'Personality-driven' influencer esports league revealed, immediately implodes over NFT controversy
'Personality-driven' influencer esports league revealed, immediately implodes over NFT controversy
The launch of the Creator League has been "postponed" while organizer eFuse restructures.
every word of this title lowers the stakes of whatever the fuck this is about
A steaming turd to be sure.
Streaming turd more like
What is, phrase that would sound like jibberish 15 years ago
I'm reading it now and I still don't understand it. Was the league hiding?
They didn't disclose the fact that the passes would be using blockchain technology, apparently. Quite why they thought this was necessary is not clear, but it's not inherently a bad thing.
Unfortunately for them, however, blockchain/cryptocurrency/NFTs are all interchangeable according to the general public, so this has created a bit of a backlash.
Did the implosion cause the reveal?
I don't understand what it is about these media outlets with their allergy to the word "and"
It isn't print you don't have to say space or ink just put "and" in the title.
This time still could be easily rewritten to make more sense and if short length is there goal then you could rewrite it to be even shorter and it would still make more sense
"An influencer-based esports league has imploded over NFT controversy"
Mr Beast really just gives me the ick. I can't really explain it and anytime anyone says anything negative about him tons of people come along to say "but he paid for people's surgery!!!!1!!" Like it makes anything else he does perfectly acceptable.
I just really don't like him and feel like he would be a shitty person IRL.
In my experience, people who make a big deal out of their philanthropy are typically doing it to compensate for some other moral deficiency.
What really started to bother me was when he started to make a game out of his giveaways, like "Last person to stop touching the Lamborghini gets to keep it!" and things like that. It just feels wrong, and I can't quite explain why.
I hope I'm wrong, and so far there is no evidence he's a secret dickhead, but something about him seems off.
It just feels wrong, and I can’t quite explain why.
It's essentially throwing a slab of meat into an arena and watching the starved poors fight to the death over it, then watching while you're served the equivalent of thanksgiving dinner by your butler/maids in a safe climate controlled room.
There comes a point where "philanthropy" simply becomes rich people making games for the poors to win a "prize" and seeing how they react for their own entertainment rather than any sort of benevolence. The lambo example seems pretty much spot on for that.
When people use the argument of "oh, he does a lot of philanthropic work" as a means of defending someone, I just counter it by pointing out that Jimmy Savile did too.
I usually don't watch or follow such influencer shit. But couple days back I watched it to see what's all the fuss is about and his smile gave me chills. I don't know if anyone paid any attention or if it's me but his smile looks like something plastered on to his face. Looks so artificial... His smile reminds of the movie American Psycho.
I just can't stand those annoying ass youtube thumbnails. I only see them when I'm a private browser session (my logged-in suggestions are totally different). But they are so annoying and stupid looking that I never, ever click on them.
Sadly and clearly that stuff works, though, because MrBeast is the most subscribed-to individual on YouTube.
Only tangentially related to the issue at hand, but Mr. Beast's smile terrifies me
It's because he never smiles with his eyes, at all.
I don't watch his content and I'm not familiar with him whatsoever, but every photo I've seen of him with that smile just looks like it's a fake, forced smile. Maybe that's actually a genuine smile and his face just does that, I don't know. But yeah, it's definitely off-putting to me, as well.
So, if I understand correctly, the content passes use a blockchain system for authentication, but aren't intended to be used as a currency or investment vehicle and can't be resold or traded. It just uses a blockchain for authentication. The reason why it blew up is because the payment processor was originally meant for nfts and crypto.
Soooo... Basically it sounds like a bunch of people getting upset for no reason because they think blockchain = crypto. Cool. Amazing. Absolutely wonderful. Tbh I don't really care about whatever the Mr. Beast thing is, but the fact that people are confusing the two frustrates me because I could see blockchains having legitimate uses, it's just that scam artists and get-rich-quick schemes have fucked it up.
Maybe it would have turned into an nft scheme, but as it stands right now, it sounds like they were trying to use a blockchain in a legitimate manner.
The decision to use blockchain for this just screams bad decisions (and very likely an attempt to push NFTs or crypto later). There is no reason to use blockchain for authentification in this situation and people are right to be suspicious of a event which does that in this manner.
Right, they could just use pgp if they want some cryptographic authentication methods. Blockchain and other "crypto" shenanigans are strange and full of potential for future up selling/marketing push.
It's just inherently suspicious, because there is no valid technical reason to do it that way (things just end up being more complicated, more expensive, etc., for no benefit, not to mention the brand damage), unless you have some future plans for it that will involve crypto/NFT crap. The fact that MrBeast has a history with NFTs also doesn't help.
Or course it's still pure speculation.
Have they explained why they chose to use it in some plausible way?
What is the legitimate use you see? People in this post keep saying there are legitimate uses and gives no examples of what that is.
There are no legitimate uses, full stop.
