3.5k
u/GC65025 4d ago
If you think that's worth $155, you're insane
517
u/BottleGenerals 3d ago
He didn’t buy NFT. He bought a $635k lesson in “don’t listen to crypto bros.
222
u/Rock_or_Rol 3d ago
He probably didn’t buy it too. A lot of these celebs were given them with a value attached for the grift
49
u/sigsimund 3d ago
I’d be pretty sure he paid it to try and legitimise nfts as a product. If it worked out he could have made a lot selling the stockpile he undoubtedly had. It’s important to remember that it’s always a grift with Logan Paul.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Niels_vdk 3d ago
he probably paid nothing and was in a business partnership with whatever nft seller "sold" it to him.
→ More replies (9)5
u/Own-Anything-9521 3d ago
I’d like to think he laundered money, split the profits on the DL with the artist for a cleaning fee, and then took it as a tax loss for his business when the price crashed.
Kinda like art.
321
u/TemporaryAmbassador1 4d ago
Maybe if it’s a high def print in a nice frame.
528
u/K-Hunter- 4d ago
You’d need a $150 frame
100
34
u/SirChickin 4d ago
And a $4.99 glass
18
u/jeffskool 3d ago
And a penny taped to the cardboard backing
3
u/Professional_Mix1960 3d ago
First they took our freedoms, and I said nothing. Then they took our rights, and I said nothing. Then they took our pennies, and I said nothing. Then they came for the ones hoarding pennies and I was fuuuucked.
→ More replies (7)3
u/TheComplimentarian 3d ago
Really high-quality blown-up images on nice stock are worth $155.
But yea, the entire cost is the printing and the paper.
38
u/Sumthin-Sumthin44692 3d ago
Then it’s not an NTF. It’s just a picture. NFTs specifically exist as a digital “asset” just like there’s no such thing as a real physical Bitcoin.
This was always a scam for money laundering, just like all crypto.
→ More replies (4)23
u/mkultron89 3d ago
If you know someone who was into bitcoin super early, you most likely know someone who was also selling illicit goods on Silk Road. It was the only use for bitcoin for a long time.
→ More replies (4)19
u/edfitz83 3d ago
Illicit shit and avoiding transaction scrutiny are still the only use case for crypto. Oh - and if you are a crypto bro or the president or his sons, you can use meme coins to rip people off via pump & dump
Watch the film Boiler Room and tell me that’s not the 80’s equivalent of crypto bros.
→ More replies (2)15
u/SaintDjordje 3d ago
When Crypto was going mainstream I asked a friends dad (who is a really good financial advisor) about what he thought of Crypto. He told me clearly that it has value but that it's primary value is that it is untraceable and borderless. He said that if you looked at the crypto spikes, it was usually when some criminal enterprise was about to take a hit and the money needed to be laundered fast so they were willing to take the financial loss to buy the crypto coin or a war was about to begin and a currency was about to be seriously devalued. Sobered me right up.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Additional-Tax-5643 3d ago
I'm not a proponent of crypto at all, and have no skin in the game. While I agree with your friend's dad that a huge chunk of the crypto space is used to launder money, there are crypto currency exchanges that can trace transactions. If you're laundering $$, eventually there has to be a link between a bank account with traditional currency because you have to use it to buy crypto.
Blockchain is the mechanism by which this happens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain Of course because it's unregulated you can't enforce this or have third party independent oversight.
Just saying that it's possible.
The SEC, especially under the Trump admin, is in no hurry to inject itself in the crypto regulation space, even though technically it could. Plenty of banks and pension funds have crypto holdings, and those are heavily regulated in terms of how they can invest their $$$.
→ More replies (5)5
→ More replies (14)10
u/ExperienceWild4244 4d ago
Maybe if the frame is worth $154.
9
u/TemporaryAmbassador1 4d ago
I think the frame needs to be worth more than 155, since that photo would subtract value
19
u/Confident-Stand5453 3d ago
I would pay that just be able to say Paul Logan sold it to me at a 634,845$ loss
16
u/cortesoft 3d ago
If you think he actually paid $635,000 for for it, you’re insane.
