Twelve-year-old boy makes £290k from whale NFTs(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Twelve-year-old boy makes £290k from whale NFTs
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58343062
15 comments
That would be fraud, though, right? And probably some kind of securities crime into the bargain?
Who was defrauded? “Journalists” and “journalism” websites want clickbait.
The whole purpose is to give the “journalist” just enough plausible deniability to write a clickbait headline, which benefits CNBC/BBC and the person selling within their family.
As far as I know, misleading “news” is not illegal.
The whole purpose is to give the “journalist” just enough plausible deniability to write a clickbait headline, which benefits CNBC/BBC and the person selling within their family.
As far as I know, misleading “news” is not illegal.
No-one needs to be defrauded to make out an offence of Fraud in the UK.
"Fraud by false representation" happens when someone dishonestly makes a false representation with the intent to make a gain for themselves or another. Making up a news story to flip NFTs would almost certainly amount to a crime of fraud by false representation.
"Fraud by false representation" happens when someone dishonestly makes a false representation with the intent to make a gain for themselves or another. Making up a news story to flip NFTs would almost certainly amount to a crime of fraud by false representation.
it's fake news
Yes it's called Painting the Tape and is illegal in the US and prohibited by the SEC: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paintingthetape.asp
You say that like the finance world would never commit fraud or securities crime, even when given an unregulated market to work with.
I don't know how I "said that like" anything. I was just expressing curiosity about the legality of the described behavior.
> The high prices are a known gimmick for grabbing headlines. “Useless NFT sells for $100,000” is (or was) a sure-fire way to get your NFT into the headlines. The trick was that you could actually bootstrap these high prices yourself without actually spending the money. If you have $100,000 in ETH sitting around, you didn’t have much to lose by using it to “buy” an NFT from yourself in a transaction with yourself.
Sounds like the problem is how these transactions escape any sales tax, thus these gimmicks and other forms of money laundering simply have zero cost or oversight.
Sounds like the problem is how these transactions escape any sales tax, thus these gimmicks and other forms of money laundering simply have zero cost or oversight.
> The NFT game is all about making your NFTs look unique and noteworthy, with as much fanfare and publicity as possible. That’s because the only way to make money from an NFT is by flipping it to someone else, who thinks they can flip it to someone else, and so on.
Truly it's the purest form of Keynesian beauty context imaginable, and everyone who's participating hopes they won't be the greater fool.
Honestly, NFTs will make it into economic textbooks, assuming they haven't already. They've become these wonderfully pure little natural experiments in economic theory, and it's fascinating (and horrifying) watching them play out.
Truly it's the purest form of Keynesian beauty context imaginable, and everyone who's participating hopes they won't be the greater fool.
Honestly, NFTs will make it into economic textbooks, assuming they haven't already. They've become these wonderfully pure little natural experiments in economic theory, and it's fascinating (and horrifying) watching them play out.
I never saw Beanie Babies in my economics textbooks, yet they were a physical product with limited supply, that people exchanged for sometimes large sums of money on the basis of its rarity and collectible value.
NFTs aren't even that. They're basically a mass-produced print with some unknown artist's signature. And unlike autographed mementos, NFTs require a ridiculous amount of electricity to generate each additional signature.
NFTs aren't even that. They're basically a mass-produced print with some unknown artist's signature. And unlike autographed mementos, NFTs require a ridiculous amount of electricity to generate each additional signature.
> yet they were a physical product with limited supply, that people exchanged for sometimes large sums of money on the basis of its rarity and collectible value.
Were. As in, now they aren't. Because there's not any real value there.
Perhaps this kind of bubble / craze should be in economics textbooks - one that covers social and historic factors of failure. Probably Beanie Babies will be dealt with in the preamble on the section of Cryptocurrency, as a foreshadowing. And after the chapter on the Albanian ponzis and Civil War in 1997.
Were. As in, now they aren't. Because there's not any real value there.
Perhaps this kind of bubble / craze should be in economics textbooks - one that covers social and historic factors of failure. Probably Beanie Babies will be dealt with in the preamble on the section of Cryptocurrency, as a foreshadowing. And after the chapter on the Albanian ponzis and Civil War in 1997.
