Guillaume Cerutti, CEO of Christie's, discusses the nearly $70 million sale of Beeple's Non-Fungible Token artwork. He says NFTs and blockchain technology make the digital art marketplace safer for artists by providing proof of authenticity. #CNN #News #Business
Style experts spot a ‘no-no’ inside the Oval Office
Amanpour: Dissent about war in Ukraine in Putin’s circle is ‘silenced’
Cannes Film Festival 2023: The stand-out films and stars this year
Anti-Putin Russians based in Ukraine allegedly stage incursion into Russia
“I wouldn’t buy that for a dollar”
That’s why you are poor
@jems bond You seem unlikable.
@Shimmy I dont attract losers
People have different tastes, surprise surprise
@jems bond It was a joke that you clearly didn’t recognize from a film. Unfortunately I wasted my time to point that you don’t know my financial situation, doorknob.
Never forget uncle
Sam how much you took from us never forget ancle Sam I am the Aztec 🌎🦅 Eagle
. ….. Cannibalism .. Took Much … …
Man. Rich people have money to waste. Meanwhile, real fungible people die in third world countries. Life’s a mess.
People are non-Fungible bro!
How do you know its a waste ?
While I agree we,as humans ,have a bunch of problems we could solve if we weren’t so selfish ,the fact is,we are. Bill Gates is worth 188 billion dollars. There are only 7 billion people on the planet. Simple math,but that’s not gonna happen, so can we just recognize that art is a strange, and wonderful thing? I know homelessness, and hunger, should be our priority, and the US just passed a 1.9 trillion $ bill to help 330 million people. Devide 1.9 trillion by 330 million. Where does all that money go ? I get it. I do,but art is a different thing. I don’t understand it, which is why it’s fascinating. Capt.Bob, SV (Sailing Vessel) 27th Chance, Tampa Fl.
No offense, but it’s not like the non-superrich aren’t wasting money and donating their entire earnings toward solving world hunger. Which would be nice, but isn’t the case. Who knows how much of the rest of the buyer’s wealth is being put toward a “good” cause anyway.
@john smith Bill Gates is worth 188 billion. 6 billion people on the planet. Am I missing something ?🤔
I am the Aztec 🌎🦅
Welcome to the new world order 🌎🌍🐀 king 👑
Never forget how much you took from us colonized ankle Sam I am the Aztec 🌎🦅 working hard every day making America great always been here 🌎🦅
Fool and his money easily separated
1st make a million before advice millionaires !
A Fool and your money are soon partners.
I’m starting to think I should have paid more attention in Non-Fungible Token Artwork class.
The new age of money laundering
For real how do you value art? So stupid. Just sounds like a bunch of people evading taxes and making outrageous payments on “art” in exchange for other favors.
I’m just gonna say what everyone is thinking, I don’t believe someone actually paid for that.
@akyhne Nope, the difference is if you download a movie illegally, you could get sued for millions. And I don’t just mean owners of illegal movie site. I mean actual private individuals have been successfully sued for downloading a movie to their personal computer. What the hell is “Beeple” gonna do if someone takes a screenshot? Lol. Nothing. Good luck tracking screenshots.
Also – back to my original point – you can make money off a movie, without selling the ownership. You can rent out copies, display it at a movie theatre and charge an entry fee, put it on a streaming service and charge a monthly fee etc. There are actual ways of making money off the movie, WITHOUT selling the ownership. Same way houses can generate rent, stocks can generate dividend etc. But with an NFT, there is no way of generating income off it, without selling the ownership to someone else at a higher price. Even physical art – like the Mona Lisa – can generate revenue through museum tickets for example.
It’s a bubble. And it would end like all
bubbles end. I’m not saying I know when the bubble will burst. So if you think you can make a quick buck, go for it. But all bubbles end the same way.
@Motivation Factory You still don’t own what you steal.
And I won’t go into the bubble discussion. I’m just defending that this is art being sold, by a great artist. Nothing more.
@akyhne False, if you take a screenshot you own the screenshot. Which is an identical representation of the art, because the art is “digital”. And “digital” is exactly replicable by screenshot. You may not own the 1s and 0s on the blockchain. But that is not art, that is code.
On the other hand, a screenshot of the Mona Lisa is very different from the real Mona Lisa. In size, texture, weight etc. Even a physical replication of the Mona Lisa, would not be the same as the original Mona Lisa. You would have to replicate the exact oil painting type, brush strokes, colour pattern, drying pattern etc And then somehow replicate 504 years (age of the Mona Lisa) of wear and tear, and historical value. This is impossible. And also would require a time machine, which as far as I know, do not exist. Unlike digital art, the Mona Lisa is actually non fungible. That’s the irony.
The bubble is the main point I was making. Because the publicity around this sale, will encourage people to spend money buying worthless GIFs, in hopes of selling it to someone else for more money. Thus feeding into the bubble, and leaving the eventual late “bag holders” with big loses.
@Motivation Factory OMFG! It’s still a copy, and the digital signature of this image is not. It’s a one time signature, that can’t be copied, just like the Mona Lisa painting can’t be copied.
I’ll have to leave your very vague arguments now, as I am watching Ironman III, digitally owned by Marvel Studios. Just like the signature of this image only has one owner.
Bye…
@akyhne A screenshot is an identical replication of digital art. The buyer did not pay for the “original”. They only paid for code proving ownership. Because again, the art is NOT on the blockchain. The only thing on the blockchain is “code” showing copyright ownership. The digital signature is code, not art. So therefore the “uniqueness” is in its digital signature/ code. Which is a bunch of 1s and 0s.
On the other hand, the “uniqueness” of the Mona Lisa is in the actual ART itself. Not some useless string of 1s and 0s. Also, being that Beeple is a living young artist, there is an unlimited supply of digital art he could create in his lifetime. So there is nothing truly scarce about his art. On the other hand, Leonardo Da Vinci has been dead for over 500 years. And being that dead people can’t paint, there is actual real scarcity on his art. Because he cannot create anymore.
In other words, if one wanted to spend $69M on art as an investment, easily replicable digital art of a living artist is literally the worst choice to make. Lol
Best way to hide your wealth from the tax man.
Whoever bought it did not make their money the legit way.
vignesh sundaresan is the person who bought it. He, a programmer had no money 10 years back. Now he is serial entrepreneur and CEO in a Singapore based company.
What’s Bill Gates’s favourite desserts ?
Apple turnover……and custard pie 🤣
But I must say this anchor for CNN her accent is just adorable and she is beautiful to😃😍
yikes
Stupidity is the new smart? (Did I say that out loud?)
Meanwhile, people are struggling to find food and pay rent…
everyone’s in different walks of life my man
What has hungry people to do with this?
@akyhne hes one of those pessimists that want to make everything negative and about poor people
Why is it the dollar bill doesn’t count? They have unique serial numbers and are authenticated by their creator
💖❤
0:45 MAGNIFIQUE! That art is perfection. Let me launder my money over onto it in the millions.
More Emperors new clothes
Message Now: (Eight~Five~Six) (Three~Four~Nine) (Four~One~Nine~Seven)