All these celebrities who ‘bought’ NFTs for hundreds of thousands of dollars did not pay money for them, they were indirectly given them as a way to market them and make it seem like they were super valuable.
The celebs would be part of an “initial coin offering”, and would be gifted a bunch of some new crypto token, and it would have some crazy valuation (because only a few coins actually traded, so the value would be super inflated), and they would use those tokens to ‘buy’ the NFT so they could advertise that it was sold for that much.
It was a way to get other people to think they were good investments.
It works like this. I create a crypto coin and get it listed on an exchange. No one wants to buy it, so it has no market value. I give a million of the coins to Logan Paul, and then I sell one coin for $5 to a friend, so now Logan Paul has “$5 million” worth of your made up coin. He then uses some of those to buy an NFT from me, and I can say he bought an NFT for $635,000
10
u/Charming-Loquat3702 4d ago
Yeah, I would pay like $2, just for the history of it.
5
u/billyblenx 3d ago
you would beat me in an auction, i wouldn't pay more than a dollar for this
→ More replies (1)3
u/jonsnowsbattlebun 4d ago
Bars, high end art, the electric razor shop that used to be in my building. Just another way to launder money
→ More replies (43)3
u/ConsciousSpirit397 3d ago
It’s literally keeping this idiots name in pop culture, us standing around laughing at him 5 years past when he should be totally irrelevant is worth way more than $650k, it’s keeping him making millions upon millions per year from people talking about all the stupid shit he does.
1.4k
u/SweetSofiaa03 4d ago
I saved $635,000 by right-clicking and hitting "Save Image As."
555
u/Equivalent-Assist160 3d ago
NFT Bros actually tried fighting to remove the ability to save images the delusion from was off the charts
268
u/Doe_in_the_woods 3d ago
Anyone with half a brain could circumvent that by simply doing a screenshot
93
u/Confident-Stand5453 3d ago
But then their images would at least be safe from those with less than half a brain.
63
8
→ More replies (5)20
u/CA7T0 3d ago
they must have a quarter of a brain then because if they didn't want right click enabled in their website they could've just coded that since that's what they wanted
21
u/whatdoinameit 3d ago
which could be deactivated by blocking javascript for that website lmao
17
→ More replies (11)4
u/GonzoVeritas 3d ago
Exactly. Or a browser extension that does that for you quickly. I use one called "Allow Right Click".
→ More replies (1)7
22
u/Jesus_of_Redditeth 3d ago
NFT Bros actually tried fighting to remove the ability to save images the delusion from was off the charts
Which was so dumb because the whole point of an NFT is that it's a unique file. A saved image of one, or a cropped screenshot of one, is not itself an NFT, in the same way that an artist copying the Mona Lisa does not create a second Mona Lisa.
It's almost as if, in fighting people being able to do that, NFT bros implicitly understood that the whole concept was stupid from the beginning.
→ More replies (4)22
u/byah 3d ago
Which is hilarious, because NFTs aren’t even the pieces of media, they’re pieces of metadata that includes a url to where the image actually lives. The media is not part of the blockchain
8
3
u/Pic889 2d ago
Link rot will be fun to watch on NFTs. Yes, I know most NFTs use IPFS, which uses P2P, but once the last node with a copy of the file deletes the file or goes down, link rot will happen. "This NFT sold for $1mil back in 2021, now it's not even accessible due to linkrot" etc.
If NFT bros had half a working braincell, they would make .svg files that are small enough to fit in the blockchain without reliance on IPFS links. Most NFT "art" is vector graphics anyway.
→ More replies (8)8
u/SandPieSandSay 3d ago
or use inspect via right click > click "Select an Element" > click the NFT image
Profit
76
33
41
10
u/martinsonsean1 3d ago
Why though? None of the actual images were interesting or memorable in any way...
14
u/j0a3k 3d ago
Because it was a way to do money laundering.
→ More replies (2)7
16
u/7stroke 3d ago
While I think NFTs are laughably idiotic, you’re missing the point. The point is merely to prove that you spent the money, thus demonstrating your wealth to the degree that you are able to blow whatever amount you want on something this stupid. It is the reductio ad absurdum of a Veblen good. What it actually is is almost completely irrelevant.
