Tulip Mania 2.0

[Wind_FURY]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

[1715097668]

1715097668

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

That's my argument too when someone says that bitcoin or worse, cryptocurrencies are like the Tulip Mania, I always say to them that how come bitcoin's going to be the same when it has been a decade since the genesis block and the original Tulip Mania only lasted for about 2 or 3 year iirc.

[blockman]

They can't accept the fact that bitcoin is becoming one of the greatest assets if not, as a store of value. As for NFTs, it's like the ICO craze a few years ago and likely it's really in a bubble that might burst soon. But with bitcoin, they just have to move on and accept what's on it and have to understand the basic technicality of it that having a limited supply and an activity, the halving which creates a cycle and lessens the reward for miners, in short will create a greater value and pricing for bitcoin in the upcoming years.

[NeuroticFish]

BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Indeed, NFTs have a big chance to be Tulip 2.0, ICO 3.0, and so on.
Also to be kept an eye on Eth, since with the move to PoS it can easily move way down.

[Betwrong]

That's my argument too when someone says that bitcoin or worse, cryptocurrencies are like the Tulip Mania, I always say to them that how come bitcoin's going to be the same when it has been a decade since the genesis block and the original Tulip Mania only lasted for about 2 or 3 year iirc.

That's about right, and overall I think the longer the duration of a "mania" the more it becomes a normal thing, and we shouldn't call it "mania" anymore.

Wanna laugh? Look at this pic I found while searching about the topic:




It's from 2018, and today, in 2021, it just looks ridiculous that's all. 

[Kittygalore]

That's my argument too when someone says that bitcoin or worse, cryptocurrencies are like the Tulip Mania, I always say to them that how come bitcoin's going to be the same when it has been a decade since the genesis block and the original Tulip Mania only lasted for about 2 or 3 year iirc.

And with that kind of argument, they won't be able to counter it because they're incoming argument will be stupid and it's not like bitcoin has given evidence or proof that it will last forever.

[Kakmakr]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

The "Tulip Mania" song are getting very old and I think shills have to sing another tune now, because Bitcoin has long past the stage where it can be compared to a mythical "Tulip" Ponzi scheme.

The NFT's will follow the same route at ICO's (initial coin offering) schemes, where it will be the "Cool" new thing for a short while and then it will fade away ...and be replaced by the new "Cool" project.

Bitcoin has since grown to the world's biggest decentralized payment network, with the most users and the biggest merchant network accepting it as a payment option. (No Ponzi scheme operate like this, if you have any real knowledge about Ponzi schemes, you will be able to spot the difference)  

[paxmao]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Could be. If you think of it, an NTF does make sense for many games in which you have in-game items that are unique or have a limited occurrence. Getting these does require either effort, a payment or both, so they actually do have some intrinsic value. However, the same could be said about tulip bulbs: you can actually use them to grow a tulip - which by the way will come out every year for a long time, so they do have an intrinsic value.

So when does the tulip mania start? When you are paying for something that you are not going to use, simply thinking that someone else will pay even more.

[Lucius]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years.

Time is not a factor they take seriously when defending their position, because even if at this point Bitcoin would be something that has existed for 20 years, I don’t believe they would give up advocating their thesis. The same thing is with those who keep repeating that Bitcoin mining is responsible for drastic changes in the environment with its 0.2% share of electricity consumption (and at least 50% comes from renewable sources). Or to those who claim that it is a tool used by criminals to hide their transactions, and all research shows that Bitcoin is almost insignificant in the share of illegal transactions and total world crime.

What will be the next Tulip Mania🌷? I'm not sure that's going to be what most people think, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to be Bitcoin.

[mindrust]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

But you exactly sound like a nocoiner when you say that you don't believe in NFT's... because that was the exact same argument that nocoiners brought when they were dissing BTC.

I'll admit that I also don't see any value in NFT's but if bitcoin is here to stay, so are NFT's.

I don't think they'll just disappear. To me defi was horse shit too but they are also still around.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

I'm with you there.  Just like ICOs, exchange tokens, and probably some other forms of crypto before them, NFT owners/enthusiasts will eventually realize that those super-duper-unique "tokens" aren't worth nearly as much as they're selling for.  That was my first reaction upon hearing about digital artwork in the form of an NFT, and I'm sticking to it.  The only question in my mind is how long it's going to take for the market to crash.  It could be a while, but in the interim I'm going to remain a no-NFT'er.

Bitcoin (and a lot of altcoins, too) isn't in a bubble, however.  As far as how long it'll take for the world to accept that crypto is something real and valuable, I'm betting it'll take a generation--15-20 years or so.  That's because older investors see crypto as an oddity, something that isn't quite a viable currency and definitely not a stock, and they're not having any of it.  The newer generation, however, will have grown up with bitcoin already in existence and it'll be familiar to them.  Whether they'll adopt it or not is a question I don't have an answer to, but I'd bet they'll be more likely to than the older generation(s).

BTW, I thought bitcoin was a "tulip" when I first heard about it, which was way back when it was skyrocketing past $1000 and Mt. Gox was imploding.  Then I kept watching it and people's conversations about it, and it became clear to me that it wasn't just a fad.

But you exactly sound like a nocoiner when you say that you don't believe in NFT's... because that was the exact same argument that nocoiners brought when they were dissing BTC.

I'll admit that I also don't see any value in NFT's too but if bitcoin is here to stay, so are NFT's.

Just because NFTs might be in a tulip state doesn't mean bitcoin is, or that altcoins are.  Things with real value will stand the test of time, which is why all those ICO tokens are worthless and bitcoin is above $50k as I write this.  So I wouldn't link bitcoin and NFTs like that.  The latter may exist in years to come, but I seriously doubt that there's going to be even 25% as much interest in them in 5 years as there is now.

[fiulpro]

NFT's are not something that is useless, you have to understand that, Tulip Mania might be something there for the future for some of the NFT's but at the same time not for every single one of them..I do think that we don't even need to associate them much with the
cryptocurrencies..there are many NFT's that did make people rich in matter of seconds, then again bitcoins were also labelled as tulip mania but now we are in 2021 and I do think that it can go either way, the choice is yours entirely, invest wisely.

[mk4]

Just like the "masternode" bubble and the ICO bubble, NFTs will surely have a huge crash as well. But I personally think that some NFTs won't go to zero. I know NFTs don't make any sense for most people, but I wouldn't be surprised if some would have some historical value in the future.

[DaveF]

For BTC being tulip 2.0, at this point even discussing it is just silly, it's not and cannot be just by it's nature at this point. Too spread out, and too many people using it.
Tulips, for all the mania back in the day were way more localized.

Just like the "masternode" bubble and the ICO bubble, NFTs will surely have a huge crash as well. But I personally think that some NFTs won't go to zero. I know NFTs don't make any sense for most people, but I wouldn't be surprised if some would have some historical value in the future.

And the altcoin bubble (2013-2014) and a few others.
I look at NFTs like artwork. There will be the few that maintain their value, for this or that reason, but most will fade into obscurity.
Just like Renaissance painters. We know the big ones, we don't remember the others.

Banksy NFTs will be worth money. DaveF NFTs, will not be.

-Dave

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Just like the "masternode" bubble

Were masternodes ever a bubble?  There aren't that many altcoins that operate using that model that I can think of--Dash, PIVX....and I can't think of any others off the top of my head.  Nor do I remember them being hyped up like NFTs, ICOs, and IEOs.  Plus you can still own a masternode and make money, though they're not nearly as popular or talked about as they once were.

I wouldn't be surprised if some would have some historical value in the future.

I'd agree with that.  I wasn't even saying that NFTs have zero value or would go to zero over time, just that there's a mania for them right now that I don't think is justified given what they are.  Once the history of the first 25 years of cryptocurrency is written (as I'm sure it will be, and I'll buy a copy if I'm still alive), no doubt NFTs will be included.  What will be written about them depends on what happens in the market from their beginning until then, and that I'm not completely sure about (though I made my prediction in my last post).

there are many NFT's that did make people rich in matter of seconds, then again bitcoins were also labelled as tulip mania but now we are in 2021 and I do think that it can go either way

Again, bitcoin has been labeled a fad, a tulip, a scam, and many other things in the past--and so far all of those monikers have been disproven.  That doesn't necessarily mean that similar monikers for NFTs are wrong, because bitcoin and NFTs are two completely different things, and I think it's a mistake to conflate the two.

[mk4]

And the altcoin bubble (2013-2014) and a few others.
I look at NFTs like artwork. There will be the few that maintain their value, for this or that reason, but most will fade into obscurity.
Just like Renaissance painters. We know the big ones, we don't remember the others.

