Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Technology

Somebody Paid $1.3 Million for a Picture of a Rock (cnbc.com) 82

Clip art of a rock just sold for 400 ether, or about $1.3 million, late Monday afternoon. The transaction marks the latest sale of EtherRock, a brand of crypto collectible that's been around since 2017 -- making it one of the oldest non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on the block. From a report: EtherRock is, as the name implies, a JPEG of a cartoon rock, built and sold on the ethereum blockchain. There are only 100 out there, and that scarcity is part of what's driving up its value. So, what are these rock pics good for? According to the EtherRock website, "these virtual rocks serve NO PURPOSE beyond being able to be brought and sold, and giving you a strong sense of pride in being an owner of 1 of the only 100 rocks in the game :)" Following this latest sale, the new price floor for an EtherRock NFT has been raised to $1.02 million. Two days ago, the cheapest rock went for $305,294. Two weeks ago, it was $97,716.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Somebody Paid $1.3 Million for a Picture of a Rock

Comments Filter:
  • by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @02:24PM (#61725703) Journal

    I'm feeling an irresistible desire of owning one! Wait. No. It's gone.

  • Money Laundering! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrmaster ( 535266 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @02:27PM (#61725715) Homepage
    I think a lot of these crazy NFT sales are just another form of money laundering.
    • Close but not exactly. I would guess NFT investors and crypto sites colluding to spread PR.

      You may have seen a Slashdot story a few weeks ago about a common Nintendo Mario game going for over 1 million dollars. Just about every tech/game/nerd site reported on it. Turns out the whole operation was likely to be a plant by the company who grades the games.

    • Could be laundering. I tend to think it's just an attempt to monetize hype.

      There are only 100 out there, and that scarcity is part of what's driving up its value.

      The "somebody" who spent $1.3M might be same person that has another 99 for sale.

    • I believe you're right.

      It's like with that guy (Larry Dean Harmon) who got busted for operating a Bitcoin laundering service [wsj.com]

    • You mean like what most of all cryptocurrency is used for?
    • People are just getting bored of poker, and now want to find a new channel in which to exploit game theory strategies for profit. You know all the famous movies about poker? One day there will be famous movies about day-trading NFTs.

  • ...and that shouldn't be the case. Tax the rich instead of letting them waste money on stupid crap like that (because it's money that'll eventually end up in tax havens of in the hand of mafias).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      We do tax the rich more than you. The top one percent of tax payers actually pay over 40 percent the income tax collected.

      • by shanen ( 462549 )

        Your numbers lie, but I bet the truth is that some rich bastard is paying you to post such gibberish.

        • Lies? Look it up, fact. Latest years are similar to this

          https://www.ntu.org/foundation... [ntu.org]

          • by shanen ( 462549 )

            NAK

          • by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @05:17PM (#61726325)

            The number is accurate but you're either using it to lie or are just misunderstanding the economics.

            The 1% also has 40% of the wealth, so they are not, in fact, taxed more than the rest. You can also look at it by effective tax rates, which are lower because of the bigger share of investment income, fuckery with untaxed benefits and other shenanigans.

            • by edis ( 266347 )

              Very proper turn. Effective tax rates for wealthiest being abysmal, which was well illustrated in recent reports for taken sample of most outstanding tycoons, the real issue is how disproportional is the distribution of wealth, comparing to the stats, offered above. Top 1% is of much higher wealth (read - control), than 40%, suggested by the net tax volume on display. For one, taxed income is no direct representation of wealth or control. OTOH, many of the operations of wealthiest are shifted out of taxatio

              • oh, so you want to tax based on what people own, and not income. That's wrong, some of us took trouble to save and not waste. Or maybe you're advocating raiding all pension and retirement funds?

                • by edis ( 266347 )

                  Not at all. Did not propose that, why wouldn't you merely follow what is being said.
                  Flaws were named.

