it's a yoonmin thing 

source

17 minutes ago, Dont mind me said:

Dude you are talking nonsense and it seems like your fellow believers in crypto currency, can't give me a reason as to why I would ever approve it. 

Listen it is not that difficult for the crypto gods to do the actual work many fintech have to do. All they have to do is show how they do their thing to the government, but they refuse to. So how can the governments/banks actually believe what they do? 

You are very naive and I hope you don't get stranded in life by your way of thinking. 

Also, Optimus Prime would have definitely been against NFT only based on the fact they are unreliable. 

Dude, i neither need nor want you to approve crypto, the blockchain, or NFTs. also, blockchain, crypto, and nfts have been explained in academic, legal, and street speak. the mere fact that people, including you, still refuse to, at the very least, try to understand it shows that it isn't the technology that's the problem. it's the people. 

Listen, it is true it is not difficult for the crypto gods to show how they do their thing to the government. in fact, the entire system is designed so anyone can look at it. it is designed so anyone can try to test the system. 

they also proactively show it when asked, not asked, barely asked. the government not having the ability to understand is different from not being explained to. 

however, let me just make it clear that many states in the US are already supporting it. they have actively invited miners/stakers, blockchain creators to plant house in their states. they created new regulations to make sure the technology is nurture. the federal government already acknowledged it enough to tax it. so the 'government' you are talking about isn't the US government. 

The EU is also providing funding to develop blockchain and other novel technologies, something along the lines of $177B. That's a huge start.  It's not everything but it's a start. So, if you are in Europe and your firm is fighting blockchain, you need to fight harder.  If you are in the US and you are fighting blockchain, you might have already lost. 

You are very naive and I hope you don't get stranded in life by your way of thinking because between the two of us, it's you who refuse to understand the technology. 

Also Optimus Prime and the rest of Autobots would have already been living in the blockchain and using NFTs only based on the fact that it would have been the most secure system they can use to protect humans against themselves. 

1 hour ago, vesuvius said:

if i was quoting either one of those things i would have quoted you. also how much time have you spent typing paragraphs for this thread, just curious

i have no idea. wild guess is 30 minutes. it would have been longer had i not read that article on verge prior to the commenter posting it. 

i type fast and since i know a bit about blockchain, and crypto, i don't need to research. 

8 hours ago, Dont mind me said:

I think you live outside of rules and regulations of many countries, which is fine for you but don't advertise that to other and especially young people. Also, I work for a company who not only lobbied against the use of Blockchain, but also made sure it won't be until the crypto designers find a way for government regulators to audit them and they refused by the way. Claimed it infringes on their rights. If you don't understand how the corporate world works, then no amount of messages will help you. 

And also, every metal/gold gets to be sold against value that is determined on the stocks. If the value drops, so does the retail price in the shop. It basic Marco economics. 

A smart contract does not necessarily constitute a valid binding agreement at law. And I would never advise my clients to use anyone of them, due to the fact they are unreliable and not protected in the International and European Laws. And based primarily on precedents which makes lawyers like me have a field day with them, because no judge will uphold them against actual laws. 

i think you live outside the rules and regulations of many countries too, which is fine for you but don't advertise your beliefs that to others and especially young people who holds the power to make progress and affect changes that will protect their rights and interests. 

this i know for sure. those who are really concerned about positive change will provide balanced perspective and will encourage others research and help in the research itself. you pasted an article based on a research that they themselves admitted to be bias. i mean...

if you work for a company who lobbies against the use of Blockchain, it gives you a bias perspective which explains why you refuse to acknowledge even its potential, never mind its actuality. 

also... lobbying against the use of a technology you don't understand says a lot. 

this reminds me how Thomas Edison was ridiculed when he first invented the light bulb. It was called " unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men."

Same with the Wright Brothers when they invented the plane. A French general said "Airplanes are interesting scientific toys, but they are of no military value."

