'All My Apes Gone': NFT Theft Victims Beg For Centralized Saviors (vice.com) 109
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: On the eve of the new year, tragedy struck in Manhattan: Chelsea art gallery owner Todd Kramer had 615 ETH (about $2.3 million) worth of NFTs, primarily Bored Apes and Mutant Apes, stolen by scammers and listed on the peer-to-peer NFT marketplace OpenSea. Kramer quickly took to Twitter and begged for help from OpenSea and the NFT community for help regaining his NFTs. Unsurprisingly, he was ripped to shreds by others in the community for not storing his valuable JPEGs in an offline wallet; however, OpenSea froze trading of the stolen NFTs on its platform. More than a few commentators pointed out that OpenSea's intervention here -- and especially Kramer's pleas for a centralized response -- seemed to go against a key tenet of the industry that often bumps up against usability: the idea that "code is law," and once your tokens are in someone else's digital wallet, that's the end of the game. While OpenSea did not actually reverse the transaction on the blockchain, it did block the stolen NFT's sale on its own platform, which is the most popular marketplace for NFTs.
"We take theft seriously and have policies in place to meet our obligations to the community and deter theft on our platform. We do not have the power to freeze or delist NFTs that exist on these blockchains, however we do disable the ability to use OpenSea to buy or sell stolen items. We've prioritized building security tools and processes to combat theft on OpenSea, and we are actively expanding our efforts across customer support, trust and safety, and site integrity so we can move faster to protect and empower our users." OpenSea did not answer, however, why it had frozen the trading of these NFTs and not others stolen just weeks ago that were announced on Twitter by Bored Ape Yacht Club and Jungle Freak NFT owners.
OpenSea's interventions, when they do happen, leave some users in the lurch. For example, another Twitter user recounted in a viral post how they unwittingly purchased a stolen NFT on OpenSea for 1.5 ETH (around $5000) only to have it frozen. OpenSea wasn't quick to help them out, they said -- although, it's unclear what the company could really do at that point -- and the NFT project Alien Frens reimbursed them 1 ETH. In these and other cases, "self-sovereignty" is offered up as an attempt to reframe what actually happened. Yes, the victims are ridiculed for falling prey to a hack or scam, expected to learn from their mistake by using cold storage, and in the best scenario able to buy the NFTs back at a discount because they're not sold on major marketplaces. But at least there was no centralized intervention. Kramer himself was able to buy at least two of his NFTs back with the help of users who had unwittingly bought them from the scammer. OpenSea's interventions in the cases of stolen NFTs show how centralized intermediaries often have an important role wherever the decentralized world of the blockchain meets the real world. It's also not the first time that similar moves have happened elsewhere in crypto, even though they break from the core dogma of immutability and self-sovereignty. "Scams have always been a part of the cryptocurrency industry, and so has the uncomfortable question of centralized interventions," writes Motherboard's Edward Ongweso Jr in closing. "It increasingly feels like the inconsistent application of rules in this space more often results in protecting wealth transfer schemes than protecting all users equally, and obscuring the deep centralization already present: less than one percent of users (institutional investors) account for 64 percent of Coinbase's trading volume (PDF), and 10 percent of traders account for 85 percent of NFT transactions and trade 97 percent of all NFTs at least once."
"It's not clear how this contradiction will be resolved. Uncritically believing decentralization is a salve that immediately transforms something's politics endangers not only users but crypto's fever dream of disruption..."
"We take theft seriously and have policies in place to meet our obligations to the community and deter theft on our platform. We do not have the power to freeze or delist NFTs that exist on these blockchains, however we do disable the ability to use OpenSea to buy or sell stolen items. We've prioritized building security tools and processes to combat theft on OpenSea, and we are actively expanding our efforts across customer support, trust and safety, and site integrity so we can move faster to protect and empower our users." OpenSea did not answer, however, why it had frozen the trading of these NFTs and not others stolen just weeks ago that were announced on Twitter by Bored Ape Yacht Club and Jungle Freak NFT owners.
