby]

-snip-

How do you know they're not collectors, and how you classified someone as collectors?
As far as i know, collectors also sell and buy unique things. Yes true NFT can be anything, but i think there's need some rule to classified NFT.

I define collectors are those people who collect something as a hobby. they collect it not because of the hype. interest, artistic value, and rarity aspect on that things are more important.
NFT could be bought and sold instantly, collectors most likely won't do it. at least they want to enjoy the art first.

Buyer of $69 million Beeple NFT is a crypto investor using the pseudonym Metakovan
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/12/buyer-of-69-million-beeple-nft-is-a-crypto-investo-metakovan.html

IMO, you can make complex art that has high artistic value, but still, NFT with random art with big names behind it and price manipulation will still win.

[Kittygalore]

~

But what exactly do you own? So I get that the buyer owns a token with a unique digital signature, say the public key is:

4985POSDIEFUA8OW3FJUWOI8FJWAOWAO398FJ8OIKL

But what does that have to do with Beeple's 5000-image artwork? Is the file which is hundreds of megabytes ALSO stored in the blockchain? What is the relationship between the unique digital token and the artwork?

Why do you ask these question in the first place? Do you plan to buy the artwork and negotiate it at lower prices by reasoning that you don't own anything physically. The answer to your question is simple, owning the NFT is like basically owning a website, you know that you can't hold it physically but you know that you are the owner of it, and you mentioned that there is a token as proof, isn't that enough proof that they own something?

[ulhaq]

~

But what exactly do you own? So I get that the buyer owns a token with a unique digital signature, say the public key is:

4985POSDIEFUA8OW3FJUWOI8FJWAOWAO398FJ8OIKL

But what does that have to do with Beeple's 5000-image artwork? Is the file which is hundreds of megabytes ALSO stored in the blockchain? What is the relationship between the unique digital token and the artwork?

Why do you ask these question in the first place? Do you plan to buy the artwork and negotiate it at lower prices by reasoning that you don't own anything physically. The answer to your question is simple, owning the NFT is like basically owning a website, you know that you can't hold it physically but you know that you are the owner of it, and you mentioned that there is a token as proof, isn't that enough proof that they own something?

No, your website example is not enough proof that they own something, not even close. It's simple - if there is not a good relationship between the token and the digital art, then the entire market will collapse and be worth almost nothing. If you can actually own digital art as a unique buyer, then there is value. In your example the website IS the object. But owning a digital token is not owning the digital art. It's like owning a piece of paper that says you own gold, versus actually owning gold. They are not both the same thing.

[Twentyonepaylots]

He deserved the price his art is getting. Been following his page and it is nothing short of awesome and creepy at the same time, but because it's an eye-opener and not just creepy for the sake of creepy. Most of all, he accentuates digital art, which surprisingly still is receiving tons of hate from trad art connoisseurs about how "easy" it is to create pieces in it. Nevertheless props to the man. I highly suggest you go check his Facebook page out as he posts content there regularly.

[jaysabi]

~

But what exactly do you own? So I get that the buyer owns a token with a unique digital signature, say the public key is:

4985POSDIEFUA8OW3FJUWOI8FJWAOWAO398FJ8OIKL

But what does that have to do with Beeple's 5000-image artwork? Is the file which is hundreds of megabytes ALSO stored in the blockchain? What is the relationship between the unique digital token and the artwork?

Why do you ask these question in the first place? Do you plan to buy the artwork and negotiate it at lower prices by reasoning that you don't own anything physically. The answer to your question is simple, owning the NFT is like basically owning a website, you know that you can't hold it physically but you know that you are the owner of it, and you mentioned that there is a token as proof, isn't that enough proof that they own something?

If you don't have property rights you don't own it. If you own a website, you can stop people from visiting the website, you can change the content, etc.  The "owner" of this digital artwork can't stop people from viewing the work, or even stop them from digitally owning a copy of it.  There are no property rights associated with this "ownership" so the concept of owning it is completely fictitious.  The NFT owner doesn't own the artwork, he owns a hash in a blockchain that he hopes others will recognize means he owns it but in reality actually has zero real-world ownership properties.

[Darkelf11]

There are a lot of platforms that allowing their users to sell their art but again with a certain condition. Some of them are needed to go past their KYC well this is not good if you want to keep for self as anonymous. Instead, there are still some of them that required you to pay a small amount just to publish your art.

I don't want to drop them because there are a lot more.

[TastyChillySauce00]

No, your website example is not enough proof that they own something, not even close. It's simple - if there is not a good relationship between the token and the digital art, then the entire market will collapse and be worth almost nothing. If you can actually own digital art as a unique buyer, then there is value. In your example the website IS the object. But owning a digital token is not owning the digital art. It's like owning a piece of paper that says you own gold, versus actually owning gold. They are not both the same thing.

Maybe it's just like a license and anyone else in the digital space or we often call it Internet can't really use the image without your approval and the file is sent through private like emails or etc though I wonder how's the practice of enforcing the law with these NFTs, are they really useful as a proof of ownership?