Moral lesson: even the brightest of humanity can mistake a technology. we should never ever judge something without fully understanding it. had it been for a few who invested in the Wright Brothers, it would still take me months to see the beautiful sights Europe and Asia has to offer. 

also, no. not every metal/gold that is sold in the US for investment is determined against the stock. that's basic investment. 

A smart contract does constitute a valid binding agreement. that's why fortune 500 companies are starting to use it. it is good that you don't advise the use of it to any of your clients because you don't understand what it is. 

international law honors contracts. and you statement that no judge will uphold them is pretty definitive and infinite. that's not lawyering. that's arrogance. 

i'll say, we shall see when someone actually takes a smart contract to court. 

1 hour ago, Dont mind me said:

Listen I think you are missing everyone point here. So let me break down for you and FYI, I am a corporate lawyer specialised in compliance.

1) Proof of ownership means nothing in international laws if they don't fall under copyrights or intellectual property. For that you have to be an entity and register your goods as your product, being a token or blockchain is not sufficient. If someone buys your goods, the consumer is then protected under the laws of where that entity is located. But if you buy and sell nft in crypto world, this can and will be disputed if you an individual. It is like selling painting that have no origin papers on the black market. And that is what this is, black market, but only digital. 

2) Majority of the companies in the world have to follow due diligence protocols when they sell something to the public, however with NFTS you can't, again because it sold via Individuals. So how can the consumer be protected from fraud and false advertisement if they are is no check?  It can't, atleast not while this remains digital and has no guardrails to do QA on the products that are online. You could for argument sake ask the sellers to declare that they will reimburse any money if the product is faulty, but then the another question comes up. Who enforces the rules? 

3) Your argument about gold investment show me that you don't follow stocks. There is an entire bank compliance process dedicated to making sure they those products don't falter and protect the buyers and sellers in each country.

3) There are many implications when it comes to environmental part, maybe they indeed don't use Ethereum, however who checks them? There is no check and balance at the moment and that is because the government/banks haven't set any guardrails for companies using NFT and for those who created NFT. And this is a major concern. Hence why everyone is warning you and others don't do it until there are laws put in place to protect the consumer.

I seriously hope you understand a little bit now. 

 

Hi lawyer. 

1) the way you used token or blockchain in your explanation clearly proves you don't understand what a blockchain or nft is. but i'll indulge you. first, there have been legal precedents where ownership has been proven without any legal registration. second, the very purpose of the blockchain is to establish a decentralized global system. an immutable, absolute digital ledger. it is not the black market. it aims to be the mainstream global market. it isn't there yet, but we need to start somewhere, right? there are a lot of laws, global cooperation, international systems that need to be improved and established in order to truly fulfill the potential of the technology but that is true in any technology or new process. 

i am not surprised that the legal system hasn't understood the concept yet. can it be contested? yes. anyone has the freedom to contest. but the very nature of a smart contract, which by the way is already being used by hundreds of fortune 500 companies, will make any complain and claims very easy to resolve. 

2) NFT is not the product. it is the proof of ownership. the blockchain is not the be all and end all solution to the faulty economic and trade problem. it aims to make it better. it does not render the judicial system useless, it aims to help the judicial system. let us assume, you have a purse which you made. you claim that it is unique and you didn't make another. you sell it to someone in iceland. and then sell it to someone in zimbabwe. how will these two customers know you actually made two and not one and how will they make you liable? when the transaction is used in the blockchain, first of all, it will be visible to the world that you actually made two purses. if, for some reason, that is missed and those customers want to sue you, the proof is in the blockchain because blockchain is visible and decentralized.does it mean they don't need to sue you or file a complaint? no. they do need to take you to court or whatever agency but the proof that the blockchain has will make resolutions easier and actually avoid "false advertising". this just one of the many ways the blockchain and NFTs will help make things better.

3) your response to my gold example proves you don't know precious metals investments. stocks in "gold companies" isn't the only way to invest in gold. and there have been many stocks that turned out to be scams. no system is perfect. also, many people still "trash talk" many types of investments like gold.  