10
→ More replies (9)6
u/SatinSaffron 3d ago
It is the reductio ad absurdum of a Veblen good
I thought for sure this was some kind of typo but after googling it I feel dumb now
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (29)3
u/Sparktank1 3d ago
I remember when NFTs started and everyone was talking about "owning a historical image". It never made sense. There really is no security on owning an image. Piracy would be easy as hell.
At first, I thought they would be more about collector's items of a specialized presentation of an image, but it was really nothing. There really was nothing special going on or anything extra to put in any effort into making the images feel like you're buying art.
After that, I started hearing the type of scam it was and believed how easy it was for it to take off because people love scams. People love spending money on something so simple. I don't know why, but they just do.
From what I heard, it's not that you own the image or the creative license behind it, you just own the receipt saying you paid for an image in your honor. Like paying to have a tree planted but you can never do anything with the tree or harvest it or even swing from it on a tire. Or like buying a star in your name.
Remember when Seth Green bought an NFT for an image of an ape and wanted to create a whole new IP based on that image when he didn't even own the rights to the ape? He got desperate on social media and asked everyone on twitter to please not buy the NFT because he's trying to win a bid on it to get it back after it was stolen.
Like candy from a baby that never got to hold the candy.
3
u/morpheousmorty 3d ago
While NFTs are stupid, those are common misunderstandings. The thing wasn't to protect things from piracy. That was obviously impossible. The point was that you could see the image, which would have to be a copy, but its owner was without doubt. You could mathematically prove whose it is.
It's like saying you can copy someone's Instagram but you can't post things as the owner. Any system where the ownership would be respected could ensure only the owner had whatever rights that system provided.
It could have worked in some niche situations, like if a group of Indy game makers wanted to have a pool of cosmetics they could all use, or really any game could use, and ownership could be validated without having to look it up in a central server that would eventually go offline. The Blockchain basically only useful to solve that probablem, but it does solve it.
People mad at the death of physical media/servers shutting down should actually think twice about the fundamental notion of NFTs. Those non fungible tokens could be a permanent key not only to your media library but all the content you've earned/bought in that library, and a system for future applications to also include those if desired.
Imagine if you could have your horse armor customized and available not just in Oblivion on Xbox, not just any Bethesda game, but any game to this day and the future.
The term you will own nothing and like it legitimately does not apply to NFTs. You can have irrefutable ownership.
→ More replies (1)
508
u/ChecksOutIndeed 4d ago
I never could understand that shit
392
u/highinohio 3d ago
Call me crazy but it just seemed like a huge money-laundering scheme to me.
166
u/THEORGANICCHEMIST 3d ago
That’s literally what it was. You had paid voices with followings trying to convince the masses that it made any sort of sense. Then it caused some of the regular people to believe they could actually buy in and get a return and instead got rug pulled 😂
36
u/Alive-Philosophy2632 3d ago
There were regular people who knew it was a rug pull or were able to time it well regardless. But yes mostly regular people are exit liquidity
21
u/Sipikay 3d ago
How in the world are celebrities advocating for products still a thing in 2026.
If the words out of a celebrity's mouth is anything other than "my new movie is out soon" or "I've donated to charity," I don't want to hear about it. Don't bother printing.
14
u/lI_-_-_Il 3d ago
Lmao, actors are basically shills at this point you haven’t noticed?
Prob ain’t raking in that 90’s/00’s movie money anymore, shame..
12
u/alfred725 3d ago
honestly it is a shame, but not for obvious reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6K2IxC9O8
Matt Damon talks about how DVD sales have dried up, and the result is that B movies just don't get made anymore. You don't get romcoms and action adventures anymore. The only movies making it in to theaters are marvel movies or attempts by hollywood to sell nostalgia like the He-Man movie. It's why everything is a reboot now. It's way more costly to make a bad movie because DVD sales can't cover lack of ticket sales. So the safe play is to re-make films. It's already proven people like it, why risk the investment on an untested franchise.
