• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      Or it wasn’t. Very possible he was simply gifted the NFT and lied about the price.

      A bunch of the early 20s NFT sales were wash sales

  • cholesterol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Isn’t it worth exactly what the highest bidder will pay? Where would the $155 number come from? Seems like an NFT famously owned by Logan Paul would sell for more than $155 anyway. Not saying he’d make a profit here…

  • Bleys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    10 hours ago

    no one else going to point out that Logan Paul is somehow not the worst person in that picture

    • GalacticSushi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      9 hours ago

      For anyone wondering, she’s a conservative influencer who worked with BlazeTV, Toilet Paper USA, contributed opinion pieces to RT and, unsurprisingly, has ties to the Russian government.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 hours ago

        More specifically, she and her husband founded tenet media, who ACTUALLY FOR REALS laundered Russian money to shitheads like Tim pool and Dave rubin.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 hours ago

          I also saw $150 million, which is more than he deserves but it’s mostly because of ownership. Wealth snowballs so even if you make terrible life decisions after the initial investments, you usually come out with even more money.

  • NullPointerException@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Nah, it’s genius. A fantastic way to laundry money. It’s like buying paintings but you don’t even need to pay someone to appraise it or a good painter with some sort of good technique.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah, but do paintings typically lose almost all of their value? I thought the idea was that the value should either stay the same or go up.

      Either way, in this case, it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

      • BigFig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        13 hours ago

        The point here is say you are in business with X party but it’s illegal. X party can buy an nft worth nothing or generate one. You buy the NFT for the amount of your bill with X party. You’ve now technically not paid them for whatever illegal thing, instead you bought an nft from them. You could also break this down into multiple NFTs, buying 100 $100 NFTs from various “owners” that don’t link back to X party through shell companies, and you’ve now paid them $10,000 “for pictures of chimps”.

        NFTs only exist for money laundering and illicit transfers. Once they’ve been transferred their value no longer matters, the business has been done.

        • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          NFTs only exist for money laundering and illicit transfers

          And at least to some degree scamming people even if that’s not the main focus. I know a few people that got full on scammed by it

      • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        13 hours ago

        For Logan Paul, yes, he wanted it to go up.

        But if this painting was laundering at work, the important part is that the seller can point to this transaction as “real”. The IRS or the FBI might be looking into his sudden gains of half a million dollars, but when they do, they find that he sold Logan Paul half a million dollars of art.

        The NFT part makes it incredibly easy to generate said art. Before NFTs, rich people would mark up paintings, and those had to go up in value, because they would buy them at 100,000$ and sell them for 200,000$, so the government would see 100,000$ of profit, but the next guy with the painting, he’d have to sell it for 300,000, claiming 100,000$ in profit, and the next guy, 400,000$, you get the idea.

        NFTs can lose value in a way real art isnt allowed to because anyone can claim that’s the price, and after the sale, they can be discarded as trash, essentially. New ones can be made in bulk for no effort, and its alright to sell 1000 NFTs at 100$ each, because you can just keep making them and “selling” them and no one has to care about their value in the same way because they’re mass producible without that crashing the market.

          • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            You can also just never sell it, but buying it doesn’t help you launder your own ill-gotten money, just other people’s. The issue is creating it. It’s not that big an issue, but NFTs are way more efficient.

    • jagermo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Buy it, insure it, get “hacked” and then get your clean money from the insurance.

    • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Certainly my guess. No way he was actually dumb enough to pay over £600,000 just for an image someone could “steal” 1:1 just by copying and pasting.

      It was almost certainly a way to move money somewhere while retaining plausible deniability, just like with all the other scams projects he’s been part of over the years

      • Klear@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I think it’s the exact opposite - no money actually changed hands. They just sell worthless crap to each other to make it look valuable to suckers.

      • Sc00ter@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I mean, this is the same guy who bought a pokemon card for 5 million… but he just turned an 11MM profit on that

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Claim it as a loss on your taxes since it is an investment. Now it is “worth” whatever taxes were paid on 635,000 dollars of income, which I would guess is in the 100K - 300k range.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That doesn’t help that he actually paid $635,000 for it and now it’s worthless.

        It’s as if he took half a million dollars and just set it on fire. Being able to claim a loss on his taxes, if that’s allowed (which I’m pretty sure it isn’t), doesn’t really help with that.

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          52 minutes ago

          Or… He either didn’t actually pay that money… Or the money went to someone or something he wanted to give 635,000 dollars to already, and writing it off on his taxes is an additional side benefit.

  • Damionsipher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    14 hours ago

    And yet this degenerate asshole is worth ~$150M Laying out bare, being ‘smart’ has no bearing on wealth.