Banksy NFTs will be worth money. DaveF NFTs, will not be.

-Dave

Same opinion. The common opinion among Bitcoiners is that everything is going to zero. While it's not impossible, I don't think so. And mooost probably not like 6-7 digits worth. But I could be wrong with that as well. The likes of Crypto Kitties and CryptoPunks I think has some cultural and historical relevance. (and no, I don't own any of both)

Were masternodes ever a bubble?  There aren't that many altcoins that operate using that model that I can think of--Dash, PIVX....and I can't think of any others off the top of my head.  Nor do I remember them being hyped up like NFTs, ICOs, and IEOs.  Plus you can still own a masternode and make money, though they're not nearly as popular or talked about as they once were.

Definitely not like ICO-levels of a bubble, but the masternode coins were definitely widespread as well. I was really interested in crypto YouTube at those times, and almost everyone's holding some masternode projects for "passive income". It sure did end up disastrously though LOL; at least with ICOs, a few actually survived. But now, DASH is pretty much irrelevant.

[bittraffic]

NFTs has no max supply and if anyone could create their own avatar or graphic art they can make money out of it. Metaverse and Loot are big projects in NFTs.  And we are just in the begining because the music industry is also about to be revolutionized too with the same concept as  NFT which anyone can own a song.

Games is already big, Tulip mania it is.

[STT]

Tulips were not new where as BTC and its various levels of usage are new in the world so the technology as a phenomena will not halt like Tulip mania did.  However neither did Tulips cease to be used it was always just proxy for some effects at that time.  The pricing collapsed as it had no purpose vs any other asset , we cannot say such a price inflation comparison is complete until QE programs cease and desist.   We arent in the end game for debt financing of fiscal and trade deficits world wide, that will unwind someday but I dont know if we will be waiting forever like it took USSR to finish its failed economy finally and end its curse upon its people.
   I hope one day we find our way back to capitalism away from this centralism and FIAT central bank derailment of society, clearly thats not today so its hard to say where is the end of the Mania as I dont think BTC was ever the cause of it.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

~~~

That's about right, and overall I think the longer the duration of a "mania" the more it becomes a normal thing, and we shouldn't call it "mania" anymore.

What do you mean a normal thing exactly? Because from what I interpret from that is that you're trying to say that it becomes a thing for awhile meaning that it doesn't go down in prices but instead just integrates into something.

[wissy]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Maybe its better some people are still convinced that crypto is ponzi, that means we can expect healthy and slow market rise as opposed to a quick spike like it was with tulip mania. Those really never end well and deniers will sooner or later have to accept that this in the new reality.

[Timelord2067]

For BTC being tulip 2.0, at this point even discussing it is just silly, it's not and cannot be just by it's nature at this point. Too spread out, and too many people using it.
Tulips, for all the mania back in the day were way more localized.

As Rockefeller is reputed to have said after the Great Depression had come and gone how he'd managed to foresee the impending crash and sold everything making a profit enabling his empire to continue, he is reputed to have replied:

"When the person who shines your shoes starts giving you stock-market advice, THAT'S the time to sell."

I haven't had shiny shoes for a while, so I don't envisage a crash coming anytime soon.

[Wind_FURY]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Could be. If you think of it, an NTF does make sense for many games in which you have in-game items that are unique or have a limited occurrence. Getting these does require either effort, a payment or both, so they actually do have some intrinsic value. However, the same could be said about tulip bulbs: you can actually use them to grow a tulip - which by the way will come out every year for a long time, so they do have an intrinsic value.

So when does the tulip mania start? When you are paying for something that you are not going to use, simply thinking that someone else will pay even more.

Do you believe that paying more than $1,000 for NFTs to play the current “blockchain games” that’s lower in quality of game play a fair valuation? It’s merely part of another hype cycle. Most of them will crash, and fail. The games left will be forgotten.

[Betwrong]

~~~

That's about right, and overall I think the longer the duration of a "mania" the more it becomes a normal thing, and we shouldn't call it "mania" anymore.

What do you mean a normal thing exactly? Because from what I interpret from that is that you're trying to say that it becomes a thing for awhile meaning that it doesn't go down in prices but instead just integrates into something.

Yes, that's what I mean, basically. People that were buying those tulip bulbs for thousands of guilders weren't as stupid as many think of them now. First off, some of them made good money in the process. Yeah, I realize that it was more like making money on a Ponzi scheme, but there were others who lost a lot of money, but they also weren't stupid imo. In a fortuitous turn of events, this mania could last for many decades. There are Pokémon Cards worth thousands USD today. For how long this mania will last? Actually, no one knows.

But Bitcoin isn't Pokémon Cards, nor it is this painting by Jackson Pollock bought for $140 Million in 2006



or a similar one worth tens of millions. Will Pokémon Cards or such paintings integrate into the future is a big question. But Bitcoin surely will. In fact, we are dealing with something from the future in the form of BTC right now. How much it will cost if all people in the world will be using it? You know the max supply of BTC and you can check the world population forecasts. You can do the math.

[wack slacker]

Bitcoin is the future of money. The history of Bitcoin has seen many people smear and slander, but its value still increases. Bitcoin has been recognized as a payment unit in many countries. Today, El Salvador officially bought Bitcoin and adopted Bitcoin payments across its country. It is a major milestone in the valuation of Bitcoin, proof that Bitcoin cannot be a scam.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I personally never understood what the NFTs are about. I only see them in passing while online and never paid attention coz it was like everyone and their grannies are pumping them out so I thought, how could they be valuable?

[pinggoki]

I mean the tulip mania only went south because people found no other use for tulips other than ornaments and decoration, but as for the case of NFTs, since most of them run within the blockchain technology found notable use-cases that show great promise for the future of collectibles, currency, art, and ownership. NFTs may look absurd right now knowing that people buy otherwise standard pieces of digital art for as much as the price of Mona Lisa, but I guess this is just the beginning. We can still see more from NFT come the future.

I personally never understood what the NFTs are about. I only see them in passing while online and never paid attention coz it was like everyone and their grannies are pumping them out so I thought, how could they be valuable?

NFTs are basically coin with an image or illustrations attached to it. Just like cryptocurrencies, they take up space in the blockchain that no other cryptocurrency could fill, but what makes them different is that there is traceability, an owner could trace the details of his NFT back to him which will of course indicate that he is the sole owner of that particular NFT. This makes NFT suitable for collectibles, games that involves items, and much more.

[Timelord2067]

How does that fit in with (for example) Pokemon trading cards or similar?  I'm the first to admit I also missed the NFT boat when it sailed.  Is it a digital fingerprint or signature of the image that's embedded in the blockchain?

[timerland]

Wasn't there an NFT sold that was literally a tulip?

The mania is crazy. NFTs are certainly very applicable in fields of music, copyright, reward schemes and collectables going into the future but a lot of these projects bring absolutely no value to the community whatsoever.

Teenagers flipping NFTs for a profit and thinking that this is going to be sustainable is going to be in for a nasty surprise.

[STT]

To be fungible is a positive thing because that gives liquidity to the item, NFT boasts about a negative and yet is neither unique which means its bad on both counts.   I like that artists can monetize their work but if gives little purpose then the value is limited.   I compare them to painting prints which are neither unique or limited, but perhaps a connection to the original artist is what is collectible.
   I dont especially think most NFT has a special artist worth to it.   However in art we know silly values have been there for years at times. A pile of bricks was sold for great amount, the guy who did art for the Facebook company entrance hall was paid in shares worth many millions but then I like his art and think he qualifies long term for demand even though its close to graffiti he does it well.  90% of NFT value will likely fade but is this any worse then typical art sales, even the finest art paintings boom in value during economic expansion and fall greatly later.

We know QE is a unique factor to modern times, likely we have prices booming.   We cant be too surprised in wild effects appearing, just dont bet your house on it continuing forever.

[Silberman]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

They are uninformed or even worse they have been feed false information, it is difficult for a bubble to last more than a decade, now this market can be manipulated and bubbles can indeed form but there is a difference between that and the whole market being a bubble, this is similar to what happened with the dot com bubble, people called it a bubble and back then the price of many undeserving companies were overvalued, but the market itself was not a bubble, and now a few decades after it those companies are some of the most powerful around the world, and I expect something similar to happen in this market.