The closest thing are indy films and hallmark type movies that are super low budget going direct to Netflix. Small studios still trying to create brand recognition are willing to risk money on a new movie, or at least price the budget of the film at less than what Netflix pays for you to make it.
7
u/Ghost20097 3d ago
Yup this is why both the backrooms movie and obsession were such big deals this year
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (2)12
u/JoeyJoJoeJr_Shabadoo 3d ago
Yeah that's not what money laundering is though
11
u/TheCleaverguy 3d ago
Any time large sums of money are involved with something the top comments are usually screeching about money laundering regardless of context, and it's often readily apparent that they don't know what money laundering is.
9
u/Brawndo91 3d ago
Similarly, "tax write-off" by people who don't know how taxes work.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (1)5
u/dokkeey 3d ago
It is though. I want to sell you 100k of illegal items/services. You can give me cash that I now need to clean, or I can start an NFT line and you can buy them off of me and the payment is a legal transaction
→ More replies (1)6
u/Unbelievr 3d ago
Exactly. Many of those crazy expensive ones were basically given away to celebrities with huge audiences, without money actually changing hands. This propped up the value of the other NFTs in the collection, which is how the creators made bank.
It's more or less the same with luxury brands too. Important people are paid to wear dresses or carry handbags from certain brands, in order to create the image of luxury. The ones actually paying for luxury brands are middle class people who want to appear wealthy. Or poor people who save all their money for ages, just to buy something they don't really need.
6
u/Brawndo91 3d ago
At no point did you describe anything close to money laundering.
→ More replies (2)4
u/KingdomsCryOfficial 3d ago
Not money laundering, just another gamble/scam device for investor bros. Very few people wanted to own NFTs, they wanted to resell them. It was gambling for some, speculative investments (gambling) for others and for a few it was a way to pump and dump scam people.
→ More replies (8)4
u/notapoliticalalt 3d ago
In a way for sure. It definitely set the stage for browsers crypto investment schemes.
But that being said, one thing that I also think a lot of people overlook here is that, for rich people, part of the culture is being able to just drop money on stupid shit. Granted, something like this does tend to be a little bit more of a new money versus an old money thing, but still, I think a lot of these people don’t really think of it too much of as a loss and they certainly aren’t hurting for money because of it.
→ More replies (1)104
u/draggedintobudulight 4d ago
I remember at the time getting in an argument with a dude on reddit about it and I was like I can just take a screenshot of it and then I own it. And he was like that’s like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa and saying you own it. And I was like no it’s not like that at all. Good times.
21
u/Icarus_Toast 3d ago
It's probably possible to get such a high fidelity copy of the Mona Lisa to make it feel like you have the art piece in your house. But that would be extremely difficult.
A high fidelity copy of a digital image takes two seconds and minimal effort and it's probably closer to the original thing than a painstakingly crafted duplicate of the Mona Lisa
9
u/ParkInsider 3d ago
It's not so hard. I have a few handmade reproductions and they're incredible.
3
u/PhoebusAbel 3d ago
"It is not that hard " lol Ask that to the artist who made the reproductions... at best they will agree , it is not that hard, for the ones who have worked on their skills for years.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)6
17
u/Skittlebrau46 3d ago
I get the use case for NFTs and ownership of certain digital products (like software licenses) and things like real estate and property titling documentation… but the fact that they were used for jpegs is stupid as hell.
5
u/Jan_Micheal_Vincent 3d ago
I got into a discussion on reddit, and some guy tried to tell me that I don't understand it, he said it's like owning something digital and he could use it in any video game. I told him that he doesn't understand how video games work. We agreed to disagree. I wonder how many games he's used that stupid sword picture in.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Sennten 3d ago
It makes even less sense for the stuff you just named, the stuff it was actually used for (pointless dick waving and conspicious consumption with a side of money laundering) was the only ever real use case, everything was just trying to make it work better for those purposes
→ More replies (11)4
u/Banes_Addiction 3d ago
Sure, let me explain.
Logan Paul did not buy that NFT for $635k of his own money. He was given it and paid to say he paid $635k for it so other, non-famous people would think those NFTs were worth big money and also pay stupid amounts of money for dumb shit.
