Global financial system implosion begins

[gosub]

'Crypto kryptonite': A digital euro would be dual threat to banks and fintechs, a critical new report warns

The European Central Bank could decide by April whether to push ahead with planning for a digital euro, a move closely watched by banking and tech sectors.

fortune.com

One to watch for all sorts of reaspns

 

[CH1]

Bloomberg, Guardian and CNN are mainstream.

"The crisis engulfing Greensill Capital, a controversial bank that employs former UK prime minister David Cameron"

Your link below?
More explanation rather than new information: What's behind the collapse of Greensill Capital, and why does it matter? | MoneyWeek

 

[CH1]

This FT article makes Greensill Bank of Bremen sound a bit like Icesave of Iceland was in the UK fourteen//fifteen years ago.
Both retail investors and municipalities temped in by above normal interest yields.
When the shit hit the fan the retail customers are protected by law - but not the municipalities.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

 

[yield]

Your link below?
More explanation rather than new information: What's behind the collapse of Greensill Capital, and why does it matter? | MoneyWeek

Paywalled for me. Any chance of a cut and paste?

This FT article makes Greensill Bank of Bremen sound a bit like Icesave of Iceland was in the UK fourteen//fifteen years ago.
Both retail investors and municipalities temped in by above normal interest yields.
When the shit hit the fan the retail customers are protected by law - but not the municipalities.

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Outline.com

outline.com

 

[CH1]

Paywalled for me. Any chance of a cut and paste?

Outline.com

outline.com

If its the FT article you're after I find normally if I Google it - then click the Google resulting link that I can get the article.
Similar for MoneyWeek, which seems to let you read it all - but strongly hjints you need a subscription.

Its only the FT which had new information.

 

[not-bono-ever]

The NFT art market is doing head head in a bit.I always assumed the core reason for owning art was to look at it , rather than having a note telling you that you do actually own it. But like can’t really see it. I hope everyone involved in this pyramid scheme goes on fire.

People are reporting that thousands of dollars' worth of crypto art was stolen on an NFT marketplace

A Nifty Gateway representative said that there was no indication of a hack but that a "small group of users" had been affected.

www.google.co.uk

 

[NoXion]

I only really found out about these "non-fungible tokens" today, while watching this video:



I don't think it's a coincidence that the abbreviation gets thrown about, rather than the full name. Otherwise people might start asking awkward questions like "what exactly does non-fungible mean, anyway?"

Like, literally what is the fucking point of these things?

 

[kabbes]

I suppose it’s the insane logical extension of buying art to put it in a vault forever more?

 

[not-bono-ever]

Digital ownership record of your tax efficient Swiss Freeport warehoused investment Monet can change using only the weekly power consumption of Burkina Faso. This is progress.

 

[NoXion]

I suppose it’s the insane logical extension of buying art to put it in a vault forever more?

The thing is, if you've got some priceless work of art locked up in a vault somewhere, then at least with that you could go to said vault and look at the art and experience the thrill of being the only person on the planet able to lay eyes on the thing. It's not the sort of thing I would go for if I was disgustingly wealthy (but then again I hear that insane wealth can change a person, so who knows? Gimme a few billion and let's find out!), but at least it makes a kind of sense that I could understand.

But this NFT bullshit? It smells like an absolute fucking scam. Take the NFT that supposedly allows one to "own" the first ever tweet on Twitter. The "item" in question is non-tangible (it's a fucking tweet) and easily reproduced. The NFT does not grant any exclusivity in terms of access or reproduction rights. There seems to be no use for it all apart from some weird bragging rights. If I were in business and some prospective partner tried to impress me with this kind of absolute guff, I would terminate the professional relationship right there and then, because I am obviously dealing with a gullible fucking idiot who will inevitably lose mondo money to the first clever huckster to cross their path. No bueno.

 

[teuchter]

The person with the monet in the vault didn't buy it for the thrill of looking at it. They bought it because they believed it would hold its value and someone else would be willing to exchange a similar amount of money for it in the future. Maybe also so they could brag that they own it. I don't see how this is all that different really.

 

[MickiQ]

The person with the monet in the vault didn't buy it for the thrill of looking at it. They bought it because they believed it would hold its value and someone else would be willing to exchange a similar amount of money for it in the future. Maybe also so they could brag that they own it. I don't see how this is all that different really.

Even following your argument (which does have merit) then much of the value comes from the rarity of the object. there's only one of it. Digital art can be perfectly duplicated by the click of a mouse.

 

[kabbes]

Even following your argument (which does have merit) then much of the value comes from the rarity of the object. there's only one of it. Digital art can be perfectly duplicated by the click of a mouse.

But only one person can own the NFT. It’s a token that has been separated from the thing it relates to. It’s not about the tweet, it’s only about the derived token that relates to the tweet, and that token can’t be duplicated. It’s like a digital version of a currency based on the gold standard —a Bitcoin pegged to the arbitrary value of an underlying thing.

Doesn’t stop it being both stupid and obscene environmentally. It’s both of those things. But buying art for millions and storing it to sell to somebody in the future who will do the same is also stupid and obscene.