4) blockchain creators are actual companies. again, blockchain is where smart contracts are executed. smart contract is what is used by nft. they are registered. they have employees, they raise funding, etc. Hence, they are subjected to the regulations and laws any company in a country is in. If HYBE (obviously a registered company in Korea and US) claims they will partner with Dunamu (also a company), they may be legally liable if they are lying. 

exchanges selling nfts are also companies. Coinbase (they will be entering the space soon) is even a public company. 

Mining or staking locations are also visible and are registered companies. Biden just passed a law taxing crypto and all entities involved in its creation and all industries using it. yup, it is regulated and recognized. 

I seriously hope you understand a little bit now. 

9 hours ago, abra said:

NFTs offer no legal protection, and in most cases where they have been implemented they have not reduced or lessened environmental impacts

It is currently mostly used for high risk investment where many schemes seem outright fraudulent

it does offer legal protection because it is the title, a proof of ownership that may be executed in the blockchain. the blockchain is immutable. unlike traditional contracts that may be contested and/or reinterpreted, NFT contracts are executed in the blockchain which is trustless meaning it looks for a set of conditions that needs to be met before ownership is established. 

the high risk investment you are talking about is cryptocurrency. cryptocurrency is different from NFTs. NFTs is not the art. 

the "schemes", by your admission, "seems" fraudulent. operative word, seems. you are not sure. and any investment may be fraudulent. take for example, gold investment. it has been around for decades but many still claim it is a fraudulent investment. 

5 hours ago, vesuvius said:

To assume that simply "trying to be more environmentally-friendly" is enough to reverse the damage done to an already dying planet is a pretty large leap. I don't care how cool crypto might seem or how innovative it is, but very rarely has any tech/money innovation not seriously harmed the planet. Just because one or two companies actually care about the earth means nothing about the hundreds and thousands of greedy rich businesses that have already ruined it. We can't just try to reduce our environmental impact, we need to actively change the way we approach business and the environment.

personal note: one of my own issues with nfts is the fact that you can just make a literal copy of what someone else paid (potentially millions) for. who knows what they'll do in the hands of kpop fans

i have absolutely on idea what you are talking about. 

are you quoting me or the article? cryptocurrency isn't cool. it's a complicated concept, irritating to understand and way ahead of its time. if that is your definition of cool, then ok. 

cryptocurrency IS A WAY TO ACTIVELY CHANGE THE WAY WE APPROACH BUSINESS. That is literally the reason it was created (together with the blockchain). Blockchain and crypto are there to fight inflation, scrupulous business practices, disempower large companies, etc. 

as per your personal note... for the nth time, NFT is NOT the art. is the proof of ownership. 

any art may be copied. The Monalisa may be copied and recreated. a song may be recreated. Tom Cruise's face was literally put in someone else's body and made to act out things he never actually did. what NFT offers is the protection against the copies. you can make copies but you can't make money of it. ART that has been tokenized will be tracked and traced forever. since the blockchain is immutable, it is absolute. if someone tries to make money of an art he/she/they have no rights on, then they can be held liable. and when the world starts fully adopting the blockchain, the easier it will become to hold people liable. 

example: if you created a beat and you tokenized that beat . 10 years down the road, if someone uses that beat in a new song, you can claim your share. and because it is in the blockhain, every single time that song that uses your beat makes money, you will automatically get the revenue. no need to employ accountants, lawyers, etc. 

another example: independent musicians. when their songs are used in movies or tv shows or streamed. they rely on the production company financial report to determine how much they should get paid. same with the streaming company. if the song is tokenized, every single stream of the song, every single use of the song will be traced and payment is transmitted to the musician automatically. no need for accounting firms, lawyers, etc. the blockhain will do it for you. 

On 11/12/2021 at 3:08 AM, abra said:

Yes the kpop industry* is absolutely horrible for the environment, that's not news.