OpenSea's interventions, when they do happen, leave some users in the lurch. For example, another Twitter user recounted in a viral post how they unwittingly purchased a stolen NFT on OpenSea for 1.5 ETH (around $5000) only to have it frozen. OpenSea wasn't quick to help them out, they said -- although, it's unclear what the company could really do at that point -- and the NFT project Alien Frens reimbursed them 1 ETH. In these and other cases, "self-sovereignty" is offered up as an attempt to reframe what actually happened. Yes, the victims are ridiculed for falling prey to a hack or scam, expected to learn from their mistake by using cold storage, and in the best scenario able to buy the NFTs back at a discount because they're not sold on major marketplaces. But at least there was no centralized intervention. Kramer himself was able to buy at least two of his NFTs back with the help of users who had unwittingly bought them from the scammer. OpenSea's interventions in the cases of stolen NFTs show how centralized intermediaries often have an important role wherever the decentralized world of the blockchain meets the real world. It's also not the first time that similar moves have happened elsewhere in crypto, even though they break from the core dogma of immutability and self-sovereignty. "Scams have always been a part of the cryptocurrency industry, and so has the uncomfortable question of centralized interventions," writes Motherboard's Edward Ongweso Jr in closing. "It increasingly feels like the inconsistent application of rules in this space more often results in protecting wealth transfer schemes than protecting all users equally, and obscuring the deep centralization already present: less than one percent of users (institutional investors) account for 64 percent of Coinbase's trading volume (PDF), and 10 percent of traders account for 85 percent of NFT transactions and trade 97 percent of all NFTs at least once."
"It's not clear how this contradiction will be resolved. Uncritically believing decentralization is a salve that immediately transforms something's politics endangers not only users but crypto's fever dream of disruption..."
Dammit. (Score:2)
Now I have "California Dreaming" by the Mamas and the Papas in my head.
k.
Re: Dammit. (Score:5, Funny)
All my apes are gone And the sky is grey I fell for a scam On a Winter's day My GPU is warm Hacked on zero-day Investors are just dreaming On such a Winter's day
This is poetic (Score:5, Funny)
This is so artfully poetic I almost want to screenshot this story and sell it as an NFT.
Re:This is poetic (Score:4, Funny)
This is so artfully poetic I almost want to screenshot this story and sell it as an NFT.
I agree. And you may actually find some even more greater fool paying for that.
Re: (Score:3)
And look, the first moron already moderated my comment down. Nicely proves me right.
Re: (Score:2)
first moron already moderated my comment down
I propose from now on we call them crypt-hos.
They stay with their pimp even if their pimp abuses them.
Re: (Score:2)
first moron already moderated my comment down
I propose from now on we call them crypt-hos.
They stay with their pimp even if their pimp abuses them.
You know, maybe they stay with their pimp _because_ that pimp abuses them.
Here is one more example: apparently Etherium miners now need 250 days of mining or so to pay for the gfx-cards they use, nothing else included, because Etherium actually has a mechanism to deal with excessive mining. That mechanism is good in theory, but failed to take abysmal stupidity and extreme greed into account. On the other hand it looks like the move to proof-of-stake will actually happen mid-of-year because the people behind
So, people buying recepits for monkey jpegs... (Score:5, Funny)
...are easily scammed? *drops monocle*
Re: (Score:2)
If only they were buying receipts for the jpegs. They're actually buying links to the jpegs.
Re: (Score:2)
If only they were buying receipts for the jpegs. They're actually buying links to the jpegs.
Embedded ownership codes for virtual receipts for blockchain stored binary encodings of urls linking to web pages returning copies of jpegs.
Re: (Score:2)
See, you can make it sound really smart. For example, viewing a jpeg on the web is "using a complex amalgamation of standardised software to run complex queries across many servers to retrieve data encoded by a heavily optimized compression algorithm that is a result of decades of intensive development and decoding this data to pass this data to a video displaying hardware which can pass it on to a liquid crystal display that will regulate voltage of each crystal to display colours specific to and in accord
Re: (Score:2)
If only they were buying receipts for the jpegs. They're actually buying links to the jpegs.
They're buying digital receipts for links to the jpegs. I think that covers all of the layers of indirection here.
