Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs

Folding Ideas' new (2 hour podcast-ish) video "The Problem With NFTs" is a really good critique of cryptocurrency: [VIDEO] Covers pretty much every thought I've ever had regarding centralization, privacy issues, proof of work and proof of stake both rewarding the rich, economic incentives in speculative markets, NFT hucksterism — but with detailed research and examples of each. Some of the NFT security stuff is jaw-droppingly bad.

On this note. This recent video is probably the most detailed and incisive critique of cryptocurrency and NFTs that I've seen: [VIDEO] It not only covers the technical limitations, but also the ideological flaws.

These critics have been around for a while. Dan Olson started researching this video long before this recent crash. You should watch it. [VIDEO]

I think the technical jargon (a mix of crypto, distributed systems, and finance) leads people to believe that what's going on in crypto is smarter than it is. It's what P.T. Barnum might have called "flim flam"; ~ "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." Relevant discussion in the "Line Goes Up" Youtube video that's very good but extremely long (2h!) [VIDEO]

[VIDEO] Description: Written and performed by Dan Olson Crowdfunding: [LINK] Twitter: [LINK] 00:00:00 Preface 00:01:12 0. In 2008 The Economy Collapsed 00:07:09 1. Bitcoin 00:18:18 2. Ethereum 00:24:34 3. The Machine 00:39:07 4. NFTs Exist To Get You To Buy Crypto 00:57:54 5. The Unbearable Cringe Of Crypto 01:11:46 6. A Self-Organizing High Control Group 01:16:57 7. Crypto Reality 01:25:36 8. There Is No Privacy On The Chain 01:32:52 9. If This "Looks Like Scam" Then Every NFT Room I'm In Looks Like Scam LOL 01:38:29 10. Play To Earn Exists To Get You To Buy Crypto 01:46:39 11. We're All Gonna Make It And By "We" I Mean "Us" Not You 01:56:08 12. DAOs Exist To Get You To Buy Crypto 02:13:21 13. I Know It's Rigged, But It's The Only Game In Town

I’d say ‘recommendation’ not ‘ad’ :) This was the related section [VIDEO] that lead me down the rabbit hole of watching the whole thing I have no connection other than stumbling across it after seeing this story today and thought the critique tied in well.

Web3 has already changed the world. Not by much, but the statement doesn't make promises as to how much it has to in order to qualify for "changing the world". > it’s clear that Web3 is just a new spin on the same blockchain tech that we’ve been discussing for the last decade. Web3 is everything blockchain. Queue the astronaut holding a gun "always has been" meme. Its adopted a new label, but the core commerce frameworks (Bitcoin, ETH) and the applications of those frameworks (NFT, DeFi, .eth, etc) are inextricable, technically and philosophically. I mean, really, Web3 sucks, but this article is clearly written by a 60 year old who has been slowly following its developments through Bloomberg articles. The clearest signal that someone hasn't put much critical thinking at all into why Web3 is bad, is prioritizing a complaint about the environmental impact, because that is a problem, but one the community will fix. Its an argument about implementation, not philosophy. > But unless you’re trying to create a cryptocurrency, buy drugs or blackmail a company using ransomware there aren’t really any sensible use cases for a blockchain As bearish as I am on most Web3 technologies; the one that I feel does have use-cases are the core currencies. Look, if you believe the only use-cases for crypto are illegal, and obviously you aren't buying anything illegal with it (I'd bet this guy even drives the speed limit), then you just by-definition outed yourself as being critically misinformed.

[VIDEO] A rant over two hours long about the endless grift and unfettered scamming that is crypto. Two hours , and it doesn’t even cover all of it.

They pretty much nailed it in the last paragraph... > Writing in the New York Times Adrian Chen noted as far back as 2013 that Bitcoin is built on a weird mix of speculative greed bolstered by a utopian cyberlibertarian ideology and likened it to a digital gold rush. Indeed, hyperbole continues to characterise all aspects of the crypto world. Crypto messaging does not appear to be directed at the rational or sensible. Adrian Chen's article... [LINK] Dan Olson's now epic "Line Goes Up" [VIDEO] ... a masterful takedown of crypotcurrency and NFT's, it also demonstrates what a shit-show this has all become. Much MUCH worse than in Chen's 2013 article.