[teosanru]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

It's true considering the number of NFTs around I can easily say that it's tulip mania, but just like the altcoins cycle, the ones that gained steam the earliest will surely survive in the long run, the prices might not remain this high but the technologies and ideas definitely will. The problem with NFTs is obviously the utility, they are collected merely as a rarity token and are currently going up due to their trend, once the trend is over obviously 70-80% will regret buying one and the other side is also true that 90% will regret not buying one by seeing high prices of the ones that gained steam early or would still remain popular at that time.

[lixer]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

First of all tulip mania lasted longer than 10 years, it lasted a few decades but not at that level of course, and eventually crashed. The problem here is that Crypto is not a speculative asset but something that people could use. What is the real value of a tulip? Probably something like a dollar? few dollars? It is not an investment and it is only a plant. Whereas crypto is a currency which means that there is a lot of reasons why people could use that, it is not a tulip to plant into your garden and hope to grow more out of it, it is literally a currency. This means that crypto will never be a tulip mania, at the very best it is a very bull hyped market and that's it.

NFT or DeFi or anything like that will not become tulip mania neither, they are just markets and maybe they will drop down but it will not be from 10 years worth of salary into few dollars, that difference is HUGE and will never happen again.

[LUCKMCFLY]

I agree with OP, because at one point I was turning the page with BTC, in 2017 there was also a fever called "ICO" which many investors got carried away and began to invest largescam results, of course there were some projects that turned out to be successful and still standing.

Taking into account the great relevance that it has, NFTs are the boom today, I do not know if the comparison with ICOs would fit, but at least it is having a lot of success with NFT games that are entering a large number of people taking advantage of the community of gamers, which this represents a great business model.Of course now give it the name known as almost a tulip, it is neither bad nor good, only time is what can give the solution.

[so98nn]

Many thoughts pointing out NFT as the greatest proclamation in the near future. Although this does not seem to be the case if you study bitcoin properly. It took bitcoin almost a decade to reach hearts of peeps throughout the globe and the journey was not easy. So many regulations, unwanted bans, uplifting of the infra for miners and what not. I am not against NFT but if you think it is taking time for bitcoin (after a decade) then what’s so important about NFT that will make it acceptable all the way over bitcoin?

The scenario just does not work bitcoin against NFT, simply it’s idea to show bitcoin as failed asset which is not the case at all.

[LogitechMouse]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

I'm a big fan of game in general and I know that NFT doesn't pertain only to games but other digital arts too. With what you said though, I agree with you that NFT will be the next one.
ICO, DeFi and now NFT. Many more in the future so just be ready.

People didn't accept paper money in the past that easily. Maybe it took decades for some merchants to accept it and it will be the same as Bitcoin and crypto. Bitcoin will be accepted in some parts and in some countries until the time comes that it will be accepted in the world, just like what happened to paper money.

Nocoiners?? Let them say what they want . After all if they prove that they are all wrong they will just simply buy Bitcoin and keep silent.

[Silberman]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

I'm a big fan of game in general and I know that NFT doesn't pertain only to games but other digital arts too. With what you said though, I agree with you that NFT will be the next one.
ICO, DeFi and now NFT. Many more in the future so just be ready.

People didn't accept paper money in the past that easily. Maybe it took decades for some merchants to accept it and it will be the same as Bitcoin and crypto. Bitcoin will be accepted in some parts and in some countries until the time comes that it will be accepted in the world, just like what happened to paper money.

Nocoiners?? Let them say what they want . After all if they prove that they are all wrong they will just simply buy Bitcoin and keep silent.

Exactly, bitcoin is a revolutionary concept and things like that take time for people to accept, imagine the first person that came up with the idea of money, instead of exchanging products directly someone imagined a world in which you used a single unit of account and priced everything according to it, people of the time probably thought of this person as crazy and yet here we are and money is probably one of the most impressive concepts we have developed, bitcoin is the same but once people finally accept bitcoin is the future we will see bitcoin being used everywhere and by everyone.

[V-t.Ester]

Think, after huge corporations invested in BTC, a lot of countries legalized it and even some countries started to use it together with national currency, you can finally breathe. It’s nothing to worry about: BTC will obviously not vanish and not dump to zero.
You’ve right. NFT right now really looks as “Tulip mania”. Future of NFT is bleak. It’s smth new and in trend now and no one knows what will be with NFT in several years. That’s why it attracts and disturbs at the same time. However, lots of traders liked such interesting and perspective investments. They feel themselves not only traders but collectors also. They are fond of collecting NFT. So probably NFT won’t vanish and will be popular for many years more like cryptokitties.

[Betwrong]

How does that fit in with (for example) Pokemon trading cards or similar?  I'm the first to admit I also missed the NFT boat when it sailed.  Is it a digital fingerprint or signature of the image that's embedded in the blockchain?

No, there's no such thing with Pokemon cards, but just like NFTs and legit cryptocurrencies they can't be forged, and that's what counts when you are paying big money for something: the thing must be unique, or be one of the few unique things. When that condition is fulfilled it doesn't make the thing valuable yet. Unique doesn't mean useful, let alone valuable.

One day all those mega expensive NFTs(and Pokemon cards) may become worthless, despite their uniqueness. This will never happen to Bitcoin because it has other than being "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" utilization.

[el kaka22]

Could someone explain to me why REALLY the tulip mania happened? I mean in order to understand if bitcoin is like tulip mania or basically like any other bubble back in the day, we need to understand why it happened.

I understand that tulips were scarce and that is why it costed a lot back in the day but we all know (at least know) that it is something you can take the seed and farm a lot more, you could have tulip farms as far as eye can see, why would it cost so much when it is known that it could be farmed in thousands? Did they not know it? Did people back in the day thought that tulip was just grown unexpected in some places and can't be farmed?

I mean bitcoin is valuable because it is a currency, you can't just get one bitcoin and then farm it to reach thousands, so why would it be any similar to tulip right now? We can only learn it when we understand tulip mania.

[ChiBitCTy]

Yeah I think it is funny when I hear people saying things like this.  More often than not those who are saying things like this have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and couldn't even tell you what the blockchain is.  I don't pay much attention to people like this because in all reality there is very little chance they will ever change their mind because bitcoin goes past their level of knowledge, what they are willing to learn and their social and economical beliefs.

[Wind_FURY]

Could someone explain to me why REALLY the tulip mania happened? I mean in order to understand if bitcoin is like tulip mania or basically like any other bubble back in the day, we need to understand why it happened.

Simply people, especially the rich/wealthy, found that Tulips were beautiful and bought the most expensive Tulips in the market to show his/her friends. His/her friends, wanted the same “status-symbol”, also started buying Tulips. An open market was made because there was demand for Tulips. Tulips of low quality were planted, to meet demand. Then, people across all economic classes began trading Tulips, to get rich. Is that NFT or Bitcoin?

[Oceat]

It's just a matter of time before they realize that NFT is the real or next tulip mania and not the Bitcoin itself. Clearly they don't understand how blockchain works that's why they keep spitting BS on their mouth when all they can do is to find someone who wants to buy all of their shitbag of coins.

Let them have their status as the rich while it's still convenient since this is actually working for them in a long time but I believe in the future that we will be seeing people using Bitcoin as a normal currency that has a stable price. We might not be alive by the time it happens but I hope so that it would actually continue to operate just like what Satoshi wanted it to happen.

[davis196]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

The original Tulip mania was one gigantic price bubble,which popped and the tulip prices never reached the same level.Bitcoin price is going up and down,while maintaining a price growth in the long term.
There were multiple price bubbles in the history of BTC,but all of them popped and the market price recovered and gained even more value after that.There's no room for comparison with the original Tulip mania,which happened in the Netherlands a few centuries ago.
NFTs are the next "shiny object" that will attract all the "financial gamblers",pump&dump traders and speculators seeking for "the one big hit".4 years ago,ICO tokens were the same thing,now the NFTs took over.

[Wind_FURY]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

The original Tulip mania was one gigantic price bubble,which popped and the tulip prices never reached the same level.Bitcoin price is going up and down,while maintaining a price growth in the long term.
There were multiple price bubbles in the history of BTC,but all of them popped and the market price recovered and gained even more value after that.There's no room for comparison with the original Tulip mania,which happened in the Netherlands a few centuries ago.
NFTs are the next "shiny object" that will attract all the "financial gamblers",pump&dump traders and speculators seeking for "the one big hit".4 years ago,ICO tokens were the same thing,now the NFTs took over.

Plus to those people/nocoiners who kept telling us that Bitcoin is a “Bubble”, let’s ask, HOW LONG MUST THE PROTOCOL RUN FOR THEM TO STOP CALLING IT A PONZI/BUBBLE? It has been 10 years, and Bitcoin has kept chugging along, despite the FUD, the BANS, the multiple declarations that it’s DEAD. HOW LONG?