[mazdafunsun]

I'm not an art connoisseur or something but that art looks like it has been taken straight from Minecraft and has been pieced together to form its entirety..

So true, usually these kind of art works are pretty cool. They are pieced together to make one picture which can be clearly seen as something a face, person or something else. In this case i cant see anything there.

I get how this is cool and interesting for art investors but the amount of money spent is just outrageous. I wonder, maybe it was done to grab attention to NFT market.

[darewaller]

No, your website example is not enough proof that they own something, not even close. It's simple - if there is not a good relationship between the token and the digital art, then the entire market will collapse and be worth almost nothing. If you can actually own digital art as a unique buyer, then there is value. In your example the website IS the object. But owning a digital token is not owning the digital art. It's like owning a piece of paper that says you own gold, versus actually owning gold. They are not both the same thing.

Maybe it's just like a license and anyone else in the digital space or we often call it Internet can't really use the image without your approval and the file is sent through private like emails or etc though I wonder how's the practice of enforcing the law with these NFTs, are they really useful as a proof of ownership?

That has been the case for regular paintings as well but that didn't stop the original ones being worth money. DO not get me wrong I do not think that these things worth this much money, and I think in a year this will worth probably under a million dollars, or maybe a bit more because it was the most expensive at one time but that was about it. However one thing is for sure, if we are talking about owning rights to a painting that would be enough.

Let me put it this way, you have seen the painting of mona lisa right? How many times did you see the original painting and how many times did you see it out of the original painting (like jpg, google, online, tv shows, movies etc etc)? You will realize that sure it could be seen everywhere and you can just share it on google everywhere, hell we have seen this beeple thingy here as well as other places, so we all know we can share it, yet it still worths money just like how real mona lisa still worths money.

[tygeade]

the pic looks blurry so i open it in new tab but it was still unclear . i dont know what kind of art was that and why it was sold that high but i think that was normal for an nft because even others sells more weird things that arent consider to be an art anymore .

 i notice that most nft that are sold are expensive , this nft is not for us poor but thats okay because poor dont like to collect stuffs hehe

It is every single art he has ever made all combined to one picture. You could see squares and many of them, each of them is one art that he has made so far, that is why it worths so much because you basically own an NFT that would be all of his works together and if he doesn't end up selling all of it again and again, that means you own the only NFT there is that combines all of his works together in one, kind of like you own all of his work.

The owner could easily end up making it bigger and printing it to put it on his wall as well but that is not what NFT is for, he just owns it somewhere and stored it, when this guy gets more and more famous, and when he dies, suddenly his things will worth more. Obviously it should never worth 69 million dollars, nft is a craze right now, this craze will die down and the price of this will go down as well, but its history made anyway.

[jaysabi]

the pic looks blurry so i open it in new tab but it was still unclear . i dont know what kind of art was that and why it was sold that high but i think that was normal for an nft because even others sells more weird things that arent consider to be an art anymore .

 i notice that most nft that are sold are expensive , this nft is not for us poor but thats okay because poor dont like to collect stuffs hehe

It is every single art he has ever made all combined to one picture. You could see squares and many of them, each of them is one art that he has made so far, that is why it worths so much because you basically own an NFT that would be all of his works together and if he doesn't end up selling all of it again and again, that means you own the only NFT there is that combines all of his works together in one, kind of like you own all of his work.

The owner could easily end up making it bigger and printing it to put it on his wall as well but that is not what NFT is for, he just owns it somewhere and stored it, when this guy gets more and more famous, and when he dies, suddenly his things will worth more. Obviously it should never worth 69 million dollars, nft is a craze right now, this craze will die down and the price of this will go down as well, but its history made anyway.

It was never about "owning" the art in the physical world.  All NFT does is record in a blockchain that you "own" the art, and for some reason that's worth 69 million dollars.  I think you're right about this being attributable to a craze, like everything else crypto right now.

[D3F4L7 RAT]

I wonder who are those guys spending that much of money for an art, this can be a good market for them and a lot of money to spend for.

NFT are growing, and It think this year will be the best year for them, so congrats to all the early supporters of NFT and for sure its not too late to join with them. Working with some arts now, let’s see if its worth to try.

It's simply because its Beeple.That's it.
Beeple have been a great artist even with or without NFT. So avid fans taking advantage to legally "own" his artwork thru NFT.

[avikz]

I would consider this currency situation with NFT as mad rush! This is insane! Millions of dollars for a JPG file!!! Super strange and absolute nonsense. Few people are definitely making money out of this but I am sure this mad rush is not going to run for longer! Because people are paying millions for an asset which they can't touch or feel and has no value in real world. It's either a marketing masterstroke or an absolute idiotic act! It's getting even worse than central bank money printing!

[Reid]

Found out about this in the news days ago. Sorry, I forgot the name of the program.
The fun part is the anchors having no idea how the hell that happened.
They even said, "How could that be an art?" 
Also trying to understand what NFT's are from a crypto enthusiast explaining everything. But they still can't figure out anything.

That just explains there are still a lot of people out there who have heard about cryptocurrencies but never tried to understand it.