[epanchin]

A token that needed a regular transfer of funds to retain ownership would be really quite neat.

A contract that showed I am the adoptee of Harry the gorilla, and provides a regular income for the charity. If I can’t keep up the payment I sell the token.

Fail to pay or sell the token and it reverts to the charity issuer.

[viraptor]

You can do that without the NFT right now with many charities. If you want it publicly visible you can tweet your receipt.

[tudorw]

Yes, but I cannot buy, sell and speculate with that.

[ilikehurdles]

Well you can put the tweet up for sale or auction on eBay. Just like with NFTs, you wouldn’t actually be transferring the underlying asset, nor would the tweet actually be hosted within eBay (or an NFT chain) for some kind of archival purpose, nothing stops you from selling it again on Amazon or Craigslist or any other marketplace (or another NFT). If Amazon, EBay, or the company behind the NFT decides to close up shop, that’s it for your listing. Heck, just as with NFTs, you could put tweets you don’t even own in your listings, since you’re really just selling the listing with some media linked in it rather than transferring the media or the rights to it.

The problem of course is the word crypto doesn’t appear in any of the traditional platforms, so no hype/demand exists for your tweets there. Those users have also over time not only been trained to recognize scams, but are provided with a little bit of buyer protection if they end up buying something you couldn’t really sell them in the first place.

[colejohnson66]

Yep. Take a look at Jack Dorsey. He’s “selling” the first ever tweet as an NFT and it’s currently at 2.5 million dollars.[0][1] But what does that even mean to “sell” a tweet? It’s still visible to everyone at its permanent URL.[2] What’s stopping Jack from just auctioning it off again later?

[0]: https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-is-selling...

[1]: https://v.cent.co/tweet/20

[2]: https://twitter.com/jack/status/20

[nerdponx]

I don't believe this at all.

If Jack Dorsey sold the "rights" to the first ever tweet, I'm confident someone would pay at least $1 million for it, even without an NFT involved.

The fact that there's an NFT involved makes it more valuable, because now the buyer can show off in more ways than one. But that's it.

There have always been, and always will be, rich people with more money than sense, who want to demonstrate their great wealth and worldliness by buying silly stuff to show off with.

[arrosenberg]

Not a judgement, but speculating on charitable giving is the worst idea I've ever heard.

[nerdponx]

Why do people say stuff like this?

You don't need email either, just write a letter or send a fax.

The point is that here is a piece of new technology that's part of a new vision for the future. Maybe you think it's an unrealistic vision, but that's no reason to sneer at people who disagree with you.

[viraptor]

Email is easier and provides more features than a letter or fax in most cases. (With both still having some use in specific cases like personal messages or gov regulated messaging) NFT is harder and doesn't seem to provide any features over current donations. (It's actually worse due to unstable exchange rates and large fees)

Unless the vision provides benefits we did not have before I will continue to sneer at "the same thing but on blockchain" ideas.

[nerdponx]

Some people think it's a good idea to have a distributed, immutable ledger for stuff like this, with the ability to make payments without depending on a handful of individual corporations like Paypal and Visa. The fact that it's "blockchain" is immaterial except that blockchain happens to be the technology that makes it possible.

There's so much knee-jerk opposition to "blockchain" stuff just because some nerds get too excited about it (and some people are trying to get rich off it). It makes no sense to me.

[viraptor]

> Some people think it's a good idea to have a distributed, immutable ledger for stuff like this

Ok, still - what's the benefit of that in the discussed context (donations to an organisation preserving wildlife) which they can't easily provide with existing programs?

(Accepting the payment is slightly unrelated - if they want donations via cryptocoins, there's a bunch of payment gateways they can enable today)

[nerdponx]

It's not an improvement, it's feature parity.

[prox]

Exactly, but you have to go with the tech latest fad as many here seem stakeholders in it. Once you are invested, you can’t criticize in the same way. It’s castles in the sky to me. It has “bubble” written all over it. There is little in NFC or Bitcoin-like technologies that I see as a great benefit to the human species. Love to be proven wrong with good comments of what that specific tech can do for humanity.

[hanniabu]

There's streaming (https://sablier.finance/), I'm sure this could be used. Although I'm not sure how it would be used in the NFT aspect. Maybe they could be used for gaming mechanism. "Upgrade your gorilla to a larger environment!" "Unlock a new toy!"

[jayp1418]

You can just delegate Cardano's ada and give those as Charity. Or check Wozx which is trying to bring efficient energy to industries so while helping animals you help save climate as well.