Zoe Roth, the face behind the viral "Disaster Girl" meme, sold the meme as an NFT for $430,000.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Zoe Roth, the face behind the viral “Disaster Girl” meme, sold the meme as an NFT for $430,000.

In this case, the image can be likened to a "trading card" or a unique work of art.

Link to tweet

[getagrip_already]

1. fools and their money...... n/t

[cinematicdiversions]

2. At least this one goes to a good cause. Nt

[Calculating]

3. This world has gone full stupid

That, and we need to be taxing the rich much more. Obviously they have too much money if the can blow it like this.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Not Getting It!

If it's an internet meme, don't millions of people already have the exact same thing?
I don't understand the concept of collecting them.
There's no scarcity, and tons of people who wanted to use it already have.
You can't collect retroactively.
So, where is the value, except to the creator? This one time?
Is there a monetizing aspect, ongoing, that I haven't heard about?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Very simply, there is too much money around...

This sold last year for US $450 MILLION!

Of course, it went to an oil sheik-- bin Salman to be precise, and while bought for the Arabian version of the Louvre, was last seen on his yacht.



Now, everyone agrees Leonardo was among the best of the best, and it's unlikely any more of his will show up, but this is still a little extreme.

Sky high property values, Pokemon cards... you name it and all this money from poor rich people is pushing prices higher. And it also pushes prices of things we actually need, not just fine art or trading cards.

In a perfect world, the wealthy would be investing in worthwhile ventures and inventions. This is far from a perfect world.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. Agreed, But...

...at least fine art has the values of scarcity & uniqueness.
A meme is a photo, to which millions have free access, with any copy indistinguishable from the original.
This is a far worse waste of $ than fine art, even with exorbitant prices you listed.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. True, but ownership is not necessarily desired because of monetization-- sometimes...

it's just ownership that makes people happy.

Go figure.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. True

I bought a mandolin just because I wanted one. (Also, it fit the small space on the wall between the door & the piano. :rofl
So, I'm a bit guilty.
But, I can actually play it & it was only $300.

[TreasonousBastard]

11. To an oil sheik, is "only" 450 million about the same as 300 to you or me?

[ProfessorGAC]

14. He Can't "Use" The Painting

That is a case of bragging rights.
At least my $300 can be used in a different art form.
But, I'm still guilty of getting one because I wanted it, not because I needed it.
And, I think I misremembered the price.
I just looked online and used instruments of the model I bought are going for $650.
I must have spent more than I thought.

[al bupp]

6. Not that I really understand it, either...

But I gather it has to do w/ gaining "proveable" ownership of a digital asset. In theory, one could use this to press (wealthy) users of the asset for license fees, etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. I Suppose, But...

...hasn't the ship already sailed?
It's already all over the internet.
Which would seem to be true of most any meme.

[al bupp]

13. Yes, but lawyers

not to mention bragging rights.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Bragging Rights

That's probably the real reason.

[lame54]

12. Why is there a $ if it's bitcoin?