[Betwrong]

Could someone explain to me why REALLY the tulip mania happened? I mean in order to understand if bitcoin is like tulip mania or basically like any other bubble back in the day, we need to understand why it happened.

I understand that tulips were scarce and that is why it costed a lot back in the day but we all know (at least know) that it is something you can take the seed and farm a lot more, you could have tulip farms as far as eye can see, why would it cost so much when it is known that it could be farmed in thousands? Did they not know it? Did people back in the day thought that tulip was just grown unexpected in some places and can't be farmed?

I mean bitcoin is valuable because it is a currency, you can't just get one bitcoin and then farm it to reach thousands, so why would it be any similar to tulip right now? We can only learn it when we understand tulip mania.

First off I'd like to say that I agree with you, Bitcoin and Tulip Mania have nothing to do with each other.

To me, what really resembles Tulip Mania is CryptoKitties NFTs's rush, which is still not completely out btw, the daily trading volume reaches millions of USD sometimes these days. The similarity lies in the fact that both, tulips and kitties, are breedable, and people buy them not simply to possess and admire, or get get some kind of status among their friends, but hoping to make money on a unique and desirable strain.

[Wind_FURY]

Could someone explain to me why REALLY the tulip mania happened? I mean in order to understand if bitcoin is like tulip mania or basically like any other bubble back in the day, we need to understand why it happened.

I understand that tulips were scarce and that is why it costed a lot back in the day but we all know (at least know) that it is something you can take the seed and farm a lot more, you could have tulip farms as far as eye can see, why would it cost so much when it is known that it could be farmed in thousands? Did they not know it? Did people back in the day thought that tulip was just grown unexpected in some places and can't be farmed?

I mean bitcoin is valuable because it is a currency, you can't just get one bitcoin and then farm it to reach thousands, so why would it be any similar to tulip right now? We can only learn it when we understand tulip mania.

First off I'd like to say that I agree with you, Bitcoin and Tulip Mania have nothing to do with each other.

To me, what really resembles Tulip Mania is CryptoKitties NFTs's rush, which is still not completely out btw, the daily trading volume reaches millions of USD sometimes these days. The similarity lies in the fact that both, tulips and kitties, are breedable, and people buy them not simply to possess and admire, or get get some kind of status among their friends, but hoping to make money on a unique and desirable strain.

The only people who keeps repeating, and keeps making us believe in the narrative that NFTs are “here to stay” are those same people who have invested much of their coins in them. Why would I convert my precious Bitcoins to a shitcoin, to invest in an NFT?

[Silberman]

Could someone explain to me why REALLY the tulip mania happened? I mean in order to understand if bitcoin is like tulip mania or basically like any other bubble back in the day, we need to understand why it happened.

I understand that tulips were scarce and that is why it costed a lot back in the day but we all know (at least know) that it is something you can take the seed and farm a lot more, you could have tulip farms as far as eye can see, why would it cost so much when it is known that it could be farmed in thousands? Did they not know it? Did people back in the day thought that tulip was just grown unexpected in some places and can't be farmed?

I mean bitcoin is valuable because it is a currency, you can't just get one bitcoin and then farm it to reach thousands, so why would it be any similar to tulip right now? We can only learn it when we understand tulip mania.

If I remember correctly what happened is that even if Tulips were not rare there was a mutation that caused the Tulips to have slightly different colors and other characteristics and it was this mutation which was very rare, then Tulips became a status symbol and this increased their price, but what really pushed things into overdrive was that the first futures market was created, basically a futures market is when you sell something that you do not have yet but you are expected to have at a fixed price in the future, like new tulip bulbs coming from a harvest, so people began buying the rights to the tulips before the tulips even existed, eventually the public noticed and entered the market and this created the famous Tulip mania.

[eaLiTy]

~
The only people who keeps repeating, and keeps making us believe in the narrative that NFTs are “here to stay” are those same people who have invested much of their coins in them. Why would I convert my precious Bitcoins to a shitcoin, to invest in an NFT?

Even i was confused in the beginning when people were spending huge amount for basically small pictures in digital form, Everydays: The First 5000 Days of an artist sold for $69 million which is crazy and some of the CryptoPunk collections sold over multiple million dollars. I started venturing into the NFT market with a team who sells aNFT and there are many users that are new to the cryptocurrency market who are there just to purchase the aNFT of their favorite sports person and Lionel Messi was a huge success.

Will see how the NFT market would be in the next couple of years and then i will make a comment  .

[jaberwock]

The original Tulip mania was one gigantic price bubble,which popped and the tulip prices never reached the same level.Bitcoin price is going up and down,while maintaining a price growth in the long term.
There were multiple price bubbles in the history of BTC,but all of them popped and the market price recovered and gained even more value after that.There's no room for comparison with the original Tulip mania,which happened in the Netherlands a few centuries ago.
NFTs are the next "shiny object" that will attract all the "financial gamblers",pump&dump traders and speculators seeking for "the one big hit".4 years ago,ICO tokens were the same thing,now the NFTs took over.

Plus to those people/nocoiners who kept telling us that Bitcoin is a “Bubble”, let’s ask, HOW LONG MUST THE PROTOCOL RUN FOR THEM TO STOP CALLING IT A PONZI/BUBBLE? It has been 10 years, and Bitcoin has kept chugging along, despite the FUD, the BANS, the multiple declarations that it’s DEAD. HOW LONG?

Until it doesn't hurt them anymore. Bitcoin and crypto in general turned so much of new generation away from banks and into crypto. Even when we are putting our savings into crypto we are hurting banks. How? Well, banks are so huge that they would rather have the money in their deposit account, and not that we are not doing that again, how do you think all these exchanges hold your money?

When you give fiat to coinbase and get bitcoin, they are keeping that in a bank, but it still hurts them because it is in the hands of one giant corporation and not millions of small retail investors and that giant one could use that power to get much better situation for themselves instead of million smaller investor that would be forced to accept banks terms. This is why crypto gives us power over banks and they hate it and they pay people to keep saying bad stuff about us. The moment banks can store crypto, the moment they will start calling it awesome.

[kryptqnick]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

There are things in the crypto industry that explode in popularity at some point and then fade away because they weren't that cool and useful after all. At first, we had the ICO boom of 2017, then there was a time of DeFi projects in 2020, and NFTs exploded in 2021. These are similar to tulip mania in the sense that they are overhyped, and yet even all these things are not exactly the same with tulip mania and have more value in them. There's only so much you can do with flowers, but ICOs gave birth to some pretty cool projects, and I'm sure DeFi wasn't all that bad, while some NFTs really helped talented creators to gain support from their admirers.

[Wind_FURY]

~
The only people who keeps repeating, and keeps making us believe in the narrative that NFTs are “here to stay” are those same people who have invested much of their coins in them. Why would I convert my precious Bitcoins to a shitcoin, to invest in an NFT?

Even i was confused in the beginning when people were spending huge amount for basically small pictures in digital form, Everydays: The First 5000 Days of an artist sold for $69 million which is crazy and some of the CryptoPunk collections sold over multiple million dollars. I started venturing into the NFT market with a team who sells aNFT and there are many users that are new to the cryptocurrency market who are there just to purchase the aNFT of their favorite sports person and Lionel Messi was a huge success.

Will see how the NFT market would be in the next couple of years and then i will make a comment  .

If NFT should truly be valuable, then I believe it can only truly exist in the most truly valuable blockchain, that’s truly decentralized and censorship-resistant. Those other shitcoin blockchains are only mere databases. HODLing anything in them is a risk.

[SquallLeonhart]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Honestly NFT's are definitely like tulip mania 2.0, that is not even a hard guess. It is obvious that people are not doing anything that makes sense during this period, they are spending money on things that actually has no worth at all. I hope that one day people will realize that they are doing something wrong, but the moment that is realized we are talking about something that is very horrible for all those people who spent that much money so far.

I hope that one day we will reach to a place where it slowly goes down, not over night but like in a year. So that people who spent so much money end up losing only a little, and everyone else loses only a little and there aren't like a horrible crash that sees billions of dollars taken away from NFT world in under a month. That would hurt crypto world as well, it would not be really a good thing for any of us.

[Wind_FURY]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Honestly NFT's are definitely like tulip mania 2.0, that is not even a hard guess. It is obvious that people are not doing anything that makes sense during this period, they are spending money on things that actually has no worth at all. I hope that one day people will realize that they are doing something wrong, but the moment that is realized we are talking about something that is very horrible for all those people who spent that much money so far.

