Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I think every article about cryptocurrency should have a dire curse put on it that prevents the author from using USD value in headlines and in most of the body, because that value is mostly hypothetical. The whole draw of crypto and NFTs for people investing in them (I use that term loosely) is the idea that if you get in on the ground floor of something you'll be rich for free when it inevitably skyrockets in value. That's why there are constantly bots spamming people on Twitter to invest in their random, definitely-the-next-whatevercoin currency and why most of these NFT avatar farms are selling a fantasy of being wise enough to snap up hot properties while they're still unknown. There's no telling how much that person actually paid into the system or how much of their crypto-wealth they got by trading crypto whatsits like NFTs.
That $250,000 could be $100 at some point unless the owner cashes out while the value is high, but a huge number of people involved in this actually think it's a safer bet to buy a monkey doodle because they believe the dollar is about to become worthless due to inflation. Except the only value crypto has right now is measured in nasty old fiat currency, its continued value depends on lots of people believing it's worth a lot in USD, and it doesn't sound impressive to say you bought something for a decimal point percentage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's the idea promoted by people running the show and collecting the real money from the 'investors'
Like the BBC articles said, there are no laws to break with NFT's, insider trading is ok, or one can have a bunch of friends to circle around some NFT's for millions of dollars, just to promote the platform and the idea that the unique link to a single black pixel at some point rises to 10 million in value.
LOL! Yeah, I suppose that is an excellent way to look at that, seriously, why would anyone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a hastily drawn character like that when there are actual artists/sculptors/painters selling for that same amount as a 50-pixel-art gif!
I reckon I could make a ape picture myself. It wouldn't be identical though, so no infringement of copyright.
darn....
I wish this post had been placed in the NFT forum so I could have avoided it altogether....
sigh...
Dude, that link isn't working... I don't expect you to sell many acorns with a non working link... so you better get it fixed ASAP
This sounds like a great deal, and remember it may only be a tiny acorn today, but one day ( if it survives) it could be the largest oak tree in any broom closet anywhere.
Please tell me where to find these acorns.
Ask McGyver
They were never gone
, still loads of fields with tulip(bulbs) around 'over here' 
https://www.reisroutes.nl/blog/nederland/tulpenvelden-tips-info/
I do get the notion of collecting, and potentially having a tie back to history. I don't see how that applies to anything digital, though, since everything is a copy. Say I had created the very first 3D model of a human being. You may be interested in owning that as an historical achievement, but to own the original and not just a copy you'd have to buy my actual hardware that it was built on. Everything else, including my very first upload to a store or website for distribution, is a copy. You could sort of say the NFT stuff is a way to get "1st Edition" prints, but there's no way I know of to verify that. Is there some way to tell that I just don't see? Can anyone actually tell that my copy ISN'T a "1st Edition" image, other than my saying how I got it? Because no one EVER lies or attempts fraud when money is involved. The consensus seems to be no.
Fauvist's comparison to the coat-of-arms concept is the most logical comparison, in my mind, so far. I know some royal families have previously sold off membership/titles, so I could see the point of buying into a family with name recognition. I'm not really seeing the status buying a copy of something free for exorbitant gives you other than the Looney Tunes sucker, though. I can just say I bought it "with my private account" and no one on Earth will know, as far as I can tell.
So, you have been hoarding them all this time, hoping they will become the future global currency instead of squirrel pelts?
Maybe because a diamond is the end of the road, whereas the acorn is full of potential. :)
It shows how out of touch I am. I looked at the picture and wondered why anyone would pay anything for it. Then again most modern art is beyond me. I can't figure out why a lot of stuff that gets into art galleries is there, but people who know about art say that it is art so I suppose I must believe them.
It's not what you or I see. It's what the majority perceives. Once we went to Hawaii with another couple who were millionaires but extremely down to earth. After a couple of drinks over a campfire (he used a Rebel Camera - we used Nikon's) he grinned at my husband and said my lens is bigger and better than your lens (it was purely a joke, not a brag). And they both jumped up and faced each other holding their cameras out. I shot that moment. And every time I look at that picture it reminds me of what others see. Is a rubber band engagement ring better than a diamond? Is a beat up truck you own better than a BMW you fear to be repossessed any day? The truth is the value of these things is in the eye of the beholder.