The reason I expect it'll land in economics textbooks is that the snake oil of the blockchain has provided a very pure marketplace for these bubbles to form, including a complete and visible transaction record. That provides a level of rich data in the context of a natural experiment that researchers normally can only dream about.
this is called wash trading
If you look at this NFT stuff along with the many other absurd things humanity is busy focusing on, one might deduce that Roger Waters was exactly right with the phrase,
"But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death"
NFTs are mostly used as a ponzi game. There's not enough physical art or exotic cars or other collectibles for the moneyed folks to trade, so now they have NFTs.
This, plus the stories of groups and corps buying up homes, negative interest rates, etc., all suggest that too much money has been concentrated in too few places (hands, people). And those people seem to be focused primarily on just making money, so they need vehicles like NFTs as another place to play. It's just mind boggling where humanity has ended up.
"But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death"
NFTs are mostly used as a ponzi game. There's not enough physical art or exotic cars or other collectibles for the moneyed folks to trade, so now they have NFTs.
This, plus the stories of groups and corps buying up homes, negative interest rates, etc., all suggest that too much money has been concentrated in too few places (hands, people). And those people seem to be focused primarily on just making money, so they need vehicles like NFTs as another place to play. It's just mind boggling where humanity has ended up.
> This species has amused itself to death
> NFTs are mostly used as a ponzi game. There's not enough physical art or exotic cars or other collectibles for the moneyed folks to trade, so now they have NFTs.
IMHO, it's more likely that the heart of the NFT economy is based on capital flight, money laundering and black money transfers, and outright fraud based on wash trading: fraud that's dressed up to look like a Ponzi scheme so that the buyer thinks they are in on the grift.
> NFTs are mostly used as a ponzi game. There's not enough physical art or exotic cars or other collectibles for the moneyed folks to trade, so now they have NFTs.
IMHO, it's more likely that the heart of the NFT economy is based on capital flight, money laundering and black money transfers, and outright fraud based on wash trading: fraud that's dressed up to look like a Ponzi scheme so that the buyer thinks they are in on the grift.
Who are buying these things? The only plausible explanation to me is that the NFT exchange owners are selling to themselves using sockpuppet accounts to drum up media attention.
The article even mentions that they are keeping the profits as Ethereum, which would be necessary as he can't cash out since the money isn't actually his.
The article even mentions that they are keeping the profits as Ethereum, which would be necessary as he can't cash out since the money isn't actually his.
It's great way to launder money, transfer it across international borders or pay for shipments of illegal goods. In other words, the same thing all the other high ticket collectable markets are used for.
To be clear, nobody is being paid in NFTs: gangsters are 'buying' NFTs from the people they owe money to.
To be clear, nobody is being paid in NFTs: gangsters are 'buying' NFTs from the people they owe money to.
Speculators. It's not so hard to imagine people lining up to be first to buy whatever the latest crazy NFT there is at the chance of a 10x-100x return
Or people with way to much ETH/BTC from the starting days. You would not buy a NFT for so much if it was your half portfolio.
Exactly, people are 'diversifying' their ETH etc into NFTs.
I do not believe anyone is spending millions of actual hard-earned cash on these digital works, let alone just the NFT, which amounts to a 'digital autograph'.
I do not believe anyone is spending millions of actual hard-earned cash on these digital works, let alone just the NFT, which amounts to a 'digital autograph'.
The article seems to miss one (IMHO) important detail, are the 290,000 £ made out of 290,000 1 £ each "sales" or of 29 10,000 £ each?
Or what?
The collection is of 3,350 whales, according to this other source:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/12-year-old-coder-made-6-fig...
the collection was sold in 9 hours for 255,000 US$, that makes a whale sold for around 76 US$ apiece?
EDIT:
Another question being:
>He then earned an additional 30 ether, worth over $95,000, from the resale market, since Ahmed earns a 2.5% royalty on each secondary sale.
30 ether (so we remain in this realm) corresponds to 2.5%, it should mean that secondary sales were worth 1,200 ethers.
What?
Or what?
The collection is of 3,350 whales, according to this other source:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/25/12-year-old-coder-made-6-fig...
the collection was sold in 9 hours for 255,000 US$, that makes a whale sold for around 76 US$ apiece?
EDIT:
Another question being:
>He then earned an additional 30 ether, worth over $95,000, from the resale market, since Ahmed earns a 2.5% royalty on each secondary sale.
