'Jack Dorsey's First Tweet' NFT Went on Sale for $48M. It Ended With a Top Bid of Just $280:
A non-fungible token (NFT) of Twitter founder Jack Dorsey's first-ever tweet could sell for just under $280. The current owner of the NFT listed it for $48 million last week.
Iranian-born crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi purchased the NFT for $2.9 million in March 2021. Last Thursday, he announced on Twitter that he wished to sell the NFT, and pledged 50% of its proceeds (which he thought would exceed $25 million) to charity. The auction closed Wednesday, with just seven total offers ranging from 0.09 ETH ($277 at current prices) to 0.0019 ETH (almost $6).
"The deadline I set was over, but if I get a good offer, I might accept it, I might never sell it," Estavi told CoinDesk via a WhatsApp message on Wednesday.
Estavi has two days to accept the bid, or it will expire.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @09:56AM (1 child)
Bwaaahaaahaahahaahaha
*breathes in*
Haaaahaahaaahahhhahaahaaaaahaaa
Oh boy, I don't typically do schadenfreude, but I make an exception for this.
This could only get better if that crypto bro would actually go hungry because of his dumb 'investment', but alas...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 20 2022, @02:55AM
Have you ever seen Pawn Stars.
Seller: I paid 2K for this. I will sell it to you for $25K
Rick: I'll give you five dollars
Someone got pawned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday April 19 2022, @10:10AM (2 children)
If the NFT is a con to part rich, greedy fools from their money, it's brilliant. The ownership class couldn't say no to an appeal to their core "values", LOL. But now, maybe no offer of millions is a sign that the con has had its run.
Too bad about the charity. Might have done better to skip the NFT, and donate that original $2.9 million to it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Tuesday April 19 2022, @10:54AM
Still $280 is overpaying for it by at least $280. That said if this is now some kind of token (fungi or not) to pass around so you can make or give to charity then as noted couldn't they just have done that before even without said token?
That he believed that his $2.9M "investment" was now worth $48M says I guess more about him then anything (and that he was going to donate $25M out of that imaginary value). That said he is a "crypto entrepreneur" (whatever that entails) so it probably wasn't real or tangible to him anyway. But he clearly overestimated the value, or whatever perceived value others believe it has, of his token. Odd that they wanted to pay in ETH and not bitcoins.
I guess it's less impressive when the crypto-entreprenur donates $140 dollars (half of its imaginary value). I guess he might as well hang on to it. Perhaps it will appreciate in value with age ... (or be totally forgotten).
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 19 2022, @12:32PM
Sadly, it's also a con to part poor, greedy fools from their money.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @10:32AM (5 children)
This is why I am holding on to the "aristarchus" username, banned, exiled, spam-modded, whatever, because some day, it will be a legend in the history of free speech on internet, and as a NFT, it will be priceless, and certainly worth at least ₯280. Of course, I may never sell it, and only use it to remind janrinok what a censorious ass he has been. Which is the "more priceless"? Hard to tell!
Oh, signed,
aristarchus tm@ ©, All rights reserved, but lefts, mostly. 🄯 Don't no body be sockpuppeting the aristarchus, all!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @10:48AM
some day.
but not today.
run away.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @12:16PM
I'm going to post an NFT for "aristarchus." Opening bid will be $280.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:09PM
2 Questions you should ask yourself:
Do you like the person that you have become?
Do you ever wonder why you never had any real friends?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @02:48PM
I bid $0.02
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday April 20 2022, @09:15AM
My name is Frosty Piss, both here and at /.
I own you.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @10:54AM (1 child)
when he sees the final bid.
Priceless.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 19 2022, @01:57PM
There is a zero percent chance the first buy wasn't a wash trade.
Because you don't get to $29 million purchase price for something without some kind of bidding war. Or fraud. This one was fraud.
He lost nothing but the minting and transaction fees.
(Score: 5, Funny) by r_a_trip on Tuesday April 19 2022, @11:42AM
So now we know what NFT means... No Future Trade.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 19 2022, @02:05PM (2 children)
Aren't these ranges supposed to go from low-to-high usually? It's an auction, after all, not some kind of undercutting contest.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:59PM (1 child)
Well, there are actually auctions that go from high to low. [wikipedia.org] Though I doubt that NFTs are auctioned that way.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Tuesday April 19 2022, @08:18PM
During the housing slump (remember those days?) a lot of listings seemed like unintentional Dutch auctions. They'd take $10k off every other month or so, then I guess they'd finally get an offer.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @02:18PM (2 children)
is the 2.9m something he gets to offset on taxes in US?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @03:34PM (1 child)
He still lost $2.9m, and supposing he can gain some remission off his taxes, he would still have been poorer by $2m. Not something one would do voluntarily.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:59PM
Silly me assumed, by reading TFS, that he actually paid $2.9m. He actually paid 1630.6 ETH, whatever the fuck that is.
That may change a calculation, depending on whether the IRS assigns value to the "NFT", or ETH for that matter, if nothing turns to cash in a taxable environment.
According to the original article, Dorsey skirted the issue too. He converted the ETH into another form of Internet Fun Bucks and gave those to a charity. That charity probably directly went about turning those to cash and sent Dorsey a gift acknowledgement valuing the gift according to the proceeds in dollars.
Sounds like the one winner in this transaction would be Dorsey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @02:34PM
sad world if 7 belleons cannot buy anything better then a bit of twitter :(
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday April 19 2022, @04:54PM (6 children)
If they defined NFTs as a way to transfer ownership of copyright for the associated works and to certify ownership of the copyright, then I could understand some kind of value being attached. In this case though, who'd pay that even for the right to reproduce that tweet? Do tweets even have a copyright? They get reproduced in the media all the time.
error count exceeds 100; stopping compilation
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:38PM (3 children)
Somebody, somewhere, owns something that they think is valuable. I have the token to prove that I don't own the possibly valuable item. If I actually owned the potentially valuable item, I would have no use for this silly token.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:05PM
From another story on this [cbsnews.com]:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @07:19PM (1 child)
*cough* Just another brick in the Wall
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @11:57PM
> *cough* Just another brick in the Wall
Ahem: ...just another prick with no Wall
ftfy
(Score: 3, Informative) by iWantToKeepAnon on Tuesday April 19 2022, @05:58PM
The right to web scrape content was just upheld in a us federal court, so yeah can't we all own this tweet? NFTttththth.
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:44PM
https://copyrightalliance.org/education/qa-headlines/tweet-protected-copyright/ [copyrightalliance.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FuzzyTheBear on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:01PM (3 children)
I'd rather buy a small picasso for that kind of money .. at least it has real value.
(Score: 2) by FuzzyTheBear on Tuesday April 19 2022, @06:04PM (2 children)
Sorry 48 millions .. silly me OK .. so i'd rather buy a Picasso collection :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 20 2022, @08:33AM (1 child)
Or, buy a few cans of paint.
And a cat.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday April 20 2022, @11:33AM
Ah, you're a Jackson Pollock fan.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.