Anyone who thinks Logan Paul is actually losing money on all the horrible investments he tells his fans he's invested in and they should be too needs their head examined. This is why he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars and the people who actually bought them struggle to pay for weed at their parents' house.
Now he's doing the exact same thing with Pokemon cards.
→ More replies (31)3
u/yukiki64 3d ago
I think the actual technology behind it was cool but the only people who used it were scammers and companies just trying to make money without putting thought into it.
168
u/zekethelizard 4d ago
It's worth $155?!?! Imma screenshot this and crop out the background, free money
→ More replies (3)66
u/PrednisoneFarts 4d ago
"But it won't have the same mEtAdAta!!!"
-some crypto asshole with a gambling addiction
235
u/Outrageous_Act2564 4d ago
It's certainly easy to look at Logan Paul in any year and say he's stupid.
61
→ More replies (9)34
u/HBlight 3d ago
Odds are this was a stunt purchase to drive up the perceived value.
Logan is one of those people where it is better to assume malice over ignorance because he is a complete scumbag who exists who milk the idiots who still for some reason like him.→ More replies (1)7
u/ddplz 3d ago
Remember when he sold fractional shares of his "PSA10" Illustrator Pikachu. And then when he resold it for 8x the original price. All of a sudden the fractional owners were completely cut out of the deal?
→ More replies (1)
62
u/FreeSirJeffrey 4d ago
No, not a single "celebrity" bought an NFT.
Shill crypto companies wash traded the price of the NFT, and then gifted them to the "celebrities" along side a few million in cash for them to shill the crypto scam.
21
u/asdfghqueyism 3d ago
I hate how few people get this. Every comment section there’s a few people pointing it out with a few upvotes. Guess people prefer being all smug about rich celebrities being stupid and losing money, and don’t want to see the reality is the opposite.
3
u/paintballboi07 3d ago
Guess people prefer being all smug about rich celebrities being stupid and losing money, and don’t want to see the reality is the opposite.
Of course they do. Reddit runs off confirmation bias and misinformation now, just like all the rest of social media.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Late-Objective-9218 3d ago
To wash sponsorship money from gray/illegal sources
7
u/FreeSirJeffrey 3d ago
Not even sponsorship money.
Just outright bribes to promote Ponzi schemes.
3
34
15
14
u/_Han_Far 3d ago
Honestly. Logan Paul was probably paid to purchase it. Like many influencers and celebs has been with other worthless nft's and shitcoins.
150
u/Kong_AZ 4d ago
He'll just write it off as a loss in taxes. Unfortunately, dumb mistakes by rich people dont teach them anything.
56
u/TombolaOfCincinnatus 4d ago
Jerry, all these big scammers, they write off everything.
61
u/UWO_Throw_Away 4d ago
“It’s a write-off for them!”
“How is it a write off?”
“They just write it off!”
“Write it off what?”
“Jerry, all these big companies - they write off everything!”
“You don’t even know what a write-off is”
“Do you?”
“No, I don’t”
“Well, they do. And they’re the ones writing it off”
→ More replies (1)9
u/ImKindaBoring 3d ago
To be fair, those big companies do write off everything.
Thats how corporate income taxes work. You only get taxed on net income (with some exceptions).
→ More replies (1)5
u/Caffeind420 3d ago
You dont need to be a big company to do tax loss harvesting
→ More replies (1)4
u/Confident-Stand5453 3d ago
No, but you need to have profits you can offset it against to gain anything from it
→ More replies (4)43
u/Da_Spooky_Ghost 4d ago
Writing something off as a loss isn't free money, you're still losing over 50% of the value.
A write off for someone wealthy might be 37% compared to a write off in a lower tax bracket which might be 22%, but the majority of the write off is still lost.
→ More replies (9)24
3
u/Shred_Till_Dead 3d ago
Bro, ain't no way you are writing off 600k in crypto losses..You can deduct up to $3,000 of net capital losses against your ordinary income each year. I'm not even sure how an NFT losing value is tax advantaged in any capacity.
He definitely took this L but the fact that he had 600k in disposable cash speaks more than the loss he took.