30 ether (so we remain in this realm) corresponds to 2.5%, it should mean that secondary sales were worth 1,200 ethers.
What?
> the collection was sold in 9 hours for 255,000 US$, that makes a whale sold for around 76 US$ apiece?
That's an interesting point. It would be interesting to trace those payments to hear back from these customers, or even check if they actually exist at all.
That's an interesting point. It would be interesting to trace those payments to hear back from these customers, or even check if they actually exist at all.
> the collection was sold in 9 hours for 255,000 US$, that makes a whale sold for around 76 US$ apiece?
According to the CNBC article, it was sold for 80 ether. Big and important difference than being sold for $255k.
According to the CNBC article, it was sold for 80 ether. Big and important difference than being sold for $255k.
Not really, you can use any real (fiat) or virtual (cryptocoin) unit you want, conversion at a given time is always possible, my question was whether the "collection" was sold as a whole (be it 80 Ether or US $ 255,000 or whatever) and bought by a single buyer, or if each whale was sold separately (and then we would have 3,350 buyers) or what?
It is a notable distinction when the currency’s volatility looks like this:
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/ETHUSD/
Also, important distinction because this could easily be the dad and kids moving ethereum around between their own accounts.
Saying it was sold for $255k conveys a much stronger probability of it not being fake or a fraud than saying it was sold for 80 ether.
https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/ETHUSD/
Also, important distinction because this could easily be the dad and kids moving ethereum around between their own accounts.
Saying it was sold for $255k conveys a much stronger probability of it not being fake or a fraud than saying it was sold for 80 ether.
Ok, if you like it better, "sold for an amount of around 80 Ether valued at the time of the transaction around US $ 255,000 (but the virtual currency is characterized by a high volatility)".
But this doesn't change the question, was it a single buyer, 3,350, or what?
BTW, if the sale happened within 9 hours it smells fishy anyway (to me).
But this doesn't change the question, was it a single buyer, 3,350, or what?
BTW, if the sale happened within 9 hours it smells fishy anyway (to me).
I agree it is fishy, that is why I was nitpicking about it selling for ether and not USD.
I do not have any interest in figuring out if it was lots of buyers or 1 buyer, so I cannot address that.
I do not have any interest in figuring out if it was lots of buyers or 1 buyer, so I cannot address that.
I may teach my kid programming. If he’s interested. But I’ll never ever tell him that anything to do with crypto is a good thing to be involved with.
I kind of have the same mental association I have with drug cartels. Except somehow it’s legal.
I kind of have the same mental association I have with drug cartels. Except somehow it’s legal.
>Except somehow it's legal.
For now. Heroin was legal too once.
For now. Heroin was legal too once.
Are we watching the new way of laundering money? What's wrong with laundering in the traditional way at art auctions?
You dont need to store it anywhere physically waiting for the next person
Yet again, crypto comes in to provide a revolutionary, groundbreaking solution to a problem that's already been solved.
Antiques and art used in money laundering are generally warehoused with custodians for a relatively inconsequential fee. Ownership changes hands over and over, and the item doesn't move an inch.
Antiques and art used in money laundering are generally warehoused with custodians for a relatively inconsequential fee. Ownership changes hands over and over, and the item doesn't move an inch.
I had no idea to be honest. Unrelatedly that's kinda sad really that there's all this art just sitting in someone's art vault
It's 2021, everyone has shown their true faces at this point. We can dump the pretense that hundreds of millions changes hands at Christie's because anonymous rich people really love art.
They save on storage costs, I guess.
We built this really cool iOS app a couple years ago called Editional that was centered around NFTs. Anyone could create one, and they would mint so many editions, the first being the most valuable (since it’s the “original”). I still contend that we were far ahead of anyone even today: we had the ability to facilitate multi-atomic swap trades even.
…we ended up closing shop. We were paying for minting transactions behind the scenes and the market was too expensive in 2018-2019. We made a crucial error there, but we didn’t think people would be willing to pay so much for transactions.
..boy, were we wrong. I just sold a couple remnants of my old Editional wallet for a good chunk of money. I had a…hard time doing it though: transaction fees cost from a minimum of $40 and and a maximum of $160 for those smart contract transactions. Add in the fact that every provider takes a large cut: from Coinbase, to NFT marketplaces, to the 10+ dollar fees to actually complete a successful transaction.