To be fair, they're also getting a global license for commercial use of the (commercially valueless) images. But because they don't own the copyright in the images, they are reliant on the actual owner to enforce the copyrights, and the actual owner has made no commitment to do so. So if someone starts infringing on their license, I think they have no recourse, making that license worthless, e
Another "crypto" article??? WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Have the slashdot editors put all their money in some crypt-scam or what?
Re:Another "crypto" article??? WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Have the slashdot editors put all their money in some crypt-scam or what?
Yes [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating. I somehow missed that or have it filtered out. Thanks for the reference.
not how it works (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm still not clear on what the purpose of NFTs are, particularly for data that is massively redundantly duplicated all over the Internet.
Take that example of the girl with the knowing look on her face standing in front of a house on fire with the fire department on-scene. That image is all over the place, both in its original form and doctored either through photo manipulation or else with text superimposed. In every form it's easily found all over. Even if copyright actually could somehow be at
Re:not how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I'm still not clear on what the purpose of NFTs are
The primary purpose of NFTs is money laundering.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm still not clear on what the purpose of NFTs are
The primary purpose of NFTs is money laundering.
Looks like it. These things have even less substance than all the crapcoins. I guess that "All My Apes Gone" (epic quote!) person may have been collateral damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I should sell a jpeg of the why-not-both girl as an NFT...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? It may also be plain old scamming fools out of their money.
Tulip bulbs had the "greater food theory": Pay a lot today and sell to someone even dumber tomorrow.
But NFTs don't even have that. There is no resale market for NFTs.
Can you cite even a single instance of someone buying an NFT and later reselling at a higher price?
Re: (Score:2)
"Can you cite even a single instance of someone buying an NFT and later reselling at a higher price?"
Yes. My boss bought an NFT for $80 and sold it a week later for $17k. The person who bought it sold it a week later for $37k. That was 3 months ago. It now sits for sale for $80k.
Re: (Score:2)
Tulip bulbs had the "greater food theory"
Careful with that. You can eat tulip bulbs, but they have some toxins in them so you want to stay well below about five bulbs a day. My theory is that only a greater fool than you would eat more than five.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm still not clear on what the purpose of NFTs are
The primary purpose of NFTs is money laundering.
Sure about that? I'd think the primary purpose was to separate fools and their money...
Re: not how it works (Score:3)
I think you mean "monkey laundering".
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the art world typically accommodates those that want to anonymously buy high-dollar paintings, and on top of that, the industry allows large cash deals
NFT purchases are not anonymous and even if they were, the amount paid is easily traceable (not cash). To launder money you need to be able to lie about how much you bought or sold something for (with untraceable cash).
False. (Score:3)
To launder money you need to be able to lie about how much you bought or sold something for (with untraceable cash).
That statement is completely incorrect. Which, honestly, is probably a good thing. I don't think that knowledge of how to perform crimes is anything to be proud of. Be that as it may, you lack it, and that's why you don't understand why NFT are an excellent vehicle for money laundering, traceability and all.
Here is some info [investopedia.com].
So if someone was say, selling illegal drugs, they could easily us
Re: (Score:2)
Money also can be laundered through online auctions and sales, gambling websites, and virtual gaming sites, where ill-gotten money is converted into gaming currency, then back into real, usable, and untraceable “clean” money.
In this case, you lie about how much cash you started gambling with (the purchase) since your bets and wins are not recorded. Your "winnings" are cash you already received illicitly which is now clean. What you're referring to isn't really laundering as I would describe it.
Money laundering is the illegal process of making large amounts of money generated by a criminal activity, such as drug trafficking or terrorist funding, appear to have come from a legitimate source. The money from the criminal activity is considered dirty, and the process “launders” it to make it look clean.
In the situation you describe, you never had "dirty" money really since what you received from the sale was always a legit business
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, no, it doesn't even mean that. A NFT is a token that says you're the owner of said unique token.
The link between a NFT and a any kind of digital asset of any kind doesn't go beyond a URL embedded in the former.
Re: (Score:2)
see, download, copy, change and share - that's also what you can do with software. Even Open Source software. But that doesn't mean you are allowed to do that. And there have been more than one lawsuits finding that people copied, shared and so on stuff that they weren't allowed to do so.
It's the rightsholder who can decide how much seeing, downloading and so on is allowed.