And in short yes, NFTs are harmful too. Other companies are not "behind". NFTs provide very little added value if any. It's a way for the company to make more money, that's it.

* goes for all music industries based on mass-buying physical albums, kpop and jpop idols are the worst

NFTs will eventually replace many of the environmental hazards current "products" come with. so, in short, NFT aims to lessen the environmental impact of entertainment and art. 

On 11/12/2021 at 3:43 AM, Yukihime said:

So because the whole industry is awful for the environment doing another harmful thing on top makes it okay ? Yes yes the flawless logic of 2 wrongs make a right. 

Why do we always have to find excuses for everything ? 

If we use that logic then let's do nothing since this and that are also bad so doing more isn't so bad isn't it ? 

Let's face it, this is something whose only positive side is the money this will bring to said companies.

 

you missed the point. the current practices are harmful because they use fossil fuels to produce their products. NFT won't replace those products but it will replace other processes that make selling and buying those products harmful. NFT is not THE ART. it is the title, proof of ownership. 

On 11/12/2021 at 4:16 AM, deobizone said:

This means jack shit to me. I heard it's bad for environment but I dunno details. The biggest issue with nft for me is that it's a fking scam. There are ok things about it like digital artists selling their work or something but that's a massive minority now. Like hybe, sm, etc doing this to sell... Photocards? They're fking scamming yall but fans of their group run to the defense of these scams. Have fun spending your money on nothing, only paying rich companies more. Ffs

i have no idea why you are forming opinions on things you "dunno details" about. you called nft a scam but admitted you don't know the details. also, you admitted that it is an advantage to digital artists but since it's a minority, let's not do it? so, let's not support those artists because they are a minority? are you listening to what you are saying?

On 11/12/2021 at 5:45 AM, Josaline said:

Just because other companies are doing it or something is popular doesn't make it a good thing. NF is a bad thing, period. Sometimes I get secondhand embarrassment when I see ARMYs trying to defend HYBE's bullshit.

NFT is not bad, period. 

On 11/12/2021 at 6:40 AM, vesuvius said:

a company that is already largely feeding into environmental destruction going into a business that literally produces tons and tons of waste and pollution for made up money.......... stop accepting every business practice ur faves become a part of, like how did we let this happen

yes, NFT aims to lessen the environmental impact of the products + it offers unparalleled protection to artists or owners of art products. 

On 11/13/2021 at 1:25 AM, abra said:

please tell me more then

On 11/13/2021 at 7:00 AM, pinkpanda_spirit said:

share your knowledge with us please

On 11/13/2021 at 2:45 PM, Dont mind me said:

Sorry for the late response, got busy. 

Anyways, here is the link:

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/15/22328203/nft-cryptoart-ethereum-blockchain-climate-change

There is an environmental impact and it would be naive to ignore it and make it seem like the experts are just moaning. Also, it is scam and takes advantage of young fans.

As i have guessed, this research is largely focused one thing. let's dissect it. Everything bolded and italicized is a quote from the article:

"Since the crypto art craze is pretty new, none of the data that’s out there so far has been reviewed by outside experts. And Akten admits in a blog about his methodology that the analysis was intentionally “one-sided.”"

Right off the bat, they already admitted that the research is one-sided. i could, in fact, argue that there is no point in discussing an analysis that's one-sided. it's unfair, uneducated, and biased. they created analyzed something to support their own belief. that is not scientific at all. in fact, it is total opposite of scientific. but, for the sake of this discussion, i'll indulge you. 

"But here’s why there’s probably a hell of a lot of greenhouse gas emissions tied to NFTs:"

read closely. they said "probably". there is no certainty. 

"they’re largely bought and sold in marketplaces like Nifty Gateway and SuperRare that use the cryptocurrency Ethereum. Ethereum, like most major cryptocurrencies, is built on a system called “proof of work” that is incredibly energy hungry."