To be honest, I was intimately involved in this space for a while, and I don’t get it anymore. We had this hypothesis that the ecosystem would scale and mature as we went, but we didn’t see much of that at all. It’s all gambling. It’s not even cool gambling: the decentralized prediction markets I was particularly excited to see never really took off.
I got interested in the space because I thought: decentralized consensus is really interesting, how important that’ll be in a world trending lower on trust; but this crypto world is so dishonest that I’ve realized that trust is integral to most effective systems.
…we ended up closing shop. We were paying for minting transactions behind the scenes and the market was too expensive in 2018-2019. We made a crucial error there, but we didn’t think people would be willing to pay so much for transactions.
..boy, were we wrong. I just sold a couple remnants of my old Editional wallet for a good chunk of money. I had a…hard time doing it though: transaction fees cost from a minimum of $40 and and a maximum of $160 for those smart contract transactions. Add in the fact that every provider takes a large cut: from Coinbase, to NFT marketplaces, to the 10+ dollar fees to actually complete a successful transaction.
To be honest, I was intimately involved in this space for a while, and I don’t get it anymore. We had this hypothesis that the ecosystem would scale and mature as we went, but we didn’t see much of that at all. It’s all gambling. It’s not even cool gambling: the decentralized prediction markets I was particularly excited to see never really took off.
I got interested in the space because I thought: decentralized consensus is really interesting, how important that’ll be in a world trending lower on trust; but this crypto world is so dishonest that I’ve realized that trust is integral to most effective systems.
it would be really helpful to see this in a flowchart or diagram. Crypto seems unapproachable because of all the prerequisites involved. Add on to that the sheer volume of counterparties all taking a cut.
I wouldn't write off NFTs yet.
The many malicious actors in cryptocurrency are not representative of the many organizations and individual contributors in blockchain technology.
I think the common applications of NFTs now are entirely primitive, and I find understanding the concept of blockchain oracle networks to be hugely influential in framing my perspective of the 5-10 year landscape of IP and digital media. Lex Fridman's interview with Sergey, Chainlink founder, is exceptional, if lengthy.
A blockchain represents a public and immutable* ledger of "things that happened," and smart contracts represent agreements of "things that will happen if [conditions]." If the storage, execution and outcome of those smart contracts occurs on the same blockchain, that's a seriously powerful mechanism. Its primary limitation is that it cannot GET data from outside the blockchain, because that would compromise system integrity.
Oracle networks are simply another layer of distributed consensus. Weather is a straightforward and common example. Let's say there are a dozen entities that all operate as oracles in a weather network, and they report certain meteorological data at 24hr intervals. Should entity A report inaccurate or fraudulent data, the network would reject that and entity A would be penalized in some way. The number of oracles, or nodes, in the network is relative to the significance of value reliant on their data, so a handful of nodes is fine for early stages, and at larger scale, more nodes are incentivized to participate in data collection and validation to strengthen the system integrity.
There's a rapidly expanding body of research surrounding all of these concepts, but I find oracle networks to be the infrastructure required to begin standardization of the bridges between traditional, legacy agreements, comprised of legally binding contracts and IP / patents / copyright licensing, and smart contracts executed autonomously based on conditions and outcomes that are universally knowable and agreed upon.
With those bridges in place, we unlock a lot of efficiency by dis-intermediating the fulfillment of contractually obligated outcomes that are contingent on enforcement from a legal structure, which may not exist in developing nations. A smart contract for crop insurance that pays a claim if there is no rain in a region for a year will GET weather data from a smart contract provided by an oracle network (which already has its standards for validation published and verifiable) and simply pay out claims if those conditions are met.
A traditional insurance company might simply be bankrupt.
NFTs, conceptually and somewhere in the future, will represent a vast majority of the management of digital assets and probably many real world assets as well, because they are represented on chain. Maybe an oracle network formed of real estate title search companies offer a homeowner verification function and provide it as a zero-knowledge proof to a larger protocol that assesses some future form of creditworthiness. Maybe not in the next few years, but certainly in the next few decades, all titles, deeds, and other legal documents that represent ownership of an asset will have a primary digital representation on some sort of blockchain.
They probably won't even be called NFTs, but who cares, I'm sick of hearing about them anyway.