NFTs are now a good idea to automatically trade and document those rights (easier than the usual way involving a small army of lawyers)
Re: (Score:2)
If things go to court now, you can easily proof that you are holding rights to something, even if it is already wildly distributed.
If if go mint an NFT pointing to Google.com right now, does it mean i own the company?
What if i mint two of them?
Re: (Score:2)
If things go to court now, you can easily proof that you are holding rights to something, even if it is already wildly distributed.
If if go mint an NFT pointing to Google.com right now, does it mean i own the company?
Exactly in the same way as if I wrote a piece of paper saying that I'm the owner of Google.com
Re: (Score:2)
So how is that paper proof of anything if i go to court with Google?
Re: (Score:2)
No better and no worse than a correct or a forged claim made in a NFT.
If you buy a car, and have to go to court about ownership later, you take the signed contract to court. And like an NFT, it could be a forged contract.
So again, an NFT is nothing else but an electronic way to document a transaction, only easier to automate and trade than a paper contract. That's why NFTs should be considered a useful tool, at least and under certain circumstances.
But NFTs should never be considered a value on their own. N
Re: (Score:2)
No better and no worse than a correct or a forged claim made in a NFT.
QED
So again, an NFT is nothing else but an electronic way to document a transaction, only easier to automate and trade than a paper contract. That's why NFTs should be considered a useful tool, at least and under certain circumstances.
Per your own admission, it is not. The only thing a NFT documents is that a token moved from one wallet to another; any link to a real world asset assigned to it is completely made up.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end, you may call it made up or not, but this is NOT about real word assets, but a way to make especially intellectual property tradeable like a loaf of bread, to allow people to create digital assets for a living like a baker creates bread for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a loaf of bread is not itself copyable from the aether. At a minimum creating a loaf of bread requires obtaining original raw ingredients. Even if the same recipe is followed repeatedly, the input of those raw ingredients has to happen every single time a loaf is created.
As for your earlier car example, what documents ownership is a state-issued title and state-issued registration. If I have a car that is sitting on my property for a long time unregistered, I still have a title for it, and so
Re: (Score:2)
There is a rather large group of people out there known as fools. For some unfathomable reason, some of them have amassed a large amount of money. The NFT is a tool to remove the latter from the former.
Re: not how it works (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For most NFTs out there, this is a JSON file hosted in some private server.
Pretty much all NFTs will succumb to link rot within 5-10 years.
Re:not how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
In many cases, you're not even buying any rights. You're simply being recorded as the owner is some particular ledger, where "owner" is nebulously defined when it comes to legal terms. There's a reason why people are comparing NFTs to star registries, where you can buy a certificate proclaiming you to be the owner of some particular star in the universe. Most NFTs are just as legitimate as star registries, which is to say, not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
where you can buy a certificate proclaiming you to be the owner of some particular star in the universe
Until Gakon, the supreme leader of that solar system takes exception to your claim. And comes here and incinerates the home planet of the being with the impudence to claim her world as their own.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not even clear what legal rights come along with an NFT. Seems like it's a matter that is, as of yet, poorly-defined an need of clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the amazing part. You don't even actually get the rights to the URL since someone who is not you can poof it out of existence just by doing nothing for long enough. Or they can put anything they want up in place of the thing you 'bought' and you have no legal recourse.
You know those totally non-authoritative certificates you can buy for a few bux to name a star? NFTs are LESS than that. At least the star can reasonably be expected to still be there for your foreseeable lifetime. With some care, you
Scams (Score:2)
>Scams have always been a part of the cryptocurrency industry
I'd just like to pause and reflect on the perfect clarity of this statement.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been running into ads from exchanges promising 40% APY on "stablecoin" loans and i keep thinking, no, people cannot be so gullible as to fall for this.
Yet they do.
Re: (Score:2)
While unrealistically high interest rates are a reliable sign of a scam, they attract lots of victims time and again. That is the reason Ponzi-schemes are illegal: Too many people are not smart enough to see what is going on. It does not even correlate with IQ. There is a "scam victim personality", that immediately shuts down any critical thoughts when seeing such a "golden opportunity". Some people even fall for this several times and learn nothing.