The writer focused on one blockchain, Ethereum. in the video i linked on top, the vlogger already explained. there are MANY DIFFERENT BLOCKCHAINS. Ethereum is just one of them. Ethereum uses a system called proof of work. but (1) Ethereum is moving to proof of stake which is not energy hungry and (2) HYBE, SM entertainment are not partnering wit Ethereum. They are partnering with Dunamu which uses Proof Of Stake. 

For you to understand the difference between Proof of Stake and Proof of Work, watch the video. 

There’s a fee associated with making a transaction on Ethereum — and, ironically, that fee is called “gas.” To keep financial records secure, the system forces people to solve complex puzzles using energy-guzzling machines.

as the article explained. it is the computers (of course computers require energy to run) that's requires energy. now, stop and think about it. there are 2 types of energy sources: fossil fuels (this is what we have all be using for the longest time) and renewable energy (solar, hydro, nuclear, etc). 

if the computers used to mine or stake cryptocurrencies used to pay for NFTs use renewable energy, then it is not harmful to the environment. 

NFTs aim to get rid of many layers of the entertainment industry that are actually harmful to the environment. it is also not ONLY used for KPOP merchandise. it is used for art in general.  it protects the artists and it protects art owners. 

now, i know that there are some follow up questions:

- why can't we just use our money (a.k.a. fiat currency) to pay for NFTs, why use cryptocurrencies? without cryptos, then we don't need those computers powering up. 

- if NFT is not the art, what is it? why do we need it?

i wrote a long response. i request that you watch her video answering those questions. if there are things you still don't understand, you can ask her or leave a comment here and i'll try my best to answer it. 

I also request that we all remain calm. let's use this chance to learn. even if, at the end, we still don't like NFTs, at the very least we know what we are talking about instead of just going with the mob. 

you can always disagree without throwing insults, calling people names. 

On 7/20/2020 at 12:41 PM, MinnieMax said:

they are known not for that so where we go from here

freakin' hell. this made me laugh. sorry, i just had the time to go back to my old posts. 

YG positions themselves as the agency with artists among idols. so... yeah. according to them, that is what they stand for. 

i don't know the answer to your question. LOL

1 hour ago, Dont mind me said:

Yeah but do other entertainment companies use crypto currency in order to do business? I don’t think so and this is where HYBE is messing up. The energy and environmental impact of crypto banking has already been scientifically proven to be negative. So in short, yes NFT are harmful. 

would you mind sharing that study? 

before you do, just want to clarify that Bitcoin is not the only crypto out there. NFTs won't use Bitcoin. 

Hi! am a kpop veteran and a newbie STAYC fan 

i became a fan of STAYC after watching this reaction so i thought i'd share

This is pretty helpful to me. 

Sorry but you need to watch. no cliff notes version 

Major point that I like

• If NFT harms the environment, so does every song, movie, any work of art, and just about anything we consume harm it even more. 

For those who are still still confused about this BTS NFT issue, this is a great video. 

Let's educate ourselves and shut down the haters

"BTS should be defined, not just by their talent and achievements, but perhaps more importantly, by their character."

Many consider Kim Taehyung, a.k.a. V, as one of the most popular members of BTS. He recognized for his good looks. He is known for being friendly. But there is little recognition to the depth of V's artistry. His efforts to keep BTS together also go unnoticed. Let's come together and make the world realize just how special Kim Taehyung really is as a BTS member, and independent artist, and as a person.

HOT DAAAAAMMMMNNNN. i want to do somersaults! 

BTS!!! ARMY!!!!

they deserve more but let's not take away from the celebration

20 minutes ago, Augusto said:

Jimin's owning it... 

https://www.nme.com/reviews/bts-be-deluxe-edition-review-2821452

y'all think she will join Big Hit or subsidiary?

I honestly think Big Hit + CL would be a perfect combination

17 minutes ago, satoori said:

people were saying bts said they only wanted to do one or two

that would good for my bank account.

major point:

Saying an artist should be supported because of their gender is an insult to the the artist. It is like saying their art can't stand for itself that you have to pull the gender card.