* there's a lot of discussion around finality but most implementations of blockchains have a strong degree of immutability
p.s. I sent Editorial an email
The many malicious actors in cryptocurrency are not representative of the many organizations and individual contributors in blockchain technology.
I think the common applications of NFTs now are entirely primitive, and I find understanding the concept of blockchain oracle networks to be hugely influential in framing my perspective of the 5-10 year landscape of IP and digital media. Lex Fridman's interview with Sergey, Chainlink founder, is exceptional, if lengthy.
A blockchain represents a public and immutable* ledger of "things that happened," and smart contracts represent agreements of "things that will happen if [conditions]." If the storage, execution and outcome of those smart contracts occurs on the same blockchain, that's a seriously powerful mechanism. Its primary limitation is that it cannot GET data from outside the blockchain, because that would compromise system integrity.
Oracle networks are simply another layer of distributed consensus. Weather is a straightforward and common example. Let's say there are a dozen entities that all operate as oracles in a weather network, and they report certain meteorological data at 24hr intervals. Should entity A report inaccurate or fraudulent data, the network would reject that and entity A would be penalized in some way. The number of oracles, or nodes, in the network is relative to the significance of value reliant on their data, so a handful of nodes is fine for early stages, and at larger scale, more nodes are incentivized to participate in data collection and validation to strengthen the system integrity.
There's a rapidly expanding body of research surrounding all of these concepts, but I find oracle networks to be the infrastructure required to begin standardization of the bridges between traditional, legacy agreements, comprised of legally binding contracts and IP / patents / copyright licensing, and smart contracts executed autonomously based on conditions and outcomes that are universally knowable and agreed upon.
With those bridges in place, we unlock a lot of efficiency by dis-intermediating the fulfillment of contractually obligated outcomes that are contingent on enforcement from a legal structure, which may not exist in developing nations. A smart contract for crop insurance that pays a claim if there is no rain in a region for a year will GET weather data from a smart contract provided by an oracle network (which already has its standards for validation published and verifiable) and simply pay out claims if those conditions are met.
A traditional insurance company might simply be bankrupt.
NFTs, conceptually and somewhere in the future, will represent a vast majority of the management of digital assets and probably many real world assets as well, because they are represented on chain. Maybe an oracle network formed of real estate title search companies offer a homeowner verification function and provide it as a zero-knowledge proof to a larger protocol that assesses some future form of creditworthiness. Maybe not in the next few years, but certainly in the next few decades, all titles, deeds, and other legal documents that represent ownership of an asset will have a primary digital representation on some sort of blockchain.
They probably won't even be called NFTs, but who cares, I'm sick of hearing about them anyway.
* there's a lot of discussion around finality but most implementations of blockchains have a strong degree of immutability
p.s. I sent Editorial an email
The second sentence here is such an odd one to include in the article:
"Benyamin Ahmed is keeping his earnings in the form of Ethereum - the crypto-currency in which they were sold.
This means they could go up or down in value and there is no back-up from the authorities if the digital wallet in which he is holding them is hacked or compromised."
"Benyamin Ahmed is keeping his earnings in the form of Ethereum - the crypto-currency in which they were sold.
This means they could go up or down in value and there is no back-up from the authorities if the digital wallet in which he is holding them is hacked or compromised."
How is that odd? Crypto subreddits are full of posts describing exactly the above situation. People are trying to get rich quick, without understanding what "be your own bank" requires in terms of security.
Many people don't understand there's a difference between realised and unrealised profits, so it's never a bad idea to remind them they aren't the same thing.
"there is no back-up from the authorities if the digital wallet in which he is holding them is hacked or compromised"
was the most jarring part
was the most jarring part
Is gambling allowed at that age?
No, but parents "helping" their kids on a project, then pretending the kid did the whole thing, is common.
Why is it gambling?
I mean, in which way is it different from US kids selling lemonade?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade_stand
I mean, in which way is it different from US kids selling lemonade?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade_stand
If a US kid makes $400k from selling lemonades, you can be sure there's something shady going on as well.
It's not even lemonades, it's urls of pictures of lemonades. You can't drink them. Ownership won't let you look at the pictures in any way that other people can't. The only may to monetise it is to find a bigger fool.
It's even worse, it is a sort of certificate of property of an url where pictures of lemonades can be seen by anyone.
Still a kid "produces" something and sells the product, it doesn't look like gambling to me.