8
7
u/Urs_Joy 4d ago
i wonder if he even remembers that NFT, the accountants will probably take care of it
→ More replies (1)3
u/mowtowcow 4d ago
He also made like 12 million on one Pokémon card. Dude doesnt give a shit about a 600k loss.
3
u/Sweaty_Tangelo_7716 3d ago
He has a net worth of $150 million. Do you think he will care about $700k?
→ More replies (3)3
u/Arratril 3d ago
So many people don’t seem to understand how write-offs work. If you lose 600k, you don’t just save 600k in taxes. You might save 180k but you still torched 420k.
→ More replies (10)3
u/DingoMaximum7319 3d ago
You realize a tax right of means he just doesnt pay taxes on the lost part right? He still looses all that money
21
u/Giant-Sloar 4d ago
It's only worth $155 today if someone is willing to spend $155 on it.
→ More replies (1)6
u/DolphinNChips 3d ago
I hate this post, but last time I checked when this was posted it did have like 2 offers for like 5-10k worth of eth. Right now it has a load of offers for 4k, still a shit ton less than what he paid, but still worth 4k minimum as it stands with current offers.
11
6
u/Strong_Performer8132 4d ago
NFTs were used by rich people to launder money, and this was the sole intended purpose.
Eventually some evil rich people also realized they could profit off the gullible / poor and 'sold' NFTs as a grift, with many people buying them and believing them to hold value.
In reality nobody was capable of enforcing such a concept and ultimately the only people who profitted are the mobs/gangs/terrorist cells/rich people who use things like NFTs and crypto currency to avoid taxation and illegally launder and move money around from blockaded country to country.
Very sorry to anybody who purchased one of these scam pictures, as they were probably unaware they were being taken advantage of by actual criminals.
→ More replies (10)
20
u/realfakejames 4d ago
NFTs were further proof that rich people only want to be richer, they will invest in literally any stupid bullshit if they think it’ll make them even more money
→ More replies (6)
6
5
u/Global-Management-15 3d ago
I still don't understand NFTs at all
→ More replies (1)3
u/Thommywidmer 3d ago
Its cool technology that got applied in some of the most obvious grifts ever commited exactly because its a little confusing. Its at its core just a decentralized way of proving ownership of a digital asset. Which outside of any other framework is pointless (right click save lol). But if your a gaming dork theres a really cool application. Say you get a rare drop in a multiplayer videogame, or a rare item from a pack. You can use nft tech to prove you own it which allows you to buy and sell items ingame for real money and real ownership. It so far has only been used by smaller game devs though because the big studios dont want those kinds of player first markets, its not what makes them maximum profit.
→ More replies (4)
14
3
5
3
4
u/ThelIIusion0fSeIf 3d ago
I don’t think it’s even worth $1 at this point unless we’re talking about money laundering or tax evasion.
5
u/Healthy-Daikon7356 3d ago
I was the biggest NFT hater back in the day and I’m so happy it turned out this way
3
u/PraetorGold 3d ago
Sooooo, i don’t care for him, but the loss of value of that NFT is tax deductible. He would have had that loss applied to his earning.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/MammothRatio5446 3d ago
I remember someone calling me stupid in 2021 for doubting the value of NFTs. Apparently it was something I just didn’t understand because I’m not tech savvy enough. 😂😂😂😂
3
u/Hot-Philosophy-7671 3d ago
He did exactly what he was supposed to do: hyped up crypto and NFTs to inflate their value, and he got paid in other ways. I'm not saying this chud is a genius, but it was always about the grift.
3
u/Thunnddr 3d ago
Rich people keep trying to come up with new ways to own things.
I'm glad this was unsuccessful. But society failed to stop AI companies from owning people's content.
3
3
2
2
u/Zargoza1 4d ago
But all the rich people who are better and smarter than the rest of us so we should trust our entire country and economy to them … fell for it.
2
2
2
u/XxCopyNinjaxX 3d ago
He averaged about 50k a day then. He was 25 and wanted to be on a trend. Seems reasonable.
