> OpenSea appears to have taken central action to remove the collection

Distributed lol

OpenSea is filing for IPO, no one is calling it distributed. Their smart contract can clearly wipe data

You have put into words the reason I laughed.

They say NFTs are distributed, uncensorable, freedom to do whatever. This scenario says otherwise

Also further amusement that OpenSea is opting for a legacy IPO than a DAO or whichever web3 acronym is the equivalent to public shares. They don't even believe in it themselves haha

I really can't wait till the wagmi cult moves on to the next quick buck and we see what this tech can really be useful for instead of "Gravatar, but expensive"

Sure; a DAO is just a corp that has smart contracts. There is no web3 thing. I feel very dehyped about the space and still like it though, not sure who actually likes OpenSea among diehard NFT folks. You also don't need to use their smart contract

I've realised my mocking of it has closed my mind to the entire thing. I'm going to dig into it further rather than write it all off for quick giggles

Be the change you want to see and that, maybe I'll be able to find something to make that isn't just apes and punks

Nice turnaround!

Yes, OpenSea is centralized. That's part of the hype around SOS as an alternative, creating a decentralized NFT exchange instead.

Content hosting is also centralized (ie on Google Drive or at a URL).

NFTs can be decentralized. Current versions are not. The files are not stored on a chain or via IPFS. And there's no decentralized exchange.

The current version is kinda like an MVP stitched together.

I'm building an 'extensible card game' with the tech by querying smart contracts. Right now I can point people to OpenSea if they want a secondary market (I am not here to cash in though, I expect to be building well into a bear market). The composability is nice, and it's really not hard to migrate off OpenSea if needed.

"Distributed" on the streets

Centralized on the (term) sheets

If is not distributed or immutable, what is the point anyway?

"Emperor's new clothes" effect. Take that away and people would start questioning why large amounts of electricity and resultant fees are being generated to upload a PNG on the internet.

OpenSea is just one attempt and it's pretty centralized. That's part of why SOS is getting so much hype, a decentralized auction platform along the lines of Uniswap but for NFTs.

> “We have been trying to resolve this issue ... we want to take it down,” the group said in an email to The Verge. “OpenSea involvement would make the job easy at this stage.”

OpenSea most likely doesn’t want to take them off of their platform. Doing so would be trivial, but it would shatter the illusion that NFTs and their linked off-chain content and metadata are “owned” by the purchaser.

Right. The idea of NFTs is clearly fungible as the "link" to the actual content isn't protected against change, nor is the content protected against change or copying.

This is not what fungibility means. A coffee mug used by Guido van Rossum may be non-fungible with other brushes of the same make, merely because I value its provenance. Everyone unaware that I am willing to pay a premium will treat it as fungible. It is irrelevant how many other copies of the cup exist.

Similarly, you can create a thousand NFTs linking to the same content, but no one cares except misguided NFT skeptics, who somehow think this is an important fact.

If you want to exchange things of value, they must be immutable in and of themselves.

It is an important fact to realize the actual asset (immutable or not) is not directly tied to the tokens, especially if one is skeptical of this worthless technology.

This is of course non-sense, as OpenSea has been taking down collections aggressively for months now, including in some high-profile cases such as the Cryptophunks.

This could open the door for DCMA requests, no?

Eg. For Mickey? https://opensea.io/DisneyCollectibles

"More controversially, the list included some figures who have been ostracized for harmful personal behavior, including Jacob Appelbaum and Richard Stallman."

"How DARE these NFT makers not join us in ostracizing these harmful individuals!" "How DARE they!" Absolute trash article

“We were not aware of the likeness laws in NFTs as the market is not regulated,” the post reads. “It’s our mistake. We have to own up to it.”

The Uber/Airbnb argument, with 1/100th of the legal savvy.

IANAL but the legal concerns with an unauthorized portrait seem something of a stretch - it's not promoting something else, the portraits were the product and thus I'd be surprised if they were covered.

This is clearly very different from using a photo, along with "John Doe approves of our wonderful new electric toothbrush", which clearly would need John Doe's approval.

I'm sure there are some jurisdictions that are tougher but here I'm thinking mainly about US/UK general approach.

The portrait that was based on a copyright image may well be a problem though.

Of course it's understandable why the subjects might not be keen on the idea, but that's a different aspect.

Just to clarify a little, I'm not making the case that it was the right thing to do to post the NFTs, it's purely on whether unapproved portraits are allowed. Things like caricatures and satirical pictures do appear to be enabled on the same basis: caracturists do not need to seek permission, and it's not because they're satirising the subject that they get to do it. I'm pretty sure the same broad principal applies, but I'd welcome input from legally minded people here.