I believe it would help give NFTs “value” if they were issued in the Bitcoin blockchain. The NFTs themselves might be a victim of bull-bear/mania-depression cycles, but they will be encased in a multi-generational protocol in Bitcoin. Shitcoin blockchains will die, Bitcoin chugs along.

[jaysabi]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Honestly NFT's are definitely like tulip mania 2.0, that is not even a hard guess. It is obvious that people are not doing anything that makes sense during this period, they are spending money on things that actually has no worth at all. I hope that one day people will realize that they are doing something wrong, but the moment that is realized we are talking about something that is very horrible for all those people who spent that much money so far.

How are NFTs different from Bitcoin at all?  The value of each is based only on speculation, they're premised on a manufactured scarcity to give the impression of being valuable because they are somewhat rare, people are only interested in them as a get rich quick vehicle... the comparison is perfect. I see no difference between NFTs and Bitcoin, so for someone to criticize NFTs as an investment vehicle and not crypto is the peak of cognitive dissonance to me.

[Betwrong]

~

How are NFTs different from Bitcoin at all? The value of each is based only on speculation, they're premised on a manufactured scarcity to give the impression of being valuable because they are somewhat rare, people are only interested in them as a get rich quick vehicle... the comparison is perfect. I see no difference between NFTs and Bitcoin, so for someone to criticize NFTs as an investment vehicle and not crypto is the peak of cognitive dissonance to me.

Well, to give you a short answer, Bitcoin is a payment method, and NFTs are far from it.

You can buy BTC for $48k apiece, and since Bitcoin is accepted by 15,000 businesses worldwide, including major companies like PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, Starbucks etc., the same day you can pay for their goods and services at more or less the same rate. Theoretically, we could be doing the same thing with NFTs using barter system, but good luck with buying an NFT for $48k and expecting provision of goods and services for this amount.

[Wind_FURY]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

Honestly NFT's are definitely like tulip mania 2.0, that is not even a hard guess. It is obvious that people are not doing anything that makes sense during this period, they are spending money on things that actually has no worth at all. I hope that one day people will realize that they are doing something wrong, but the moment that is realized we are talking about something that is very horrible for all those people who spent that much money so far.

How are NFTs different from Bitcoin at all?  The value of each is based only on speculation, they're premised on a manufactured scarcity to give the impression of being valuable because they are somewhat rare, people are only interested in them as a get rich quick vehicle... the comparison is perfect. I see no difference between NFTs and Bitcoin, so for someone to criticize NFTs as an investment vehicle and not crypto is the peak of cognitive dissonance to me.

You can argue for that, and I would respect it. Plus using ONLY the market as the main standpoint for your argument, I would say you’re right. But Bitcoin is more than the market. It’s also the protocol, the incentive structure, EVERYTHING about it that makes the system stick together IS the true value. NFTs are issued somewhere in a shitcoin blockchain that might not exist in 10 years.

The “art” in NFT are also not good. Most of them are worthless or will be, and stupid. It’s Tulip Mania 2.0.

[Kittygalore]

Yeah I think it is funny when I hear people saying things like this.  More often than not those who are saying things like this have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and couldn't even tell you what the blockchain is.  I don't pay much attention to people like this because in all reality there is very little chance they will ever change their mind because bitcoin goes past their level of knowledge, what they are willing to learn and their social and economical beliefs.

More than not having any clue what they're talking about, they're probably ignorant and bitter about crypto too because you wouldn't talk shit when you have a stake or interest in something. Or much worse, these types of people are just plain envious of the people that have crypto and making a lot of money from it.

[bitgolden]

I believe it would help give NFTs “value” if they were issued in the Bitcoin blockchain. The NFTs themselves might be a victim of bull-bear/mania-depression cycles, but they will be encased in a multi-generational protocol in Bitcoin. Shitcoin blockchains will die, Bitcoin chugs along.

Is that even possible? I did not know that NFT's could be in bitcoin blockchain as well, I assumed that the blockchain of bitcoin doesn't allow such things to happen. I am fine with ETH by the way, their blockchain is fine and their price is fine as well and certainly do not consider it a shitcoin. The NFT's in ada, sol and similar stuff would be bad in the future, those are still not "shit" coins as we can see from their rank but just because something is top 10 doesn't mean it will stay in top 10.

ETH on the other hand has been second ranked for a long time, way too long and I do not think that it will drop anytime soon. The reason why most people here do believe that NFT's are like tulip mania 2.0 is because they do not really have a value on their own, people put value in it but they are useless as well that's the problem, bitcoin can be sent or received, eth could be used for many things, NFT's are... just NFT.

[jaysabi]

~

How are NFTs different from Bitcoin at all? The value of each is based only on speculation, they're premised on a manufactured scarcity to give the impression of being valuable because they are somewhat rare, people are only interested in them as a get rich quick vehicle... the comparison is perfect. I see no difference between NFTs and Bitcoin, so for someone to criticize NFTs as an investment vehicle and not crypto is the peak of cognitive dissonance to me.

Well, to give you a short answer, Bitcoin is a payment method, and NFTs are far from it.

You can buy BTC for $48k apiece, and since Bitcoin is accepted by 15,000 businesses worldwide, including major companies like PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, Starbucks etc., the same day you can pay for their goods and services at more or less the same rate. Theoretically, we could be doing the same thing with NFTs using barter system, but good luck with buying an NFT for $48k and expecting provision of goods and services for this amount.

Kinda missed my point.  I'm not talking about the literal differences between bitcoin and NFTs, I'm talking about what makes each "valuable."  You probably should have been able to pick that up from the context of the rest of the post.  Your post didn't address the substance of my post, which is how are you drawing an arbitrary line between NFTs and Bitcoin and trying to pretend they're different when it's the exact same thing that makes each valuable- large groups of people who arbitrarily agree they are.

And you're grossly overstating Bitcoin's utility as a payment method.  15k businesses worldwide is nothing, and extreme volatility makes it a piss poor currency.  Bitcoin is a speculative asset, same as NFTs.  Anyone pretending otherwise is perpetrating a fiction.

You can argue for that, and I would respect it. Plus using ONLY the market as the main standpoint for your argument, I would say you’re right. But Bitcoin is more than the market. It’s also the protocol, the incentive structure, EVERYTHING about it that makes the system stick together IS the true value. NFTs are issued somewhere in a shitcoin blockchain that might not exist in 10 years.

The “art” in NFT are also not good. Most of them are worthless or will be, and stupid. It’s Tulip Mania 2.0.

Fair enough, but everything you're saying about NFTs are the exact same thing that's been said about Bitcoin (and continues to be said about Bitcoin by the naysayers) that you take such exception to.  You're just drawing a line that around NFTs and saying "Come on, how is that going to be worth anything in the future?" the same way the mainstream financial media has been doing about bitcoin since it started gaining widespread notoriety.  It does remain highly amusing to me that anyone who thinks bitcoin is the future uses the same arguments against NFTs that they have rejected against Bitcoin for the last 10 years without a hint of irony.  Highly amusing.

[mindrust]

I believe it would help give NFTs “value” if they were issued in the Bitcoin blockchain. The NFTs themselves might be a victim of bull-bear/mania-depression cycles, but they will be encased in a multi-generational protocol in Bitcoin. Shitcoin blockchains will die, Bitcoin chugs along.

Is that even possible? I did not know that NFT's could be in bitcoin blockchain as well, I assumed that the blockchain of bitcoin doesn't allow such things to happen.

I don't know what Wind is talking about but Bitcoin originally don't allow such things. However, there are side chains like RSK would allow them. They add  unnecessary complexity so they are not really popular when compared to ETH, so I can't blame you for not using those. Side chain stuff on btc just didn't make the same impact which ETH accomplished.

[Silberman]

~
The only people who keeps repeating, and keeps making us believe in the narrative that NFTs are “here to stay” are those same people who have invested much of their coins in them. Why would I convert my precious Bitcoins to a shitcoin, to invest in an NFT?

Even i was confused in the beginning when people were spending huge amount for basically small pictures in digital form, Everydays: The First 5000 Days of an artist sold for $69 million which is crazy and some of the CryptoPunk collections sold over multiple million dollars. I started venturing into the NFT market with a team who sells aNFT and there are many users that are new to the cryptocurrency market who are there just to purchase the aNFT of their favorite sports person and Lionel Messi was a huge success.

Will see how the NFT market would be in the next couple of years and then i will make a comment  .

