https://www.pcgamer.com/personality-driven-influencer-esports-league-revealed-immediately-implodes-over-nft-controversy/
The launch of the Creator League has been "postponed" while organizer eFuse restructures.
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.
From the quotes in the article, they didn't just "not disclose" so much as "lied". Regardless of subject matter, when someone cares enough to make sure something they don't want to be associated with isn't involved and then they find out it actually is, they have a right to be upset.
They didn't lie, though.
The quote you refer to said:
"Aware of the crypto thing," he tweeted. "We were told there was no NFT/crypto component but looks like that may not be the case. Waiting for responses to our emails/phone calls like others."
Which is a misunderstanding on the part of the author of that tweet: blockchain ≠ crypto. While it is the technology that crypto and NFTs are based on, blockchain can be used for a wide variety of different purposes.
So while the organizers probably should have been more clear about how they were going to implement the technology, it appears they didn't say anything that wasn't true.
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.
Nah hunger games was to impose fear and prevent a political uprising and revolution. Mr Beast is just the old bloke from squid game lol
I'm indifferent on the guy.
Glad he's using his money to do shit that makes some people's lives better. Strange that he uses it as content.. but better than musk hoarding wealth and belittling people on twitter.
So I guess better than my bellwether for a shitty person.
Some of these dudes doing this stuff use it as content so that they can come up with more money to do even more. Maaaaybe. I’d like to believe that.
I’ve only seen like one piece of a Mr Beast video so I can’t say much about him, but I’ve seen a lot of other folks who do that kind of stuff.
I watch one dude who started off making prank videos. He only got about 5 videos out before someone left a comment telling him to do some silly thing and give a person money. He did that silly thing (I can’t remember what) and then the dude hit him with a story about why that money was going to change his life. Dude cried, then stopped the prank stuff altogether. He went out looking for people to help after that. He’s raised 10s of thousands to get homeless people off the streets, helped people with debt and medical issues, etc.
His videos weren’t that special before, but he’s ridiculously handsome so I legit believe that’s why people were watching in the first place.
Now, the cynic in me says, “Well he got a lot of views and that’s the reason for the shift.”
Still though, he doesn’t do anything mean to anyone. No cruel pranks or anything like that. Even when he was making prank content it was silly and harmless. He’s legitimately changing lives big time and he just kind of fell into it.
I watch this other dude who is a Christian and he does really good things for people too.
I don’t know. The system isn’t working or people couldn’t make a living doing shit like this. That bums me out, but I’m happy to see things get better for people.
Like I said.. I'm super conflicted about shoving a camera in peoples faces while you give them money to help them in dire situations. just so you can get more views....(although, TV has been doing this type of shit for ever, think about the Olympics, every event they have some sob story about the athlete and how they have overcome)
I think it's super fucked up, but at the same time, they are helping people. Is it more humiliating to do it this way, or to make someone jump through redtape, bureaucracy and what not to get assistance from the state?
I watched the Mr. Beast gets people vision video because I'm all for a youtube fixing peoples vision who didn't have the funds to do it themselves. Like, that shit is literally life changing. I watched the videos, I watched the Ads, I did it all... however his other content, like staying in a circle or putting your hand on a car, that doesn't appeal to me.
Oh yeah, I’m with you all the way. Just felt the need to butt in and be a part of the conversation.
Take care bud.
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.
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.
I think he means that when most people genuinely smile, the muscles around their eyes also pull up. However it looks like Mr. Beast is just pulling his lips into a smile and not his full face. This makes it feel like the smile isn't genuine.
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.
So these are the points I can gleam from you.
You can own plane tickets:
No you don't. Airlines own planes and if they want you to be able to sell your plane ticket they will just allow that. People sell and change their plane tickets all the time. What you cant do if you have your ticket on the blockchain is easily change it to another flight because a storm cancelled the first one because allowing the airline to have that control over your ticket breaks the system.
You own things in games:
The company owns the game. if the company restructures at any point and closes down the servers you will find out that you actually don't own a game card. You own a very long string of numbers that are useless without the game and the intellectual property of the game
You don't have to rely on institutions to enforce contracts and ownership:
Nothing makes me sound like an anarchist faster than this kind of bullshit. Contracts are enforced by the dominant state apparatus trough the sanctioned use of violence. No other magic can make you own stuff.
Ownership and contracts as we currently understand them must work like this because most of society is still made out of flesh stone and metal.
I don't own my house because I pay money for it. that is part of the deal when I moved in, but the main part of the ownership is that I have a deal with the government that they will send armed men to the building I live in if someone else tries to live in it without my approval. I dare you to name any ownership that doesn't work like that.