SSShhht, don't give away my perfect scheme; like NFT's, they require alot of (solar)power to be created, so that should appeal to those into NFT's. But at the same time, they take away those greenhouse gasses that were produced creating said NFT's.......
...reminds me of a particular scene in Spaceballs, The Movie.
And, with digital, the copy could be an exact 1:1 bit-perfect copy, if done in a lossless format. Wheras a print of a painting is not even on the same medium as the original (generally speaking). Dropping large sums of cash just to have my name noted as the "owner" of something that I can legally get for free (such as a copy of the first tweet) makes absolutely no sense to me. But then again I don't have vast sums of unused cash just laying around.
I started the process of participating in the NFT world. I got a "wallet" and I am on the largest Online NFT market. I haven't bought or sold anything - and so far it's cost me nothing. I knoooooooow NFTs use a lot of electricity (for some unfathomable reason) - but so will 1.5 billion electric cars being recharged every day - it's suppose to be good for the environment.
I don't close my mind to newness. A while ago I had the flu and was bored and I'd 100% ignored Twitter - so I thought, "what the heck - I'll set up a Twitter account and type a couple of tweets." The VERY FIRST two tweets I posted were quoted by the New York Times in the first paragraph of a lead article in the Arts section. My Twitter account was my full name - so the NYTimes printed my name along with the tweets. And the Arts editor actually researched me and printed my art-world credentials. You have NO IDEA what legitimacy being quoted by the Times gives you. I include the permanent link to that article in EVERY application I submit for anything art related. And the Times editor didn't reveal in the article that he got my sentences off Twitter. In the article, the Arts editor actually phoned the head of the National Endowment for the Arts and asked him to comment on his reaction to what I SAID. Newspapers in many countries picked up the article and it provoked a lot of fierce debates in the comments sections. When then President Trump proposed cutting the National Endowment for the Arts - the NYTimes actually phoned me to comment on what the President said. I didn't return their call because having my name printed in the Times next to Donald Trump's name didn't seem like a wise thing to do. Don't underestimate the power or reach of what you do Online. Who knows what'll happen with NFTs.
It's not about resisting new things, but resisting stupid things.
I used a few evenings to figure out the thing DAZ was so exited about, just to find the emperor's new clothes
Ownership of what? A link to a worthless image that anyone can download with a right-click of the mouse? Your equivalence examples don't stand up to scrutiny. It is a token for a link to a worthless image, not membership of an elite society nor proof of entitlement to various priviliges.
Try selling a rubber band to a jeweler.
You'll find the true difference fast enough.
A worthless image:
Top 8 most expensive NFTs ever sold
That "m" next to the number means MILLION - as in SIXTYNINE MILLION DOLLARS.
So? Someone paid a million dollars for a single black pixel, still doesn't make it worth more than any other single black pixel, if the pixel was even the subject of the trade anyways.
The modern art discussion clearly has many of the same divisive tendencies as religion and politics, so it has joined them in Room 101. Please don't revive the argument.
That's not actually the same thing... crypto transactions consume vastly more energy than an electric vehicle... the average EV uses about 30 kWh per hundred miles... the average EV has about a 250 mile range... so basically around 75 - 80 kWh depending on the charger type....
While the average crypto transaction (Bitcoin) consumes about 1700+ kWh of electricity*... Ethereum uses less at 209 kWh...
Bitcoin alone had an average of around 400,000 daily transactions in January of 2021... Ethereum had around 1.1 million daily by the end of July 2021... currently there are around 10,000 cryptocurrencies worldwide...
It's also not just the environmental issues, it's also the problem with crypto being used for illegal transactions, money laundering and most famously as payment when holding hacked computer systems hostage.
Its a common mistake to compare crypto to financial systems or electric vehicles, but doing so is like comparing apples to hippopotamuses.
*"As of mid-July, a single Bitcoin transaction required 1719.51 kilowatt hours (kWh) - where a kWh is the amount of energy a 1,000-watt appliance uses in over an hour. To put that in perspective, that is about 59 days’ worth of power consumed by an average U.S. household." -Coindesk
Not to mention that the EV exists because petrol (gasoline) is worse for the environment.
How Green Are Electric Vehicles? - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
OK, I did mention it.
Let us not forget that these monkeys are being randomly generated by computers so nobody is putting forth any effort to make them.