Quote:
Originally Posted by 77T
There is nothing about NFTs that would thwart the secondary market. I agree with Peter that we should skip the discussion over brand authenticity.
Can you imagine the uproar for the normal buyers? Requiring them to pay gas just to protect the minority of owners who might flip a watch?
Remember, an NFT is just an entry on a blockchain like ETH. There are plenty of tricks possible with NFTs on a hard analog asset.
If the original seller (either AD or one of us) is in cahoots with a grey dealer, the grey dealer will not request a transfer of the token. Once the hard asset is sold, the grey dealer simply has the original seller complete the transfer to the final buyer.
There are also myriad “mules” who would gladly allow their wallet to be used to transfer an NFT for a few days/weeks if the original seller won’t play ball. They simply get a slice of the pie for parking the NFT.
BTW, creating “virtual mule” wallets also becomes a method on a grey dealer’s laptop since a grey dealer can afford the gas.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
|
blockchain certificate seems to have no use in preventing fraudulent/stolen watches as you have explained, then why breitling implemented it in the first place? do you think you know more than breitling? if breitling can implement it without affecting too much the total cost, I cannot see why rolex will be hurt doing it.