[VIDEO] Almost entirely scams, even the "real" use cases are just desperate attempts to find a novel use case and become the next big thing. Vitalik Buterin and Chris Dixon are driven much more by Libertarian ideology than actual technical advancements.

Not sure why an entire page is needed solely to embed the Line Goes Up video. Here's a direct link to it on YouTube: [VIDEO]

I strongly recommend you to actually read some Marx, it might get you out of the Web3 sham, but here's a good economic analysis of cryptocurrencies if you haven't seen it yet (judging from your username you need to see it) [VIDEO] .

I've watched the video as well and wholeheartedly agree! His 'Line Goes Up' documentary about crypto is also exceptional; very critical but in educated and actually nuanced ways ( [VIDEO] ).

Folding Ideas has a very good documentary on NFTs, and many of the problems faced by cryptocurrency [1]. [1] [VIDEO]

Not my favorite video from Dan Olson but still enjoyable. I highly recommend his video about NFTs, Line Goes Up: [VIDEO] So much time, energy, and resources wasted on this stuff when we have such bigger issues to solve as a collective.

After watching Folding Ideas' video on crypto and NFT (1) I am less convinced that is decentralised. It goes over how crypto ended up becoming the very thing it swore to destroy (banks and oligopolies). Also anyone with the means can still do a 51% attack if they wanted. (1) [VIDEO]

> […] last year's video on NFTs. * [VIDEO] * [LINK] See also the 2020 video that starts out on Flat Earth, a belief that is waining… because people are going to Qanon: * [LINK]

> That's why I think the cryptobro angle is relevant to the story That's an interesting perspective, and reminds me a bit of the "libertarian paradise" at the end of [LINK] . But the fact that it's framed more as a dunk than as genuine sympathy for those affected reminds me of other anti-crypto reporting like "Line Go Up" ( [VIDEO] ). Which makes it really hard to recommend it as a way to break people out. Given a choice between reporting which mocks crypto victims and reporting which might actually help get people away from the rigged casino, I'd prefer to see articles aiming for the latter.

> However, as AI experts hypothesize about when, and if, AI will disrupt white-collar work, the technology thus far has made only a small splash in professional services. [...] Any returns the economy is seeing are largely confined to the tech industry, suggesting that AI disruption has been limited in the real economy. There's one quote from the Dan Olson's "Line Goes Up" video essay [0] that's been rattling around in my head for a while now. (Predictably from 2022, if that was not obvious) > [...] it outlines just how disconnected from reality the people actually building cryptocurrencies really are. They don’t understand anything about the ecosystems they’re trying to disrupt, [...] and assume that because they understand one very complicated thing: programming with cryptography; that all other complicated things must be lesser in complexity and naturally lower in the hierarchy of reality. Nails easily driven by the hammer that they have created. Specifically him calling the attitude the "technofetishistic egotism of assuming that programmers are uniquely suited to solve society’s problems" has stuck with me. I don't think AI developers are good judges of what a lawyer does in this case, so I'd rather be skeptical. I'm not saying that LLM tools AREN'T useful to lawyers or are capable of doing lawyer-like things... I'm just willing to humbly assume that I do not know what makes a good lawyer. [0] [VIDEO] (timestamped to quote)

> > I do think they're worried about what it'll do to their prestige > Why must this always be the argument? It was the same with cryptocurrencies and NFTs, there is a specific type of proponent who always accuses critics of secretly being pro the technology but publicly against it due to some ulterior motive. Most people aren’t selfish lying rat bastards who think like that. Meanwhile, the prestige to be gained/lost from supporting/doubting the big mainstream thing is immense, and the incentives are actually in completely the opposite direction... Anyway, on that topic The Line Goes Up video covers the arguments about prestige far more extensively and far more elaborately than I ever could: [VIDEO] But it's very much not the doubters who are worrying about prestige in crypto and NFTs, and probably not with AI either.