The problem with the NFT market is precisely their non-fungible nature, when it comes to bitcoin there is a very clear indication on how much interest the market has thanks to the volume, and since all bitcoins are in theory the same then you know exactly how much interest there is in the bitcoin market, however when it comes to NFTs even if we assume there will be a huge market in a few years there is no guarantee there will be any market for the NFTs you bought and you will not know this is the case until you try to sell them and no one wants them.

[STT]

NFT are a sign of the boom because they cannot stay liquid under any monetary deflation which requires the sale of assets.   Doesnt mean they have to be worthless then but without a price for years might occur because there isnt an effective market for them at that time.   I dont think NFT is far off the rare pepe meme where people just make some iteration I always thought it was a joke but life imitates art perhaps

[cafucafucafu]

This is 100% the case.

I believe that people are even neglecting regular cryptos that will actually decentralize the landscape we live in for these short term fads.

There are so many stories of people that are making millions of dollars in a short period of time and that is acting as the stimulus to get new money in. When new money stops flooding in and regulators jump on board, this mania will be over in dramatic fashion.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe it would help give NFTs “value” if they were issued in the Bitcoin blockchain. The NFTs themselves might be a victim of bull-bear/mania-depression cycles, but they will be encased in a multi-generational protocol in Bitcoin. Shitcoin blockchains will die, Bitcoin chugs along.

Is that even possible? I did not know that NFT's could be in bitcoin blockchain as well, I assumed that the blockchain of bitcoin doesn't allow such things to happen. I am fine with ETH by the way, their blockchain is fine and their price is fine as well and certainly do not consider it a shitcoin. The NFT's in ada, sol and similar stuff would be bad in the future, those are still not "shit" coins as we can see from their rank but just because something is top 10 doesn't mean it will stay in top 10.

I’m technically very stupid, but I believe it is through the Mastercoin/Omni protocol, and the Counterparty protocol. The Ethereum shitcoin blockchain can’t be trusted because it’s not on a path to ossification. It wants changes, revolutionary changes which is bad for stability.

[Betwrong]

~

How are NFTs different from Bitcoin at all? The value of each is based only on speculation, they're premised on a manufactured scarcity to give the impression of being valuable because they are somewhat rare, people are only interested in them as a get rich quick vehicle... the comparison is perfect. I see no difference between NFTs and Bitcoin, so for someone to criticize NFTs as an investment vehicle and not crypto is the peak of cognitive dissonance to me.

Well, to give you a short answer, Bitcoin is a payment method, and NFTs are far from it.

You can buy BTC for $48k apiece, and since Bitcoin is accepted by 15,000 businesses worldwide, including major companies like PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, Starbucks etc., the same day you can pay for their goods and services at more or less the same rate. Theoretically, we could be doing the same thing with NFTs using barter system, but good luck with buying an NFT for $48k and expecting provision of goods and services for this amount.

Kinda missed my point.
~

No, I didn't. I'm sorry to have made that impression on you, but I didn't miss your point. The thing is that I'm always trying to write posts that aim not only to someone I'm replying to, but to other people who might read my post also.

I'm not talking about the literal differences between bitcoin and NFTs, I'm talking about what makes each "valuable."  You probably should have been able to pick that up from the context of the rest of the post.  Your post didn't address the substance of my post, which is how are you drawing an arbitrary line between NFTs and Bitcoin and trying to pretend they're different when it's the exact same thing that makes each valuable- large groups of people who arbitrarily agree they are.

If you think of it, it could be said about almost anything. Take gold, for instance. We all know that gold is highly efficient and, at the same time, corrosion-free conductor which makes it irreplaceable in electronics. But do you know that today 80% of the newly obtained gold is used in jewellery manufacture? So, the main demand is coming from that field, jewellery, and thus it's the main factor that affects the price. Now, why do people think that gold jewellery is valuable despite the fact that gold can be replaced by materials that look absolutely the same but thousand times cheaper? Maybe because, using your words, there are large groups of people who arbitrarily agree it is? 

[jaysabi]

That's my argument too when someone says that bitcoin or worse, cryptocurrencies are like the Tulip Mania, I always say to them that how come bitcoin's going to be the same when it has been a decade since the genesis block and the original Tulip Mania only lasted for about 2 or 3 year iirc.

It sounds like you're mistaking what makes mania. It's not duration, it's severity of the bubble.  Nobody ever knows they're in a bubble until after it pops, otherwise you'd never have bubbles.  People buying tulips during the tulip bubble didn't know they were buying into a bubble, just like the people buying houses in 2007 didn't know they were buying into a bubble, just like (for all you know) the people buying bitcoin now don't know they're buying into a bubble.  It is impossible to dispel the non-existence of a bubble contemporaneously, it's something that can only be known after-the-fact.

[Silberman]

This is 100% the case.

I believe that people are even neglecting regular cryptos that will actually decentralize the landscape we live in for these short term fads.

There are so many stories of people that are making millions of dollars in a short period of time and that is acting as the stimulus to get new money in. When new money stops flooding in and regulators jump on board, this mania will be over in dramatic fashion.

Correct, this is a bubble, people hear stories about people earning a fortune with NFTs and they want the same for themselves, they do not stop to ask themselves where that money is going to come from, and while maybe there are a few NFTs that have the chance to maintain their value and maybe they could even go up, the vast majority of the NFTs will never go through something like that so in my opinion most people are effectively throwing their money away.

[hello_good_sir]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

NFTs are the ICOs of this bull run.

There are simply way too many projects that can be created for virtually no cost for the current price tags on these things.

The people who have levered up to "flip" NFTs as a lifestyle will see their capital get wiped away fairly quickly when things go south in my opinion. It is truly a mania right now.

[Wind_FURY]

There are many nocoiners that claim that Bitcoin is “Tulip Mania 2.0”, but it has been 10 years. How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere. In fact, it opened a Pandora’s Box of new possbilities. BUT, I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs.

NFTs are the ICOs of this bull run.

There are simply way too many projects that can be created for virtually no cost for the current price tags on these things.

The people who have levered up to "flip" NFTs as a lifestyle will see their capital get wiped away fairly quickly when things go south in my opinion. It is truly a mania right now.

During the crash, was there a stop-loss for NFT? NO! Because that market is not like the cryptocurrency market, or the stock market/commodity market where LIQUIDITY can protect you from big losses. A price of a $1,000,000 NFT can crash to $10,000 during an economic depression.

[RealMalatesta]

During the crash, was there a stop-loss for NFT? NO! Because that market is not like the cryptocurrency market, or the stock market/commodity market where LIQUIDITY can protect you from big losses. A price of a $1,000,000 NFT can crash to $10,000 during an economic depression.

There is no swap or exchange for NFT that puts in that type of situation, which is why there is no stop-loss. It is an asset and not a currency, there will be 21 million bitcoins, all are the same bitcoin, does the same thing, it is just one bitcoin. NFT's are all different, all worth differently, you can't have a market like that for a stop loss.

You decide on the value, the buyer and the seller decides it, and for each single individual one as well. What can you do? You can always put it for sale for a million dollars, and one day if it actually worths that then it will be bought, but that is for going up, for going down if you put it on sale for cheap then it will be sold right away and you will lose. You need to be constantly active and constantly checking the prices to decide how much it worths at that point, which many won't do.

[jaysabi]

~

How are NFTs different from Bitcoin at all? The value of each is based only on speculation, they're premised on a manufactured scarcity to give the impression of being valuable because they are somewhat rare, people are only interested in them as a get rich quick vehicle... the comparison is perfect. I see no difference between NFTs and Bitcoin, so for someone to criticize NFTs as an investment vehicle and not crypto is the peak of cognitive dissonance to me.

Well, to give you a short answer, Bitcoin is a payment method, and NFTs are far from it.

You can buy BTC for $48k apiece, and since Bitcoin is accepted by 15,000 businesses worldwide, including major companies like PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, Starbucks etc., the same day you can pay for their goods and services at more or less the same rate. Theoretically, we could be doing the same thing with NFTs using barter system, but good luck with buying an NFT for $48k and expecting provision of goods and services for this amount.

Kinda missed my point.
~

No, I didn't. I'm sorry to have made that impression on you, but I didn't miss your point. The thing is that I'm always trying to write posts that aim not only to someone I'm replying to, but to other people who might read my post also.

I'm not talking about the literal differences between bitcoin and NFTs, I'm talking about what makes each "valuable."  You probably should have been able to pick that up from the context of the rest of the post.  Your post didn't address the substance of my post, which is how are you drawing an arbitrary line between NFTs and Bitcoin and trying to pretend they're different when it's the exact same thing that makes each valuable- large groups of people who arbitrarily agree they are.