            • Not misunderstanding at all, you seem to think you have claim to wealth they hold rather than income in a year. You're the one "misunderstanding economics."

      • by Celarnor ( 835542 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @03:02PM (#61725829)
        But they pay far less as a percentage of their wealth -- what we should actually be talking about.
        • why, because you're jealous? Hell, the top 25 percent are paying almost 90 percent the taxes, you're practically a freeloader on those making $87K or more, which isn't even that much income. Thought slashdotters had good IT jobs with more money than that...

          • It's not about jealousy. It's about a society that let's a gap widen between the very bottom and the very top. If those at the bottom of our society had reliable, affordable access to housing, food, childcare, healthcare, etc, a lot fewer people would be up-in-arms about the ultra rich and what they do with their money.

          • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            why, because you're jealous? Hell, the top 25 percent are paying almost 90 percent the taxes, you're practically a freeloader on those making $87K or more, which isn't even that much income. Thought slashdotters had good IT jobs with more money than that...

            The statistic you're missing is that the top 25% are holding more than 90% of the wealth and income.

            So yes, they should be paying more than 90% of the taxes because they're making most of the money. However, as a proportion of the income, the lowest 25% p

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        But since they get more than 50% of the income, they're getting a substantial discount on their taxes.

        • er no, it's an income tax and they're paying higher percent of income.

          Seems you're thinking people should be taxed on what they own, not income? Like raid the pension and retirement funds?

          • by sjames ( 1099 )

            Actually, the richer you get the more of your income magically becomes "capital gains", taxed at a lower rate.

            • No, the definition of what is "capital gains" is absolute and applies to everyone, nothing magic about it. You want some "capital gains" of your own? Then make smart investments.

              • by sjames ( 1099 )

                It's a different game when you make millions and have a high end accountant. Most of us couldn't even afford the accountant fees, but at the high end of income it's cheaper than the taxes.

                No need to believe me, ask Warren Buffett [cnn.com].

                • You are silly, having CPA do your state and fed taxes itemized is less than $300.

                  Unless you squish burgers or bag groceries you can have accountant do your taxes, though most of us do fine with $20 tax prep software which has guarantees.

                  • by sjames ( 1099 )

                    I said high end accountant. One that does a hell of a lot more than fill out 2 forms once a year.

                    Do click that link I gave you.

      • How much of that is in ROCKS?
    • by nagora ( 177841 )

      ...and that shouldn't be the case. Tax the rich instead of letting them waste money on stupid crap like that (because it's money that'll eventually end up in tax havens of in the hand of mafias).

      An interesting question is "what if the government started selling this shit?" and basically created a tax on stupid rich people.

      • by shanen ( 462549 )

        ...and that shouldn't be the case. Tax the rich instead of letting them waste money on stupid crap like that (because it's money that'll eventually end up in tax havens of in the hand of mafias).

        An interesting question is "what if the government started selling this shit?" and basically created a tax on stupid rich people.

        It's called gambling. But it also works for stupid poor people.

        • Actually ir is called lotto and works mainly on the poor.
          • by shanen ( 462549 )

            Yeah, especially that. At the time I made the comment I thought I should have said "legalized gambling", which does include tax revenues, but indirectly, whereas state lotteries are pure stupidity taxes. But poor people are more desperate to "buy" the illusion of hope.

  • What are the odds they're either the same people, or related to the people, currently manipulating the used video game market?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • the 70's (Score:5, Informative)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @02:34PM (#61725737) Homepage Journal

    In the 70's it only cost a few dollars and you got an actual rock.

    • I am old enough to remember, and I thought stupid even with getting a rock. A picture of a rock, I am at a loss for what word to use. Stupid just doesn't go low enough. Braindead maybe?
  • ... would be surprised by the number of total suckers that crypto currencies and NFTs seem to have brought out of the woodwork.

  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @02:41PM (#61725759)

    You know - one of the 'duller' versions of cookie clicker.