Still a kid "produces" something and sells the product, it doesn't look like gambling to me.
> Still a kid "produces" something and sells the product
There is no product. Only fool-finding.
There is no product. Only fool-finding.
A bit of a silly thing for people to celebrate, why not celebrate people that won the lottery ?
[deleted]
This is also celebrated in the media, or at least it was when the UK National Lottery was new.
I wish the media stopped propagating the cycle of pump-and-dump baiting the general public. Someone is going to stuck paying off a check they probably can't afford in the end.
People do this all the time though: people in my village buy lottery tickets with money they cannot afford to spend all the time. And there is not much or any advertising for that here.
Lotteries are quite frankly more honest than this.
In my State the lottery funds undergraduate tuition (when I had it it was 100% tuition but now it’s less with another program funding the leftover) and a 4 year old prekindergarten program across the state.
Most state lotteries “fund education” but that’s usually a marketing gimmick. When there are shortfalls they find the money elsewhere and when there’s a surplus it finds it’s way to other things.
You could just as well say the lottery funds bond debt payments and general revenues fund education.
Free tuition and PK4 is great though!
You could just as well say the lottery funds bond debt payments and general revenues fund education.
Free tuition and PK4 is great though!
Yea BBC reporting is not what it used to be IMHO. Having said that fair play to him - his github is here if anyone is interested https://github.com/benyaminahmed
>The children have had the advantage of a strong network of technology experts to call on for advice and help - but he is extremely proud of them.
Strange addition, a little defensive there BBC? Something something coal miners and programming
Strange addition, a little defensive there BBC? Something something coal miners and programming
I'm not sure what you mean, why wouldn't the BBC mention the children had advantages others don't? Isn't that just responsible story-writing?
While I get your point and would agree for some stories, I also don't think that's always necessary or even productive in a bigger picture sense. Sort of excusing away accomplishment by listing every advantage someone has or doesn't have is a good way to prime society to over index the effect of advantages/disadvantages and under index the effect of hard work.
If you think this $290K was made through "hard work", you and I have very different definitions of work.
That boy is to be commended, regardless of what one thinks about the NFT hype.
What a former Christie's auctioneer thinks on this (as quoted by the BBC here) is _especially_ irrelevant, as they are of course partially disrupted by the NFT hype. Like asking a telco company in the 90s about the internet.
Strong Demis Hassabis vibes (DeepMind founder who did Theme Park at the age of 17)
What a former Christie's auctioneer thinks on this (as quoted by the BBC here) is _especially_ irrelevant, as they are of course partially disrupted by the NFT hype. Like asking a telco company in the 90s about the internet.
Strong Demis Hassabis vibes (DeepMind founder who did Theme Park at the age of 17)
Father works in traditional finance, someone pays an incredible amount of money for his son’s NFTs. Hmm.
Deploying the contract must've cost quite a bit[0]. Seems like the creator of the contract minted 10 tokens for over $900[1].
Idk, I guess I must've been a poor 12-year old, if that's what 12-year olds spend on their hobbies nowadays.
[0] https://etherscan.io/token/0x96ed81c7f4406eff359e27bff6325dc...
[1] https://etherscan.io/tx/0x17654fa3a9b49fc1688df27d195ffb59a1...
Idk, I guess I must've been a poor 12-year old, if that's what 12-year olds spend on their hobbies nowadays.
[0] https://etherscan.io/token/0x96ed81c7f4406eff359e27bff6325dc...
[1] https://etherscan.io/tx/0x17654fa3a9b49fc1688df27d195ffb59a1...
Maybe he made $900 previously from ETH?
I don’t know. 12 is a bit young but I remember having a job at 14 and “limitless money” because I didn’t have any responsibilities. I could have easily justified $900 as “only two pay checks”.
I don’t know. 12 is a bit young but I remember having a job at 14 and “limitless money” because I didn’t have any responsibilities. I could have easily justified $900 as “only two pay checks”.
Earning $900 at 14 seems extraordinarily high, especially if you're talking about a while ago.
In the UK a 14yo can only work 25h/week outside term time and must have at least two weeks rest over summer, with no minimum wage. £4/h isn't unheard of (a pretty typical rate for a paperound). I worked cleaning cars at a garage decades ago, maybe scraping £3/h for 10 hours a week. I think many of today's 14yos would struggle to break £400 over the entire holiday.
