In this article I'll be going through some of the points Dan Olson mentions in the recent viral video about NFTs. Most of what he talks about is true, just in a way to suit his agenda.
great response, I think somebody should respond to the crypto section as well cuz a lot of youtubers "critiquing" "crypto" don't even bother to go into the concepts behind them which they deem problematic, they just take prominent scams like web3 and other fail altcoins and explain how they failed and equate it as critiques of the entire thing, I think its because they don't want to learn and tell others why its bad they want to rage on it and rationalized rage sells big
I see few rebuttals to his objections to the purported practical use of cryptocurrency, what crypto actually makes better in any way that it purports to (besides being able to make transactions without a bank account), or what, exactly is a problem that crypto attempts to solve that isn't a problem created by crypto itself. Dan starts off his segue way into NFT's by leading with the solid point that crypto can't buy common things, never has, and doesn't look any closer to being there. If one cannot defend crypto, is it not unfortunate that any defense of NFT's is incapable of defending the entire ''currency'' structure that it relies on?
Your argumentation sounds like Kanye West misunderstanding to this day the South Park's "fish stick" joke, and when you point out good biase he might have you fall into them afterwards in your own argumentations.
Your main criticism is that facts are distorted to fit Dan's narrative, but what is Dan's narrative? You never answer his central thesis; It's clear that the "agenda" is that Dan doesn't want to see existing power structures, grift, and greed multiplied in a bubble-by-design system that's hardly understood, event by those participating. And that's what he sees happening with NFT's and crypto writ large.
I took the time to read your rebuttals, many are poorly worded, many come off as bitter, and some are conspiratorial but ultimately shallow. For instance, the dig at Stephen Diehl doesn't stand up to scrutiny; banks have a vested interest in centralized cryptographic systems because that's how they offer security in a digital world. Attempts to discredit him over this is like accusing a safe-maker of making opaque objects that are tough to crack.
But that's a different argument, and ultimately irrelevant. No one yet has answered Dan's points, except to cry foul at "ad hominems" or accuse him of stoking harassment. You did nothing in this blog post to answer the central thesis - that crypto and NFTs amplify grift, fraud, and broken gig economy structures - not as a side effect, but as a core consequence of their design.
who would want to sign up to a thing where " truth is we know losers will be more common than winners." and that is his hole problem. a huge hype that tries really hard to sound new and transforming when it is nothing but a scam. a scam being a thing where there are more losers than winners but pretends to be "good". so please keep writing critiques of those critiques. it exposes the hole stupidity of it even better.
great response, I think somebody should respond to the crypto section as well cuz a lot of youtubers "critiquing" "crypto" don't even bother to go into the concepts behind them which they deem problematic, they just take prominent scams like web3 and other fail altcoins and explain how they failed and equate it as critiques of the entire thing, I think its because they don't want to learn and tell others why its bad they want to rage on it and rationalized rage sells big
I see few rebuttals to his objections to the purported practical use of cryptocurrency, what crypto actually makes better in any way that it purports to (besides being able to make transactions without a bank account), or what, exactly is a problem that crypto attempts to solve that isn't a problem created by crypto itself. Dan starts off his segue way into NFT's by leading with the solid point that crypto can't buy common things, never has, and doesn't look any closer to being there. If one cannot defend crypto, is it not unfortunate that any defense of NFT's is incapable of defending the entire ''currency'' structure that it relies on?
Your argumentation sounds like Kanye West misunderstanding to this day the South Park's "fish stick" joke, and when you point out good biase he might have you fall into them afterwards in your own argumentations.
Your main criticism is that facts are distorted to fit Dan's narrative, but what is Dan's narrative? You never answer his central thesis; It's clear that the "agenda" is that Dan doesn't want to see existing power structures, grift, and greed multiplied in a bubble-by-design system that's hardly understood, event by those participating. And that's what he sees happening with NFT's and crypto writ large.
I took the time to read your rebuttals, many are poorly worded, many come off as bitter, and some are conspiratorial but ultimately shallow. For instance, the dig at Stephen Diehl doesn't stand up to scrutiny; banks have a vested interest in centralized cryptographic systems because that's how they offer security in a digital world. Attempts to discredit him over this is like accusing a safe-maker of making opaque objects that are tough to crack.
But that's a different argument, and ultimately irrelevant. No one yet has answered Dan's points, except to cry foul at "ad hominems" or accuse him of stoking harassment. You did nothing in this blog post to answer the central thesis - that crypto and NFTs amplify grift, fraud, and broken gig economy structures - not as a side effect, but as a core consequence of their design.
who would want to sign up to a thing where " truth is we know losers will be more common than winners." and that is his hole problem. a huge hype that tries really hard to sound new and transforming when it is nothing but a scam. a scam being a thing where there are more losers than winners but pretends to be "good". so please keep writing critiques of those critiques. it exposes the hole stupidity of it even better.