If you think of it, it could be said about almost anything. Take gold, for instance. We all know that gold is highly efficient and, at the same time, corrosion-free conductor which makes it irreplaceable in electronics. But do you know that today 80% of the newly obtained gold is used in jewellery manufacture? So, the main demand is coming from that field, jewellery, and thus it's the main factor that affects the price. Now, why do people think that gold jewellery is valuable despite the fact that gold can be replaced by materials that look absolutely the same but thousand times cheaper? Maybe because, using your words, there are large groups of people who arbitrarily agree it is? 

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

[SoeNan89]

Many experts believe the virtual currency is set to dominate financial transactions which has led to substantial trading in the bitcoin domain. The digital currency strengthened to an all-time high. The ease of cross-border operations without the need for central bank support attracts many people to park their funds in Bitcoin investments.  Scarcity is considered one of the main causes of the rally, only 21 million bitcoins are in existence, currently, 90% in circulation. The price of Bitcoin is determined in a free market regime and is not affected by monetary policy. Although Bitcoin enthusiasts believe that the rise of virtual currencies is inevitable, history offers a word of warning.

[imstillthebest]

it will be the same and no matter how many years it would take for btc to live , they will still call it a tulip because they are nocoiners or btc haters .

How long must the protocol keep running before the rest of the world accepts that Bitcoin is not going anywhere

bitcoin is going somewhere , not because it will take the money of the investors and scam them but because it is successful and have alot of achievements  .

I believe the next “Tulip Mania” for this bull cycle are, NFTs

nft's real purpose are for collection and not to expect anything in return so i dont consider them as a bubble but if there are bubbles in here , they can be the scam projects like the meme coins , ico's , defi  .

[Silberman]

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

The value of bitcoin comes from the network effect and it is described in the Metcalfe’s law, as an example if you had a telephone that could only call your own number then that network is useless as you are the only member of it, but if the network has millions and millions of numbers you can call then the network becomes very valuable due to its size, this is why social networks like Facebook and others have value and it is the reason bitcoin has value as well.

[jaysabi]

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

The value of bitcoin comes from the network effect and it is described in the Metcalfe’s law, as an example if you had a telephone that could only call your own number then that network is useless as you are the only member of it, but if the network has millions and millions of numbers you can call then the network becomes very valuable due to its size, this is why social networks like Facebook and others have value and it is the reason bitcoin has value as well.

I don't believe this is applicable at all.  Relatively no one uses bitcoin as a currency, so the network effect of a currency that no one is actually interested in using as a currency isn't applicable.  Bitcoin's real-life use case (not the theoretical one as a currency) is in speculative trading, and the primary driver of that is a good economic environment so people are confident enough to gamble on a speculative asset and excess capital to do so.  This is why you see bitcoin drop so harshly when there is bad macro economic news.  If the value wasn't tied specifically to speculation and was indeed a function of Metcalfe's law, you wouldn't see the price correlated so closely to macro economic trends.

[LUCKMCFLY]

This is 100% the case.

I believe that people are even neglecting regular cryptos that will actually decentralize the landscape we live in for these short term fads.

There are so many stories of people that are making millions of dollars in a short period of time and that is acting as the stimulus to get new money in. When new money stops flooding in and regulators jump on board, this mania will be over in dramatic fashion.

I think this is very normal, where there is money there are many people, where there is a business model that you can take advantage of, only those who have the money for investment and knowledge are the ones who always get a higher cut, however this is different, because only those with more money enter large businesses, in the case of NFTs anyone can enter, and it is not difficult, everything lies in entering the pre-sale, public sale and deciding whether to enter or not depending on the type of project If it is games or not, if it is games they have options to generate passive income, I think it is somewhat difficult for models like this to stop working, for me, this is something like "fashion" that I am still not sure if it will have valid throughout the years.

[Hyperechos]

Ponzi schemes like Tulip Mania, etc. all have one thing in common, that is, information is not equal. As for a completely open source system of Bitcoin, its operation mode, distribution of currency holdings, etc. can all be queried on the browser of the blockchain.

Of course, if you just want to talk about price increases similar to the tulip mania. Maybe investing in other projects such as DEFI, NFT, etc. can make you profit, but buying Bitcoin is a safer way.

[Betwrong]

~

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

And this time I'm really missing your point. Didn't I show that gold is considered valuable in jewelry only because many people believe so? Now, if many people believed that possessing  1 Bitcoin was necessary for your high status, the price of BTC could rise to hundreds of thousands USD only because of that. Why? Because there are more millionaires in this world than Bitcoin max supply. Wouldn't this be an intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

[Timelord2067]

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.

You forgot gold is used in circuity and motherboards etc and is a better conductor than either copper or silver from the same group of the periodic table.  Gold (unlike silver or copper) does not corrode so it's use in electronics is more preferred.

Scrap metal recovery from circuit boards is a thing now and may not make a person rich, but is far from being cost prohibitive (and usually only involves chemicals, not power consumption - a far cry from the labour intensive cultivation of crops, harvesting and transport to market that were needed for the manufacture and sale of Tulips)

[TheGreatPython]

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

And this time I'm really missing your point. Didn't I show that gold is considered valuable in jewelry only because many people believe so? Now, if many people believed that possessing  1 Bitcoin was necessary for your high status, the price of BTC could rise to hundreds of thousands USD only because of that. Why? Because there are more millionaires in this world than Bitcoin max supply. Wouldn't this be an intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

It all comes down to holding it in your hands and the community belief. Gold has been around as a symbol for 2000+ years minimum, probably longer but I am not really well versed in history so it is probably 3000 years or even more. So, that means gold has been around for millennia and we are talking about bitcoin which has been here for a little over one decade and it of course doesn't get to be as valuable as gold for now.

It may become one in the future but we just do not see it for right now. Do not compare things that are physical and digital because people will always say "but can I hold it" as an argument.

I know that never makes sense and something that you end up trusting more digitally could be more fragile physically so it is better digitally. However that doesn't mean that people will not keep saying the same thing over and over again.

[Timelord2067]

Do not compare things that are physical and digital because people will always say "but can I hold it" as an argument.

Ironically, that same argument can be made of the humble Tulip which once cut has a finite life span and even when potted for a longer shelf life invariably has a finite life span too.

If someone bemoans they cannot hold bitcoin in their hand, remind them their fiat bank account is no different - just some ones and zeros on a computer's hard drive (except with no block-chain for verification)

[Betwrong]

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

And this time I'm really missing your point. Didn't I show that gold is considered valuable in jewelry only because many people believe so? Now, if many people believed that possessing  1 Bitcoin was necessary for your high status, the price of BTC could rise to hundreds of thousands USD only because of that. Why? Because there are more millionaires in this world than Bitcoin max supply. Wouldn't this be an intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

It all comes down to holding it in your hands and the community belief. Gold has been around as a symbol for 2000+ years minimum, probably longer but I am not really well versed in history so it is probably 3000 years or even more. So, that means gold has been around for millennia and we are talking about bitcoin which has been here for a little over one decade and it of course doesn't get to be as valuable as gold for now.

It may become one in the future but we just do not see it for right now. Do not compare things that are physical and digital because people will always say "but can I hold it" as an argument.

I know that never makes sense and something that you end up trusting more digitally could be more fragile physically so it is better digitally. However that doesn't mean that people will not keep saying the same thing over and over again.

They most likely will, but if we have good arguments we should provide them, and maybe one day they will be able to change their mind. I believe we are entering an era where digital things are gaining more value year by year, and many physical things, which were valued for centuries, are losing their value.

Look at the Inflation Adjusted Gold Price, for example:

It turns out that gold is actually losing its value since around 1980.

[Wind_FURY]

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

And this time I'm really missing your point. Didn't I show that gold is considered valuable in jewelry only because many people believe so? Now, if many people believed that possessing  1 Bitcoin was necessary for your high status, the price of BTC could rise to hundreds of thousands USD only because of that. Why? Because there are more millionaires in this world than Bitcoin max supply. Wouldn't this be an intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

It all comes down to holding it in your hands and the community belief. Gold has been around as a symbol for 2000+ years minimum, probably longer but I am not really well versed in history so it is probably 3000 years or even more. So, that means gold has been around for millennia and we are talking about bitcoin which has been here for a little over one decade and it of course doesn't get to be as valuable as gold for now.