Inconsistent application of rules (Score:2)
Sounds a lot like the remedy for the Game Stop short squeeze. The wealthy folks will always be allowed to unwind their mistakes.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, you wanted decentralized digital tokens. Be careful what you wish for.
Just tink of crypto as a crash course in banking regulations for millennials.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy won't get his NFTs back. All he managed to do was to get one exchange to agree not to list the assets. That's it. They can be sold OTC to interested buyers.
And there will be interested buyers.
Now do the stock market... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now do the stock market where naked shorting by marke
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto is an institution is young enough that we could nip it in the bud before it has a chance to become yet another constant source of economic collapse for our economy.
It's like Beanie Babies (Score:2)
But now with 100% more added crime!
It's like Beanie Babies... (Score:2)
'quickly took to Twitter' (Score:2)
Or the NFT inter-agency crime reporting unit?
It would be funny if not for all the legit businesses and our basic economy weren't so intertwined with the same internet.
Is it just me... (Score:2)
...or is this NFT craze one of the stupidest fads to ever sweep the internet?
People are spending how much? On what? And WHY!??
Seriously, this makes the shit that came out of the dot-com bubble look sensible.
Re: Is it just me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of this crap is bought with other worthless cryptos. Readers can be forgiven to think people are buying in USD since editors do imaginary conversions from shit coins to USD.
I am reminded of my wife's "horse breeding" business in Second Life. She's just a small-time player, spending $5-$10 a month growing imaginary horses mostly for her own amusement. But she tells me of some of the high-stakes auctions where people spend hundreds of thousands, even millions, worth of imaginary money (that translates into thousands of USD!) on imaginary horses.
WHY? As long as there are people with more money than sense, there is a fortune to be had catering to those people.
"Chelsea art gallery owner". Read: Born rich. (Score:2)
Bidding starts at $500,000.
Re: "Chelsea art gallery owner". Read: Born rich. (Score:2)
No, that's too high effort for NFTs. What you need is 10,000 images of the same bowel movement, identical except for different hats.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 - would employ as my NFT art critic.
Baby asks for... (Score:3)
What. (Score:3)
Re:What. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's news because crypto bros are rediscovering why we have financial regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
I want tech news
I know right. Tell us when a crypto platform or an NFT turns out to be legitimate. THAT would be news.
Good and this is why: (Score:4, Informative)
NFTs are to put it politely "fucking stupid" and those who spend money on them deserve the punishment they signed up for.
Stupidity SHOULD be painful else there would be more of it.
The part that made me laugh (Score:3)
The part that made me laugh was "valuable JPEGs".
It's also the place I stopped reading.
On another note, I'm selling a childhood memory I have. I'll tell it to you and then we'll be the only people on Earth who'll have it.
It costs $10,000 but it will undoubtedly increase in value as my memory fades, and after I die you, yes YOU will be the only one who has it! Then you could sell it for, like, a kabillion dollars. Maybe more.
Contact me for payment instructions and include a phone number so I can call you to transfer this valuable memory.
Hurry, because at my age memories fade fast and you don't want to miss this once in my lifetime opportunity!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think these guys actually own their bored ape JPEGs. I haven't seen any evidence that people can't just right-click and copy the image, and nobody has been sued for copyright infringement yet. In fact there are "replica NFTs" of those JPEGs now, just the same image on a different blockchain.
Re: (Score:2)
You are doing it wrong. You can tell everyone your childhood memory but you make me the owner of the memory. I can prove I own it. Everyone else can know what it is, but its *mine*. ... So I can then sell that so some other person can be the unique owner of that memory that everyone knows about.
Ownership is actually quite tricky with digital works. For example, if I purchase some music, I own the bits on my hard drive (and you own identical bits on my hard drive) but I'm not allowed to duplicate them. I have a license giving me certain rights, and there is a copyright holder.
So what is "owner of your childhood memory" supposed to mean, or "owner of the latest Harry Potter book"? You're not the copyright holder. You are not the only person owning the bits. It seems that with these LFTs (can't re
Re: (Score:2)
So what is "owner of your childhood memory" supposed to mean,
Shut up and send me money!!
That's what it means. Now stop harshin' my buzz, man, and get your checkbook.
Re: (Score:2)
On another note, I'm selling a childhood memory I have.