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
You don't own the plane ticket though, you own a reference to a URL, usually.
Also, your data would be permanently public on the internet.
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.
With NFT cards you own what? Not the cards, you oen a reference to a URL in someone elses database. All they need to do is chance one character, and suddenly you NFT is pointing nowhere. And of course, the company can just stop honoring your NFT any time they want, just like with traditional digital content.
Owning an NFT doesn't guarantee anything.
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.
That's the thing. Crypto doesn't change it. You still have to trust the same institutions.
I don't think that I'll be able to change your mind. I get the bad blood with crypto, really, but I guess I just don't share the absolute conviction that the whole thing is a scam.
The way you're breaking down ownership is true, but it's true about every form or ownership. The deed to your house? You don't own anything, that's just a piece of paper that someone says prooves that you have a right to live there. Whether that's saved in a county records department or a blockchain that doesn't really change. Point taken, but I think it's a broader point than how you were using it.
I'm not really sure what makes saving your deed information on a blockchain less valid than in a county records department though. I mean breaking it down, a blockchain is really just a ledger that keeps track of information in a cryptographically secure way. I think that this has gotten out of hand because of all of the get rich quick schemes, and that's fair. It's happened....a lot. But does that invalidate the whole endeavor?
The current exchange system has rent seeking vultures sitting on top. Visa, MasterCard, these fuckers sit there and take a percentage of every transaction that theY fascilitate. What are they doing? Keeping a ledger. We trust them to do it accurately and pay them steeply to do it. Now we have a self managing ledger that requires no trust from anyone. Can you really tell me there is ZERO use case potential here?
I guess I just don't share the absolute conviction that the whole thing is a scam.
It's not always a scam (just mostly), but it's most certainly not the gigantic shift NFT shills have been suggesting.
I'm not really sure what makes saving your deed information on a blockchain less valid than in a county records department though. I mean breaking it down, a blockchain is really just a ledger that keeps track of information in a cryptographically secure way.
Well, for one, not literally everybody on earth with an internet connection can go through my deed and personal information.
Also, if the records get stolen, they can authenticate and give ownership back to me. If the ownership gets stolen from you on the blockchain, you're SIL.
I don't really look forward to ransomware that targets deed and other such information, do you?
The current exchange system has rent seeking vultures sitting on top.
And with NFTs, all we'd be doing is add another layer on top of that.
Keeping a ledger. We trust them to do it accurately and pay them steeply to do it. Now we have a self managing ledger that requires no trust from anyone.
The thing is, they're central authority figures. Which means they're the authority on the ledger.
What happens if your deed gets stolen on the blockchain? Who do you turn to to get it back?
What happens if you lose access to your wallet? If it's a hardware wallet, what happens if it geta stolen. If it's a software wallet, what happens if it's hacked?
Yeah that's true about losing access to your shit for sure. There are options like multisignature accounts that could reduce the possibility of theft, but really the danger in crypto is shooting yourself in the face and losing your keys. Theft comes from bad software around the crypto like browser extensions and shit like that, the blockchain itself though makes theft numerically impossible on timescales like the existance of the universe. But your point stands that it isn't user friendly, which isn't new to emerging technology.
On a personal note, I very much like the model of self custody of assets, and this is coming from someone who almost fucked up and lost their keys. Loss of assets is a possibility and should be in the mind of users, but the tradeoff here is that you always have access to your funds and control over them.
Another commenter stated that crypto is solution in search of a problem, and I don't think that's not necessarily wrong. I see that as optimistic because it's still a solution. It potentially broadens the space of possibilities from our sole option of centralized control by existing wealth/power structures.
the danger in crypto is shooting yourself in the face and losing your keys. Theft comes from bad software around the crypto like browser extensions and shit like that, the blockchain itself though makes theft numerically impossible on timescales like the existance of the universe.
Sure, but you NEED software to interact with the blockchain, and that software WILL have bugs. That's just a fact.
Whatever wallet you use will have security vulnerabilities, and if combined with say a windows 0-day, it can cause huge amount of damage.
But your point stands that it isn't user friendly, which isn't new to emerging technology.
The theft stuff isn't a user friendlyness issue, it's a built in thing. You can try to prevent it, but it will happen, and when it does, whoever it happens to is in huge trouble.
On a personal note, I very much like the model of self custody of assets, and this is coming from someone who almost fucked up and lost their keys. Loss of assets is a possibility and should be in the mind of users, but the tradeoff here is that you always have access to your funds and control over them.
Depends on what your assets are. As soon as it touches any other system, you lose self custody. And if it doesn't interface with other systems, it will be pretty limited.
That's a nice pipedream, but why would airlines move to this system? They seem perfectly happy with the current system where you have to pay to change anything.