... That is, as is the contention here, unless they have a family member paying them a decent wage.
In the UK a 14yo can only work 25h/week outside term time and must have at least two weeks rest over summer, with no minimum wage. £4/h isn't unheard of (a pretty typical rate for a paperound). I worked cleaning cars at a garage decades ago, maybe scraping £3/h for 10 hours a week. I think many of today's 14yos would struggle to break £400 over the entire holiday.
... That is, as is the contention here, unless they have a family member paying them a decent wage.
They claim this was his second set of NFTs, and that he managed to make 3,350 unique artworks to sell this time:
> This time, he drew inspiration from a well known pixelated whale meme image and a popular digital-art style but used his own program to create the set of 3,350 emoji-type whales.
All while coding for "20 to 30 minutes per day".
Seems pretty clear that this is the dad (who works in software in finance) cashing in on the NFT trend and using his 12 year old son to generate the publicity.
> This time, he drew inspiration from a well known pixelated whale meme image and a popular digital-art style but used his own program to create the set of 3,350 emoji-type whales.
All while coding for "20 to 30 minutes per day".
Seems pretty clear that this is the dad (who works in software in finance) cashing in on the NFT trend and using his 12 year old son to generate the publicity.
Gotta prime the pump
This is it, exactly. No different from the retro games pump-and-dump WATA is pulling.
From the article:
"Benyamin's father, Imran, a software developer who works in traditional finance, encouraged Benyamin and his brother, Yousef, to start coding at the ages of five and six."
I view NFT's with a hefty dose of skepticism, although I have a very talented ex-colleague that has been creating 3d artwork and made a few thousand. My view is that there's a chance his father etc was already invested in bitcoin and wanted to put it to good use...
I view NFT's with a hefty dose of skepticism, although I have a very talented ex-colleague that has been creating 3d artwork and made a few thousand. My view is that there's a chance his father etc was already invested in bitcoin and wanted to put it to good use...
> wanted to put it to good use
Define "good." It's literally teaching the kid miracles can happen. There are millions better ways to give the kid the money, like setting up a start-up with him, without actually cheating on him (if the conjecture is true, that is).
Define "good." It's literally teaching the kid miracles can happen. There are millions better ways to give the kid the money, like setting up a start-up with him, without actually cheating on him (if the conjecture is true, that is).
NFTs are one of the most manipulated markets ever.
Just take a look at the massive upvote fraud that is happening on r/NFT
https://upvotetracker.com/blog/beware-of-NFTs-promoted-on-r-...
https://upvotetracker.com/blog/beware-of-NFTs-promoted-on-r-...
The more noteworthy you can make your NFT, the more you can convince people that they might be able to make some profit by flipping it, meaning the more you can sell it for.
The high prices are a known gimmick for grabbing headlines. “Useless NFT sells for $100,000” is (or was) a sure-fire way to get your NFT into the headlines. The trick was that you could actually bootstrap these high prices yourself without actually spending the money. If you have $100,000 in ETH sitting around, you didn’t have much to lose by using it to “buy” an NFT from yourself in a transaction with yourself. You keep the money, you keep the NFT, but now you’ve generated a public record of the NFT having sold for $100,000, and now you can claim to hold an extremely valuable NFT. After all, the record is on the public blockchain! No one can deny it “sold” for that high price.
Maybe this kid actually lucked into a trading fad where crypto-rich individuals had so much extra money that they didn’t care about tossing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a kid in exchange for a virtual blockchain receipt for the lulz. Or maybe they think they can use these headlines to further flip the NFTs at a profit to someone else.
But whenever you see a headline like this, it’s important to remember the possibility that maybe nothing actually changed hands at this price at all. If this kids’ dad (who works in finance) wanted to generate headlines hopes of flipping NFTs to someone else, what better way to do it than by getting headlines about your 12-year old making hundreds of thousands of dollars? All he needs to do is “buy” those NFTs with crypto funds, keeping the crypto funds in the family, and then start contacting news reporters about these miraculous, high value NFTs that they should totally write about in every outlet so that hopefully someone else will buy them for an even higher price. Come tax time, you can always argue that you never actually sold anything because you control both wallets, so there wasn’t any profit to be taxed.
You’re only out the transaction fees, so you can buy headlines like this for tens of dollars.