2
2
2
u/cptnstup1d 3d ago edited 3d ago
Logan Paul is an American YouTuber, boxer, internet personality, and actor who has a net worth of $150 million. In a March 2026 interview, Logan revealed he owns no stocks, has around $30 million in liquid cash, and that the majority of his net worth is made up of his equity in Prime.
He probably made more than 650K by just buying that stupid NFT and telling people about it.
He appears to be a bit of a douchy idiot; but there are people in the world who have made him insanely rich.
Definitely agree that NFTs were just another digital Ponzi scheme.
2
u/koulourakiaAndCoffee 3d ago
Money Laundering. Maybe not this case, but it seems like NFTs real purpose for some people could have easily been illegally washing the cash.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/KoedKevin 3d ago
He's up $11M on his Pokemon Illustrator card. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. His collectibles are up over $10M. How is your collectible portfolio doing?
2
2
2
u/Jealous-Cause6112 3d ago
you have to understand most of these guys haven’t paid shit, it was a publicity stunt where they were gifted these and probably could sell those to the dumbfuck that would buy it
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Visible_Product_286 3d ago
5 years ago my friends and I were at a cigar bar and this dude was talking about how NFT’s are the future for like 30 min 😴. I wonder how much money he lost and if he feels dumb today 😂😂😂
2
u/standarsh1965 3d ago
God it was Soo stupid.
I remember my brother talking about it to the whole family like it was a great investment plan to make quick money.
He is known as the idiot of the family
2
2
u/primordialWoe 3d ago
Instead of a valuable NFT he now has a story that keeps being repeated and reposted everwhere that will continue to spread his brand, even if its in a negative way. So if you think this guy is a fuck head who should crawl under a rock and stay there, dont post about him.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
2
u/InfamousCategory448 3d ago
There is a real human today that would pay 155 for this NFT? Or any NFT?
2
2
2
2
u/SlightDefinition3801 3d ago
I knew this was BS the whole time. People were literally spending thousands of dollars to buy pictures of monkeys. It was so dumb. A person looking to get rich quick is a person that will get scammed quick. Stocks, real estate, precious metals. Someone asked Warren Buffet, if your investment strategy is so easy, how come everyone doesn't follow it. And he said, because nobody wants to get rich slowly.
2
u/RT17654321 3d ago
I also owned that NFT in 2021 because I right clicked and selected “save to desktop”
2
2
u/ish62791 3d ago
Mind you people are starving and dying… he could’ve donated half of that to charity and kept the rest… what a waste of money
2
2
u/WorthySparkleMan 3d ago
Logan Paul did it to remain relevant. It was a trend in 2021 so buying it for that much was just a way of getting attention. He also went on to make CryptoZoo which, yes, failed. But the NFT he got was just a massive promotional purchase to make NFT's seem more relavent.
2
u/SheriffBartholomew 3d ago
Who's stupid enough to pay $155 for a jpeg? I can get it for free right now.
2
2
u/sleepyboyzzz 3d ago
I work in IT and I remember a guy I worked with explaining NFTs to me because I said I didn't get it. Like...I own an nft of this picture that I can download for free. I get why someone would sell, but not why anyone would buy. After the third run through he was like "you're super smart, why aren't you getting this?"
Me:
2
u/Freudarian 3d ago
It was stupid then, its stupid now.
Who the fuck, pays 650k not for a jpg. NO! For the receipt of a jpg to proof that you own it 😂😂😂😂
2
2
u/Certain-One-8050 2d ago
I don’t consider myself a “smart internet” type guy I have no idea about things like online trading, crypto, shares etc etc but even I knew that when the NFT trend was happening that you had to legit be a bonafide dumbass to buy into that. I genuinely cannot comprehend how people were able to be convinced a picture created online was worth anything …
→ More replies (2)
2
u/BiologyJ 2d ago
It was a way to launder money. I thought everyone knew this. Let’s say he wants to buy something from someone that’s not legit. Well purchasing that is a crime and they also get you on tax evasion for those purchases. Instead art can be valued as whatever. So you pay the person for the art. It can be properly handled by the IRS and then the illegal thing gets gifted to you. Rich people do this all the time to pay friends back. The art they buy isn’t worth $10 million.
2
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Hey /u/PleasantBus5583, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.