And the game thing doesn't make sense. If the game shuts down, where are you going to use your NFT? There's a few crappy crypto games that have tried making it so items are transferable, but for larger games it sounds like a nightmare to implement.
NFTs are like crypto, a solution in search of a problem. I'll be honest, I'm anti-crypto and NFTs, but if a valid usecase presented itself I'd be happy to be wrong. I just haven't seen it yet.
Your second paragraph is where I think the win is. When you have self custody of things, you have more ineroperability and stuff like that. Largely I buy the statement that all this is a solution in search of a problem. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing though. It broadens the possible space of options in the future, which I find to be exciting.
Edit..added the following.shit
There is at least one airline using this NFT model currently, in Argentina I think. It could be that the CEO is using the service because he's just a crypto maximalist but I believe the win from their point of view is that they get a cut of subsequent secondary sales. They've sold the ticket once, maybe you can get a bit more for it.
As far as the card game goes, what your saying, that the game could be shuttered is not different than what we currently have. It's only different in that you're able to own the cards while it's running. Maybe you want to gift your child a good card that you have, you can just send it to them. Impossible currently because you don't control anything in hearthstone except how much money to spend on packs.
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?
Wouldn't a centralized database/authentication server have been a simpler choice?
By far, which is why many people assumed that the plan was to start flogging NFTs later (once it became more difficult to back out).
Possibly, although there's also the fact that "blockchain" is the trendy new buzzword that companies like to use because they think it makes them look cool.
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.
Blockchain is so rarely the right tool for the job that I would be generally skeptical of any project which uses it.
Event tickets are definitely not a good use case.
I agree one time use events are not a good use case. The main solution blockchain brings to the table is to be a long-term record keeping system for where blocks in the chain are either non-fungible or act as historical progression of actions. This usage as a short-term verification for a one-time event is not a good fit for blockchain technologies. There is a good reason why it is good enough for banking, but people associate the value on a token as what blockchain is used for when the value is self created by people in control of the blockchain(which is usually the token holders). Blockchain is simple, and people just overthink it as having more than it is because it is "computer stuff."
I wouldn't consider blockchain "simple". Especially when the alternative truly is simple, where the system is based on a "single" source of truth.
"blockchain is a distributed ledger with growing lists of records (blocks) that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes."
It is pretty simple. Blockchain is record keeping with cryptographic metadata as a form of discerning its place in the blockchain ledger/history.
The integrity verification is up to the creator of the blockchain or community, which is separate from what the blockchain is and acts as a supplementary system. In fact, blockchain can have a "single source of truth" because it depends on who controls most of the verification stake. such as having over 50% of the "mining" capacity coming a single entity will allow that entity to be the single source of truth. There is a risk that a decentralized network can become centralized. Fortunately, blockchains like Bitcoin and ethereum have a large enough pool of decentralized verification "miners" that keep the system from falling into a centralized entity. I remember when Bitcoin first started becoming popular, there were mining pools that were growing large enough that there could be a single centralized mining network that will control it.
You are correct that there is a complexity, but it is not the blockchain itself that is complex. It is the verification we attach to it when it comes to large-scale decentralization efforts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But this is an event pass for a league…as in, an organized and well-known central agency managing the event. You don’t need a blockchain for this, because you don’t need any decentralization. Just buy the shit from the trusted party who manages that transactional history in a database developed with 60 year old technology with none of the weirdness and problems of blockchains. If you don’t trust the event organizer, then a provable certificate that your pass is legit is worthless, because the event organizer can just decline to accept your pass anyway.
Just buy the shit from the trusted party who manages that transactional history in a database developed with 60 year old technology
I think you just accidentally explained the advantage to NFT passes for this situation. You don't have to trust them, because the clockchain ledger validates your pass, irrespective of whatever party is managing it.
But you still need to show up at a gate with a guy in front of it who will either let you in or not let you in. And that guy is a trusted centralized authority. Just have him issue you the pass and be done with it.
An NFT only certifies that you have an NFT. Nothing certifies that the NFT can be used for any physical purpose. The nature of the physical world is that there's only one seat 1F at the concert you want to go to. I can sell as many NFTs as I want that all claim to represent the fact that you can sit in seat 1F, and you each have a cryptographically signed proof that that's exactly what I sold you. You still can't all sit in one chair, and there's going to be someone in charge of the venue who decides what happens. And once you have someone in charge of the venue who can decide what happens, just let that person sell the tickets. You all have to trust him anyway.
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
Honestly when it comes to things preventing us from reaching utopia, I'd say dumb influencers are not even on that list. It's silly but it hardly affects the average person
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