I admire your idea and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
So what's your point? This is exactly how a book deal for autobiographies work - you tell your childhood memories to some ghostwriter and sell the rights to it for $500,000 to a publishing house who sells copies of it for a kabillion dollars. Nothing new here.
The main difference is now that those deals aren't recorded in pen and ink on paper, but in bits and bytes in a blockchain. And that's why people are willing to pay prices based on the novelty of the type of purchase receipt, but absolutely not based o
Re: (Score:2)
So what's your point?
The point is you owe me $10,000.
Don't search for deeper meaning, my child, just go search for your checkbook.
(Now do you understand the point? The point is, I be wantin' yo' money, dawg.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You laugh, but there are more than a few women who literally sell their farts (in a jar) on the internet and some of them make a ton of money doing it. Like hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
What a time to be alive, eh?
Re: (Score:1)
It gets even worse (somehow). People selling NFTs of a fart in a jar:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/01/04... [metro.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were kidding, but holy fuckballs.
So they pay money to (theoretically) own the idea of a fart in a jar...jesus fucking christ. WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE.
Whoever lost these contact me! (Score:4, Funny)
You can't really "steal" an NFT (Score:2)
Stolen property is stolen property, so if you actually "own" a stolen NFT you can never tell anyone you have it or else the FBI will just show up at your door and take it away (and maybe put you in jail). That means all this guys has to do is re-NFT his "stolen" NFTs and call them the originals. Who is going to complain? Anyone who complains by saying THEY own the actual originals goes to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fool (Score:2)
A fool and his money are soon parted - King James
Unique buying opportunity! (Score:3)
I am going to issue NFTs for my limited edition Thoughts AND Prayers. In fact, you'll get the rights to a free Prayer with every Thought purchased.
Guaranteed no duplicates, each Thought and each Prayer is unique as recorded in the immortal blockchain!
Re: Unique buying opportunity! (Score:2)
I had exactly this idea a few years ago, to disburse thoughts and prayers in times of crisis via the blockchain.
My start up, InvoKation, was completely ecumenical, so thoughts and prayers are fungible. So, for example, for the first time in history, Lutheran prayers would be exchangeable for indulgences. The exchange rate would be entirely set by the market.
I had worked out most of the proof-of-thought protocol, and was just starting on the witnessing layer, working name InKwisition.
Centralized servers? Huh? (Score:2)
Isn't the whole point of blockchain, that it is decentralized? Wait, that strategy isn't working for these people, and now they want centralized servers again? Well, Facebook or Instagram already have those, go back to them, start selling links to pictures on those sites! They are already centralized!
scheme? (Score:2)
Ponzi or pump and dump? Think this is definitely going to the P & D side.
I think you'll appreciate this (Score:2)
I think this sums up the news article absoloutely perfectly.
https://twitter.com/joshuamart... [twitter.com]
money & decentralisation = impossible (Score:2)
Human nature is clearly not suited to the idea of decentralised money.
How decentralised does something have to be, to be decentralised?
If something is truly decentralised, where's the control?
As this article points out, the so called decentralisation of OpenSea, is called into question when they intervene on what is supposed to be an immutable ledger.
The fact that they can block or potentially reverse transactions (by way of additional ledger entries), points out, that ultimately, there's a centralised comp
Duh (Score:1)
Big deal. (Score:2)
"OpenSea's interventions in the cases of stolen NFTs show how centralized intermediaries often have an important role wherever the decentralized world of the blockchain meets the real world. It's also not the first time that similar moves have happened elsewhere in crypto, even though they break from the core dogma of immutability and self-sovereignty."
Breaking a dogma? A dogma is nothing if not enforced in some way - with technical means, with law enforcement, etc. Why did OpenSea break the dogma? Because
Should these things be frozen (Score:2)
Should these things actually be frozen is is that just greater damage?
In the traditional art world, personal property world etc, rare items that are known to have been misappropriated are generally blacklisted to protect the market places in general and reduce the incentive for more thefts. IE you can steal it but you'll never be able to fence it so its worthless if you do. Clearly this is the ethical thing for reputable market places and auction houses etc to do.
However is this so with these smart contra
Getting back your NFTs (Score:1)