The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art has the biggest collection of oriental rugs outside the East and one of the biggest in the world. It’s worth millions and millions— maybe even billions. Nobody knows because they aren’t required to account for the collection. The actual museum curator of that collection has never even seen any of the rugs he curates (with the exception of maybe a handful). They’re deep within a warehouse in protected storage. They haven’t been seen for decades and maybe never will ever again. NFTs aren’t the only stupid financial derivative or consequence of cultural artefacts.

 

[teuchter]

Even following your argument (which does have merit) then much of the value comes from the rarity of the object. there's only one of it. Digital art can be perfectly duplicated by the click of a mouse.

It seems to rely on the concept of "owning" it not being duplicable.

I suppose we will find out in the future whether that concept of ownership is accepted by enough people to make it meaningful. If it is, then the ownership has a "real" value.

 

[NoXion]

But only one person can own the NFT. It’s a token that has been separated from the thing it relates to. It’s not about the tweet, it’s only about the derived token that relates to the tweet, and that token can’t be duplicated. It’s like a digital version of a currency based on the gold standard —a Bitcoin pegged to the arbitrary value of an underlying thing.

What does non-fungible mean?

 

[kabbes]

What does non-fungible mean?

Can’t be shared.

Fungibility is an important concept in my line of work. A group has assets but which of those assets can be moved around the group and which are ring-fenced for particular purposes?

 

[NoXion]

Can’t be shared

That seems to go against the usual purpose of arbitrary units of value. I can share ten dollars with a friend. But this token only has value if you can convince some other idiot to exchange actual money for it.

I still fail to see what the point of these are.

 

[kabbes]

That seems to go against the usual purpose of arbitrary units of value. I can share ten dollars with a friend. But this token only has value if you can convince some other idiot to exchange actual money for it.

I still fail to see what the point of these are.

Welcome to the world of luxury goods

 

[Winot]

That seems to go against the usual purpose of arbitrary units of value. I can share ten dollars with a friend. But this token only has value if you can convince some other idiot to exchange actual money for it.

I still fail to see what the point of these are.

It’s not an arbitrary unit of value though - it’s a unique marker (attached to a work of art). It’s a way of turning a copyable item into a unique item.

 

[MickiQ]

Clearly I am not mentally well suited to being one of the super-rich (so good job I'm not one), the idea of owning (and paying for something) that I don't actually either possess or have control over strikes me as just plain daft.
How is this different than paying for a plot on the moon or buying a star?

 

[NoXion]

Welcome to the world of luxury goods

But then it's not even anything like a trinket or a toy! It's just a bunch of code! Not even like a video game or anything, just a stupid token. Sorry if it seems like I'm going on, it's just that thinking about this blows my mind, because I keep coming back to how pointless it all is.

I honestly don't get why any ordinary person thinks the super-rich should run things at all. Wealth-induced detachment from reality is the sick practical joke that we should all wish was no longer being played on us.

It’s not an arbitrary unit of value though - it’s a unique marker (attached to a work of art). It’s a way of turning a copyable item into a unique item.

Yeah, but do you know what it's supposed to do?

 

[teuchter]

What does a ten pound note "do"?

 

[kabbes]

What does a rug in a warehouse that nobody has seen for 80 years “do”? Other than cost you money to store, of course.

 

[MickiQ]

What does a ten pound note "do"?

It is a representation of goods, service and labour. It only works because the vast majority of the population accept its value.

 

[NoXion]

What does a ten pound note "do"?

It's a handy thing to exchange for goods and services. The stupid Twitter token? I can't get a burger or a haircut with that, not unless I exchange it for money first. It's got the same problem that BitCoin has, which isn't surprising since it's based on blockchain crap.

What does a rug in a warehouse that nobody has seen for 80 years “do”? Other than cost you money to store, of course.

You could at least take that rug out and furnish some place with it. It's going to rot due to the ravages of entropy anyway, might as well get some use out of it along the way.

 

[kabbes]

You could at least take that rug out and furnish some place with it. It's going to rot due to the ravages of entropy anyway, might as well get some use out of it along the way.

And yet that hasn’t happened and never will. Its value is purely an abstracted one for what it represents.

 

[two sheds]

monet in the bank?

 

[teuchter]

It's a handy thing to exchange for goods and services. The stupid Twitter token? I can't get a burger or a haircut with that, not unless I exchange it for money first. It's got the same problem that BitCoin has, which isn't surprising since it's based on blockchain crap.

Why does it bother you? No-one is forcing you to buy one, or converting your savings into one. If you don't think it will hold its value and allow you to purchase future haircuts and burgers then don't buy one.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Why does it bother you? No-one is forcing you to buy one, or converting your savings into one. If you don't think it will hold its value and allow you to purchase future haircuts and burgers then don't buy one.

.


An NFT transaction uses as much energy as me driving to Berlin for lolz

 

[kabbes]

It is a representation of goods, service and labour. It only works because the vast majority of the population accept its value.

Technically, I’d say that it works because the power that supports the system, ie the state, accounts for value and demands payment in this form. The population accepting it is an effect of this, not the cause.