    You create a dummy account.

    You pay yourself for $uselessitem.

    You create another dummy account.

    You pay yourself more for $uselessitem.

    You repeat with minimally novel numbers to create a trend and get small-scale web journalists to pick up a press release.

    If you're lucky, some real person jumps in, or some larger scale journalists pick on on the story.

    It's upscale panhandling, built on scaling markets.

    It works because there's such a large percentage of money in worldwide retirement funds than historical norms.

    It's so much money, that it can't invest in anything real and get a non-embarrassing percent return on that investment. Not land, not goods, not debt - all the 'good' bits in those markets are already overinflated.

    It's a market that absolutely demands scams and illusions of value to satisfy expectations of return.

    Now - if it put those resources into creating infrastructure and value that could scale up maximally - then sure, it would benefit everyone and create new markets that could work to satisfy investors better over time - but that's not sexy, and it will lose market managers their jobs in the meantime.

    So... scams and illusions hold the value, and fill the news.

    Because riding speculation bubbles is pretty exciting. And many larger investors aren't left with much other choice.

    Ryan Fenton

  • that I snapped in my back garden. Who is going to offer me something for it ?

  • Time to start a booger collection. I'm going to offer a NFT of each booger and one for the entire set.

  • It's shit from a shit I took after eating gumbo. Then I realized that I hate gumbo, so it will be the only shit I ever took that contained gumbo.

    By the logic of this moron, I guess that pile of crap is worth 1.3 billions, since there's ever only going to be a single one. Not a hundred. Just one.

  • I have a rock that keeps away tigers.
  • by lkcl ( 517947 ) <lkcl@lkcl.net> on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @03:22PM (#61725915) Homepage

    "these virtual rocks serve NO PURPOSE "

    ... beyond money-laundering?

    • Just like the art market.

      • Well at least you still get the painting. Which you keep locked up in a free port, but still. With NFTs you really don't get anythign at all.

        • by edis ( 266347 )

          With NFTs you really don't get anythign at all.

          Doesn't that make it ultimately contemporary?

          Laughs aside, it is speculation purified and most obvious.
          All the meaning and value is in the eye of the beholder, probably in pumping up the myth of the crypto values, and probably in decoupling of funds with more obvious to account bearing forms of the value.

      • Art has aesthetic value. It has a real effect on people, generally positive, and it is diminished in reproductions. Why and how aren't clear, but the effect is undeniable.

        At least that's what good art does, and it's also at the core of how we judge it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A fool and his money are soon parted.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • See? All you needed to do was have no ethics or conscience and you, too, could be selling what amounts to the Emperors' New Clothes and make fat stacks of cash.
  • Unfortunately, the cryptocurrency craze won't go anywhere anytime soon.

  • He's the only one I am aware of who can get this kind of money for dreck.

  • If this is money laundering, canâ(TM)t quite figure out the angle.

    More likely itâ(TM)s a digital de beers model; create an artificial shortage and an artificial demand, jack the prices up, and profit.

  • by cjonslashdot ( 904508 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @08:24PM (#61726857)
    Now I have it too! Ha ha
  • by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2021 @10:02PM (#61727053)
    Etherrock is just a registry for people whose money far exceeds their IQ.
  • If the image is not contained in the blockchain, then they didn't buy "a picture of a rock". They bought a reference to a location where a picture of a rock is currently stored. What is stored at that location can change. The data at the location can disappear. Even the location can disappear.

    This is why NFTs are worthless.
  • There also has to be a reason people would want one of the scarce things. In this case, people seem to be trading on the worst reason - to show off how much they can afford to waste.

    I mean, kudos to whoever came up with it, they just got people to spend huge amounts of good money for a turd on a wire, and did so without any hint of deception. They took the "Pet Rock" concept and stripped away all the costs (box, marketing, little book of jokes, shipping...) except those for the website and the time it t

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?

Working...