Margo hayes on dior, climbing magazine pushing nfts

Whats next? 

Exactly what you’d imagine…

que sera sera

Generally I'm against NFTs as much as the next guy but I have nothing but respect for Margo getting that bag with Dior. 

Was it a little cheesy? Definitely, maybe even a little cringe. But I don't see how it's different from Bachar getting sponsors from Gillette or Kauk getting sponsors from Ford. I could totally be wrong as I wasn't even born for almost 15 years after that, but from my perspective I don't see much of a difference. 

And as climbing comes more and more into the mainstream companies are going to try and exploit that, so in my opinion, top climbers may as well get compensated and provide a relatively more accurate representation of what climbing is. The Dior marketing is soooo much better than that awful Madewell Instagram post, and I think involving a world-class climber is probably the difference between the two.

Danny Herrera wrote:

Whats next? 

Why do you care  how other people make money?

GTS wrote:

Why do you care  how other people make money?

I asked what's next sir.

The NFT article sounded like every hype article I have come across. The recent bid for Dorseys NFT at $280 when someone paid 42 million is insane. Sure superstars of climbing & any major sport could sell a few items, but its not a sustainable practice.  There are a ton of terrible NFTs out right now,  even the "good" ones look like crap.  Bored apes is just a club of rich dudes acting they are in a small cult. I dont see photographers making money unless all their work is only released as an NFT.

As far as what's next , I think some comps are going to start giving away crypto as prize money. 

Danny Herrera wrote:

I think some comps are going to start giving away crypto as prize money. 

 

https://youtu.be/31g0YE61PLQ

Danny Herrera wrote:

I asked what's next sir.

You took the time to make the post, so obviously you have an opinion on the matter. And generally these types of posts tend to be negative in nature as has been shown by your take on NFT's. So I think my question is valid. 

All I know is that for the price of that outfit, those pants better have a gusseted crotch

GTS wrote:

You took the time to make the post, so obviously you have an opinion on the matter. And generally these types of posts tend to be negative in nature as has been shown by your take on NFT's. So I think my question is valid. 

You are looking way too far into this. I scroll through IG, then come on here to discuss what is being presented. Did you mint an NFT  than have it drop by 90%?  Cause I did. 

Danny Herrera wrote:

You are looking way too far into this. I scroll through IG, then come on here to discuss what is being presented. Did you mint an NFT  than have it drop by 90%?  Cause I did. 

So do you find Margo getting a bag of cash from Dior good, bad, interesting, strange? 

As for NFT's, sorry that you lost money, but I don't share your disdain for them. I think they can and will serve a valuable purpose in society and even the climbing world. I didn't view the Climbing article as "pushing NFT's" as much as describing how this new technology can be a part of the climbing world. As with all new technologies, it takes time to weed out the bad ideas and find proper use cases, but I think that ten years from now the NFT landscape will look much different than it does today.

Repeat this mantra:

what other climbers do on their own time doesn’t affect me 

I’ve found it to be quite calming in these trying times 

Good for Margo.  

Re. climbing mag…. NFTs (and the entire crypto industry) have strong negative impacts related to climate change, due to the amounts of energy involved. This may change as technology improves, but until then….
edit - https://www.wired.com/story/nfts-hot-effect-earth-climate/amp

got obsessed with this last week: youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX…

Terry E wrote:

Good for Margo.  

Re. climbing mag…. NFTs (and the entire crypto industry) have strong negative impacts related to climate change, due to the amounts of energy involved. This may change as technology improves, but until then….

Crypto energy use is not as bad as you and the media wants people to believe. Crypto mining operations have a financial incentive to find the cheapest energy sources. These are often areas that have an abundance of energy that would/could otherwise be wasted.  What do you think the climate impacts of our current financial system are? Minting/printing, transportation, storage, data centers, office buildings, banks, employee energy consumption, security, military, etc. When one looks at the bigger picture, its not so simple anymore.

Alec O wrote:

got obsessed with this last week: youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX…

Damn this thing's 2 hours long, you gotta TLDR

Greg Davis wrote:

Damn this thing's 2 hours long, you gotta TLDR

I really did mean the whole week!!!

Basically, the tech that crypto is based on doesn’t do what it’s proponents claim it will (plus it’s extremely harmful to the environment right now), and the culture is a toxic 21st century version of Amway (especially around NFTs).

The argument in the video is EXTREMELY well researched and I have yet to see any pro crypto people seriously challenge any of its basic points. (See this article, which really can’t bring itself to disagree with the video, despite trying: https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022/02/01/what-line-goes-up-gets-wrong-and-right-about-nfts/..)

Edit: I don’t really want to get in a debate about crypto on here (or anywhere), but I just through the video was good so wanted to share. Form your own opinions, I guess.

^ Thanks for this, Alec!

Gene Banks wrote:

 When one looks at the bigger picture, its not so simple anymore.

Pretty simple: One allows international trade; the other allows you to speculate on the price of a URI to a jpg that shows a monkey in a funny hat.

Long Ranger wrote:

Pretty simple: One allows international trade; the other allows you to speculate on the price of a URI to a jpg that shows a monkey in a funny hat.

I was talking about cryptocurrency as a whole. But if you want to reduce it down to a monkey jpeg, then you have missed the whole point to begin with. Believe in crypto, don't believe in crypto, I don't care. All I am saying is that there is a lot more to it than people try to reduce it to. Think about how the rest of the world views climbing. Climbers understand what it is all about while the rest of the world has some weird bastardized version of climbing. The same goes for crypto. 

Gene Banks wrote:

Think about how the rest of the world views climbing. Climbers understand what it is all about while the rest of the world has some weird bastardized version of climbing. 

Climbing is... about something? 

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Oh yea, what’s that? Besides making money in a shady way, what good are they serving? Remember, you don’t actually own the art, you merely own a digital representation of the art, or perhaps even just the metadata behind it. It’s literally called a “token.” By definition tokens aren’t the real thing, they are “a thing serving as a visible or tangible representation of a fact, quality, feeling, etc.”

Do you think that all use cases for computers, the internet, smart phones etc were immediately known and developed? Or did they evolve over time? The same goes for crypto and NFT's. NFT's don't have to be art. It can be a way to show ownership of any asset or valuable piece of information. For example, imagine buying a house without having to deal with title companies, escrow companies, banks etc. It won't happen today or tomorrow, but it is coming.

It's funny that people view crypto in very binary ways. It's either good or bad. I view it as full of scammers and full of interesting ideas and technology at the same time.