I don’t think that’s actually all that important. It’s fundamental to an understanding of NFTs, but not their role in any sort of money-laundering, since you can also just make NFTs using some AI-generated art or make 5000 NFT’s from one low-effort art you do own.
All money laundering needs is the non-fungible part, which is easy to do, just stamp the corner with a limited-edition numbering mark and the 500 fungible digital tokens of a single art become 500 nonfungible tokens.
You can also just never sell it, but buying it doesn’t help you launder your own ill-gotten money, just other people’s. The issue is creating it. It’s not that big an issue, but NFTs are way more efficient.
For Logan Paul, yes, he wanted it to go up.
But if this painting was laundering at work, the important part is that the seller can point to this transaction as “real”. The IRS or the FBI might be looking into his sudden gains of half a million dollars, but when they do, they find that he sold Logan Paul half a million dollars of art.
The NFT part makes it incredibly easy to generate said art. Before NFTs, rich people would mark up paintings, and those had to go up in value, because they would buy them at 100,000$ and sell them for 200,000$, so the government would see 100,000$ of profit, but the next guy with the painting, he’d have to sell it for 300,000, claiming 100,000$ in profit, and the next guy, 400,000$, you get the idea.
NFTs can lose value in a way real art isnt allowed to because anyone can claim that’s the price, and after the sale, they can be discarded as trash, essentially. New ones can be made in bulk for no effort, and its alright to sell 1000 NFTs at 100$ each, because you can just keep making them and “selling” them and no one has to care about their value in the same way because they’re mass producible without that crashing the market.
You do realize that you don’t get time, generally speaking, to delete things, when a government legally demands your info, right?
As soon as any company sees a lawful order demanding information, deleting it becomes a crime.
If this same thing happened to mailbox.org, you heard about it immediately, and hit all the delete buttons you can find, mailbox.org will still hand over your info to them, as they’re legally obligated to do so. It’s not a gdpr violation or anything like that.
The root means “slow”, BTW, so it does get to join that list.
A few years ago, blatant journalistic malpractice was a controversy.
Are people so lazy they can’t even bother to read the headline? Maybe an AI would’ve been useful here to generate its own defense.
Seems a little threadbare as a theory.
People have been adding other people to royal families for the entirety of recorded history.
Sometimes its through marriage, but sometimes its adoption, sometimes they just make up a lineage.
Now, theres arguments against royalty, for sure, but if the royal family wasn’t allowed to prune itself, find the best people and merge them into the royal family, etc, there never would’ve been royals in the first place. Royal families begin with individuals but they remain by caring about “good breeding” (and other ways of consolidating power).
Consolidating is the real purpose. It can be obscured with religious lines of divinity, or what have you, but royal families are always shopping for people to incorporate.
Thats fair.
Getting screwed out of a military pension because that military got your fiancée killed too fast just isn’t fair, and you don’t have to go far back in history to when the child being out of wedlock had social consequences, so provable intent being good enough is a good standard.