NFTs were a vehicle to launder gains from cryptocurrency.
dude probably took the loss as a write off and gained millions in clean liquid cash.
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
610 points (96.9% liked)
memes
20572 readers
1480 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When I first learned about NFTs I figured I was simply too stupid to understand it. There was simply no way it was as dumb as it sounded.
Turns out I was right, it was way, way dumber than it sounded.
Art is money laundering for the rich.
It all make sense now, doesn't it?
Throw back to Banksy setting a trap in 2006, and springing it 12 years later:
"We’ve been Banksy-ed," Alex Branczik, Sotheby’s head of European Contemporary art said in a press conference after the incident. “I’ll be quite honest, we have not experienced this situation in the past, where a painting is spontaneously shredded upon achieving a record for the artist.”
Now that... that's fuckin' art right there.
I love the rest of the article entirely missing the point of Banksy doing that being a surprise.
There, you idiots, frame that image.
They keep referring to Banksy as "he." We don't know if Banksy is male or female though, correct?
~~As far as I know that's correct, nobody knows who Bansky actually is.~~
... Is what I was going to say.
What astoundingly serendipitous timing.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/
TL:DR
First posted on the 13th, picked up by other media roughly 6 hours ago, Reuters released a special investigative report, and they believe Bansky is:
... are you sure? ...
Robert Del Naja, the frontman of Massive Attack.
Small correction:
Spoiler
They actually go on, in that Reuters article, to say it isn't Del Naja, but instead David Jones. The Del Naja bit is kind of a red herring. David Jones, formerly Robin Gunningham, as long suspected. The Wikipedia page has already been updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy
I'm going to go with 'Aha! I did an intentional misdirect!'
... yep. Mhm.
(cough)
derp
The article was fun to read, so I fully accept that explanation! ;P
And Love Is In The Bin became more valuable than Girl With Balloon at a subsequent auction, too, by a factor of 18x.
This fake art for sure, and so much that people start to think monetary value is what is important in art.
There was an experiment where someone set up a high class shoe store in a nice location. They took cheap shoes from discount stores and marked them way up and put them on some nice display racks. People bought them.
Expensive = good...to some people.
Genius! When they come back to complain about the craftsmanship or return them, the place will have never existed.
Checkmate, bourgeoise. XD
load more comments
(3 replies)
I literally emailed a bunch of people doing wildlife conservation and begged them "This is a bubble. Please sell cheesey lion photo NFTs for money. This won't last."
It went the way it usually goes if anything is used exclusively as a subject of speculation. NFTs were meant to represent things, but people inscribed "value" in the representation instead. As if the housing market suddenly exploded the day someone invented writing its owner on a piece of paper.
There are lots of legitimate but boring uses of NFTs, just not the kind that make the news like pictures of monkeys.
Name one... 😅
No there isn't. There's lots of ways you can shoehorn NFTs in, but it's always a poor fit. People always try and claim that NFTs will solve some sort of problem that is already solved with existing technology.
There is no problem NFTs can solve that can't also be implemented much more cheaply and effectively with an SQL database from the 90s.
load more comments
(13 replies)
I actually had this whole period where i would be doing something and I'd think to myself "Surely i misunderstand NFTs" then I'd stop what i was doing and check.
I mean, look at the bright side. Someone scammed Logan Paul out of $635,000.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone at the top of the scam pyramid paid influencers to "buy" NFTs to try and kick off sales.
Now that you mention it, I better put on some welding equipment before looking at that side.
Tap if you don't get it
To avoid eye damage from how extremely bright it is
Today it’s ON SALE for $150. In reality it’s worthless.
He bought it for the headline.
... or because he needed to sink a $600k investment loss for tax purposes
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hahaha remember when they said nfts were going to be valuable because the artists involved were so innovative and cool? Then now the next GPU-selling trend is to rip off artists.
I first heard about NFTs and I thought "wait...so you don't have any control over who sees it or any copyright of it...you're only listed as the owner." then when those pictures of the monkeys with glasses and hats started being sold for millions I thought, "oh so this is a game of hot potato...last person who has it loses"
Future US Senator, folks! Truly a country of serious people.
ETA: $155 is still comically high.
Nice. I love seeing rich cunts making poor choices.
At least someone is happy with the USA then.
how about this take? logan spent 635K on a publicity stunt and 5 years later you muppets are stilll tweeting about it, pretty good return id say
And it had no discernible effect on his life.
Correction: today it's worthless and in 2021 it was worth nothing.
Is it really worth $155, tho? Did someone actually buy it for that much? Or is it actually worth nothing since nobody is willing to buy it? 🤔
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›