• BargsimBoyz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh the problem here is that nfts are a scam. At end of day celebrities will just move on the next endorsement, pay a small fine who cares.

    Nfts have scammed millions from people who can’t see pay the get rich quick pyramid scheme.

  • ApeNo1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Surely someone would have spent the $800 to get access to the tv series, make it available on the internet and blow the value of all the NFTs out of the water.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The SEC has charged the Hollywood power couple’s NFT-based web series, “Stoner Cats,” calling the NFTs unregistered securities.

    Per the SEC, “Stoner Cats is an adult animated television show about house cats that become sentient after being exposed to their owner’s medical marijuana.” By buying one of 10,000 NFTs worth around $800 each, fans could get exclusive access to the six-episode animated series, which features celebrities like Jane Fonda, Chris Rock and Seth MacFarlane.

    Another great quote from this formal SEC document: “@StonerCatsTV tweeted on September 7, 2021 a meme suggesting that the smartest thing to do during a dip in the crypto markets would be to ‘Buy more ETH & sweep the Stoner Cats floor.

    There will also be a Fair Fund that will return money to people who were financially harmed by purchasing the NFTs.

    Last year, Kim Kardashian reached a $1.26 million settlement with the SEC over failing to properly disclose that she was being paid to promote a crypto asset security sold by EthereumMax.

    “Regardless of whether your offering involves beavers, chinchillas or animal-based NFTs, under the federal securities laws, it’s the economic reality of the offering – not the labels you put on it or the underlying objects – that guides the determination of what’s an investment contract and therefore a security,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, in a statement.


    The original article contains 364 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 37%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So it kind of sucks they did this, as their implementation of NFT’s was a decent use case for NFT’s outside of being investments. DRM rights that abide by first sale doctrine even if company dies is a good reason for a blockchain. Too bad they decided to treat it as something to invest in.

    • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What the fuck is a good NFT implementation, something that works? Or something that might be beneficial for humankind like at all?

      It’s just crap, sha an image, toss it into a blockchain, … uh, …profit?

      What a scam and waste of people’s brains.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only thing I’ve heard that made sense was using it for things like contracts? But even then barely.

    • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      if the company dies, so does the server that hosts the image that your nft links to. If the company dies, the nft dies with it, regardless of who currently “owns” it, or how many times it’s been resold