As others have pointed out, it's just a fully public database. Its use case is among trustless parties, and that's why it fails. At some point, somebody is going to want to take action off the data and that's going to involve a trusted party enforcing it. Sooo ... just have the trusted party host the data (and make it public if you really care). And if all the parties are truly that trustless, 1) why are they dealing with either and 2) get a third party trustee to broker your deals
NFT's are a form of ownership (I know, I know, of a JPEG). If we leave out the scammy bullshit that NFT's have been in the past, then there are interesting things you can do with them. One company now is minting NFT plane tickets. The advantage is that if plans change or something you OWN that plane ticket, and could directly sell it on a seconary market or somthing. Another case would be for games. I personally like collector card games, like hearthstone and things like that. However when you play digital card games you never own shit. They could just close ownership down at any point...technically. with a set of NFT cards you 100% own it.
Beyond that, the ownership model in crypto can be empowering to users as well. One insurance company popped up that let you combine your funds with others directly in the form of their risk pools to provide the necessay function that insurance companies currently do and decreasing the amount of liquidity they have to maintain which can lower prices for consumers and provide for growth on your resources.
Not all of these things have succeeded. The main thing is a different take on ownership. Previously it has been that you give money to institutions and it's yours because you trust them. In crypto it's yours because that's how it's coded in the smart contract. I'm not a maximalist, but I think if that change can be capitalized on in certain cases it could work well.
Basically it sounds like a bunch of people getting upset for no reason because they think blockchain = crypto.
Pretty much, yeah. Seems that people heard the phrase "blockchain" and instantly assumed the idea was to flog NFTs, which is unfortunate for the people behind the platform.
That said, this seems to be yet another example of people using blockchain unnecessarily. Wouldn't a centralized database/authentication server have been a simpler choice?
Isn't blockchain the un-editable database that tracks changes by appending new ones?
How does this benefit an authentication server? Needing it to be decentralized with multiple accurate copies sounds like a recipe for forking your auth server.
I keep saying this; blockchain is just a database and a particularly inefficient database at that. That's it, that's all it is, I wish people would stop wanking off over it.
As you say it appends changes, which is a stupidly poor way of doing it because your file size just gets larger and larger over time. It'll literally never be able to get smaller because of the way it works. It'll consume more and more resources until eventually the whole planet is either blockchain or we get bored and give up with it.
The only problem it solves is the necessity for decentralisation, but that's not really a requirement for 99.99% of projects. So it doesn't really solve that many problems. It's nice that it's an option that's there if you need it but it ridiculous the general public even know about it. It should just be one of those projects that only people who browse GitHub know about.
It's past the point where if people want to use block chain tech for a practical purpose they just need to shut up about it and no one will even think about what's on the back end making a system work. The crypto-bros have been so loud and annoying for too long. No one wants anything to do with it now.
Ya, from the article it sounds like people just don't know what blockchain is?
They know enough to not want to be associated with it.
The entire web3 hype worked on people not understanding it, not particularly surprising that it's fallout does too. No, most people don't know what blockchain is beyond blockchain|crypto|web3 = scam.
Or perhaps they do know what it is.
Can someone explain to me how blockchain technology is controversial when there is absolutely no crypto or nft stuff involved? Just seems like pointless drama tbh
"Blockchain" is a red flag.
While the technology in itself is not inherently bad, it has such a limited use case in real life, and has been associated with so many scam projects in the crypto sphere, that it's an immediate alarm bell about the seriousness of the project.
I kind of think a "'Personality-driven' influencer esports league" was doomed from the start and the blockchain is a convenient scapegoat.
Anything that's done with blockchain can also be done with traditional means with 1/100th the energy cost and 1/10000th the drama.
It's pure drama, yes. It's like blaming SQL databases for glambing websites.
Shitty fucking article. I read and read and read and it kept talking about lots of stuff, but not about what the actual problem was. Downvote this waste of time.
I think the article is fine. It's just the reality that makes no sense. A bunch of social media celebrities agreed to join an esports league where the celebrities would manage the teams. People could buy a pass for each celebrity that would let them vote on team decisions and give them other benefits. The company selling the passes used blockchain authentication for them. They were also, separately, involved in NFTs. People saw blockchain and NFT and thought "wait a minute, the passes are NFTs? Aren't NFTs a big scam? These passes are a scam!" Then the celebrities saw the outrage and said "What?! No one told me there would be crypto-blockchain-NFTs!" They then dropped out of the league and it was indefinitely postponed. Unless by "actual problem" you meant something that was meaningful in anyway to anyone not directly involved in this nonsense. In that case, no, there was none of that.
The problem with this is that NFTs, at their core, aren't inherently a scam. Like, this is actually the ideal use-case for NFTs.
It's when people try to make an NFT into an "investment" that it becomes a scam. But for authenticating an event pass? That's what NFTs were actually designed for. So it's a little weird seeing one of the first large-scale uses of NFTs for their correct purpose getting hated on by everybody.
Though, I guess there's an argument to be made about being against any form of blockchain tech, due to the amount of resources required to maintain it. But I feel like the responses we're seeing to this are a bit more of the reactionary, "investment scam" sort, which I feel is misplaced anger.
Our society could literally look like that picture with a completely chromed out city, with flying cars, and glass helices everywhere, but instead we have to watch "influencers" destroy their career in one statement, because they decided to fuck around with something that's clearly a zoomer ponzi scheme
Flying cars are the stupidest idea, especially since helicopters have existed the entire time and everyone just refused to accept that fact.
I think the point is that they use anti-gravity technology which allows them to be quiet enough to drive around without bothering people and avoids the hurricane effect of rotor blades
