It is currently difficult to describe the absolute chaos surrounding NFTs (non-replaceable tokens); Tech reporters’ inboxes are inundated with the latest and dumbest additions to this trend of digital certificates for memes and other digital memorabilia. Disaster Girl sold for about $ 500,000, Keyboard Cat went for about $ 64,400 and Nyan Cat brought in about $ 590,000. But most NFTs aren’t that remarkable, and we can’t possibly write about each one (despite this sentence, my inbox will now be inundated with NFT pitches for the next two months). But despite our efforts to be judicious and write about newsworthy topics, we can’t win them all.
We wrote about the Charlie Bit Me NFT auction because it had a twist the others didn’t: the seller said it would leave the internet ‘forever’, removed from YouTube where it currently has more than 880 million views once the auction ended. But according to QuartzThere’s another surprising twist: Howard Davies-Carr, the father of the kids in the 14-year-old clip, which sold for about $ 761,000, says it will stay on YouTube after all.
“After the auction, we contacted the buyer, who eventually decided to keep the video on YouTube,” Davies-Carr told Quartz. “The buyer felt that the video is an important part of popular culture and should not be removed. It will now be on YouTube for the masses to continue to enjoy and it will be commemorated as an NFT on the blockchain. ”
I think that’s nice and all, but if you didn’t want to stick to the rules, you just wouldn’t be able to bid?
Okay, listen, internet. We try to accept that things change and opinions shift and nothing is forever, but we need to set some rules about NFTs, in my humble opinion from Gen-X. Charlie and his brother are really cute (or were in 2007), but this isn’t even one of the smartest or most interesting memes on the internet if we’re brutally honest. Spend your money on whatever you want, but when the seller says the meme will go away forever to attract buyers and eyeballs, they set certain expectations, and changing the rules at the last minute leads to chaos and confusion and grumpy editors. Not to mention the confusion you create with buyers. Instead of one Charlie, you’ve increased the offer to infinite Charlies – something the other potential buyers may have been interested in knowing before deciding to bid.
I guess it’s not too surprising that a blockchain-related product promises too much and then delivers too little, but I’m pretty sure this last minute switcheroo will only encourage more ridiculous stunts for people to get coverage and buyers for their Get NFTs. Which will likely result in less coverage in tech media as no one wants to be burned – or in this case bitten – by a story that doesn’t live up to the hype.
Charlie, well done, my young friend. You ended up biting us all.