It may become one in the future but we just do not see it for right now. Do not compare things that are physical and digital because people will always say "but can I hold it" as an argument.

I know that never makes sense and something that you end up trusting more digitally could be more fragile physically so it is better digitally. However that doesn't mean that people will not keep saying the same thing over and over again.

They most likely will, but if we have good arguments we should provide them, and maybe one day they will be able to change their mind. I believe we are entering an era where digital things are gaining more value year by year, and many physical things, which were valued for centuries, are losing their value.

Look at the Inflation Adjusted Gold Price, for example:

It turns out that gold is actually losing its value since around 1980.

A link to an article explaining how to calculate Inflation Adjusted Gold Price.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/265225-determining-the-true-inflation-adjusted-gold-price

That chart is right, Gold value during the 1980’s does have more value and than Gold during 2015, but the article valued Gold at $8,194 during 1980’s and $3,604.22 during 2011, the year it was posted.

[jaysabi]

~

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.  The value comes from it's intrinsic properties; not people speculating on it's value, but actual use.  That's not where bitcoin's value comes from, nor NFTs.  In both cases, that value comes exclusively from speculation on the future value of them, based solely on a mass assumption of future worth.  To differentiate, gold as a store of value is completely arbitrary, just like bitcoin.  But gold still has a demand outside of store of value (the intrinsic value of gold) and bitcoin and NFTs do not.  That's the difference between bitcoin and gold and why there's no difference between bitcoin and NFTs.

And this time I'm really missing your point. Didn't I show that gold is considered valuable in jewelry only because many people believe so? Now, if many people believed that possessing  1 Bitcoin was necessary for your high status, the price of BTC could rise to hundreds of thousands USD only because of that. Why? Because there are more millionaires in this world than Bitcoin max supply. Wouldn't this be an intrinsic value of Bitcoin?

No, this isn't an example of arbitrary value.  Being demanded for jewelry is what gives it intrinsic value.  The preference of gold in jewelry over other metals could be an arbitrary consumer preference, but the preference is the driving force no matter the reason, and that gives it intrinsic value.  If gold stops being preferred over another metal or just loses cachet in general, the intrinsic value would disappear.  

If having 1 bitcoin was actually a requirement for having high status, that might give it intrinsic value.  But that's not the case and I don't see a reason it would ever be the case.  The actual measurement of high status is wealth, no matter the form.

But now you've given an example of gold's intrinsic value- use in jewelry.

You forgot gold is used in circuity and motherboards etc and is a better conductor than either copper or silver from the same group of the periodic table.  Gold (unlike silver or copper) does not corrode so it's use in electronics is more preferred.

Scrap metal recovery from circuit boards is a thing now and may not make a person rich, but is far from being cost prohibitive (and usually only involves chemicals, not power consumption - a far cry from the labour intensive cultivation of crops, harvesting and transport to market that were needed for the manufacture and sale of Tulips)

Yes, another reason gold has intrinsic value, utility in industrial applications. 

[Betwrong]

~

A link to an article explaining how to calculate Inflation Adjusted Gold Price.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/265225-determining-the-true-inflation-adjusted-gold-price

That chart is right, Gold value during the 1980’s does have more value and than Gold during 2015, but the article valued Gold at $8,194 during 1980’s and $3,604.22 during 2011, the year it was posted.

As far as I understand, the graph might look a bit different if another than CPI measure was used. But it wouldn't change the whole picture, right? Or did you mean, it would?

What I don't understand in that article, is what is "Manic Gold Price", and how an article dated Apr. 25, 2011 could contain a chart with figures up to 2020?

Maybe it's Sunday and my head isn't working properly, I'm sorry, but I can't understand where are these



 figures coming from?
 
 

~
If having 1 bitcoin was actually a requirement for having high status, that might give it intrinsic value.  But that's not the case and I don't see a reason it would ever be the case.  The actual measurement of high status is wealth, no matter the form.

I disagree. But let's suppose it's true. Wouldn't having 1 Bitcoin be an indication of belonging to high status group then?

[Wind_FURY]

Are NFTs’ floor prices currently crashing? I believe it’s currently “that” part of the bull cycle. Everyone should start selling the Tulips for liquid assets. I know some of you want them HODLed in shitcoins, but better in assets with more liquidity than illiquid Tulips.

[FanEagle]

NFT prices are stuff that we should be careful about these days because I am seeing more and more stuff that are getting more dangerous with basically zero utility with the NFT still going for thousands of dollars and people do not realize how useless that is. I would like to suggest that there is a good case that we could be getting great NFT that has a great utility that makes up for a huge price increase because it has utility.

However all these fake stuff that makes no sense just because it is copycat of the first famous ones doesn't mean that it should be something like that in the end neither, it is really useless to see these and then people getting hyped about it, they are just copcycat horrible stuff, do not get excited about it.

[dothebeats]

Most NFTs are absolute money grabs. No value whatsoever can ever be found from them, and it's a shame that even though that's the case, most people still buy into that idea and tell themselves that nothing could ever go wrong. Take for example some art NFTs from celebrities and other organizations. It's nice to have something that directly came from those you look up to, but having them digitally? Those can easily be reproduced without much work, so why would someone in their sane mind pay lots to these pixels on your screen saved on a blockchain?

[Wind_FURY]

The screenshot was posted, and shared by grubles in Twitter.



All of the NFTs generated, and issued in the Ethereum and Solana networks are all available FOR FREE, contained in this zip/tar file, downloadable through the BitTorrent network.

[Wind_FURY]

Discrimination and hate towards NFT holders? We know it’s Tulip Mania 2.0, but I wouldn’t turn NFT ownership into a social issue. EXCEPT if these haters are really NFT holders who lost money in Tulip Mania 2.0.

[RealMalatesta]

Discrimination and hate towards NFT holders? We know it’s Tulip Mania 2.0, but I wouldn’t turn NFT ownership into a social issue. EXCEPT if these haters are really NFT holders who lost money in Tulip Mania 2.0.

It is just people who missed out and couldn't make money from it. I personally never made a dime out of NFT world neither but I didn't went against it, some stuff just doesn't make sense to people and they do not invest and they see others make a ton of money from it.

I am an avid protestor of the shit memecoin world as well, not NFT world but the memecoin ones, but I have seen plenty of people make plenty of profit from it so I can't be too much against it, it is just how people make a profit and that's fine. All in all there is nothing we could do to stop them, just let the people who want to invest end up investing and learning from experience, that is the best teacher.

[Oceat]

Discrimination and hate towards NFT holders? We know it’s Tulip Mania 2.0, but I wouldn’t turn NFT ownership into a social issue. EXCEPT if these haters are really NFT holders who lost money in Tulip Mania 2.0.

It is just people who missed out and couldn't make money from it. I personally never made a dime out of NFT world neither but I didn't went against it, some stuff just doesn't make sense to people and they do not invest and they see others make a ton of money from it.

I am an avid protestor of the shit memecoin world as well, not NFT world but the memecoin ones, but I have seen plenty of people make plenty of profit from it so I can't be too much against it, it is just how people make a profit and that's fine. All in all there is nothing we could do to stop them, just let the people who want to invest end up investing and learning from experience, that is the best teacher.

It's funny how ridiculous these people are hating the NFT community just because they didn't earn well just like what the others did. I did lost some from NFT since I don't know how their market works at first but I never step down to this kind of level when losing. It's just that they don't really know how these new crypto gimmick nowadays work that's why they just ride the hype and end up losing because someone did entice them with money.

I believe this(NFT) is similar to tulip mania too which is good for early investors and bad for late investors in the long run.

[Wind_FURY]

Discrimination and hate towards NFT holders? We know it’s Tulip Mania 2.0, but I wouldn’t turn NFT ownership into a social issue. EXCEPT if these haters are really NFT holders who lost money in Tulip Mania 2.0.

It is just people who missed out and couldn't make money from it. I personally never made a dime out of NFT world neither but I didn't went against it, some stuff just doesn't make sense to people and they do not invest and they see others make a ton of money from it.

I am an avid protestor of the shit memecoin world as well, not NFT world but the memecoin ones, but I have seen plenty of people make plenty of profit from it so I can't be too much against it, it is just how people make a profit and that's fine. All in all there is nothing we could do to stop them, just let the people who want to invest end up investing and learning from experience, that is the best teacher.

I didn’t make money from it, I don’t feel hate for it. I believe the people with that kind of hate for something must have lost a large amount of money from it. Read their tweets. They are hoping that people die? If that grows to millions of haters, it will become a real social issue, which might make NFTs more than Tulip Mania 2.0.