StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Jub wrote: ↑2021-11-12 03:28pm The only 'good' use cases would be assigning NFTs to things like wills and property deeds and checking them against a centralized list of who is supposed to hold them. It would help if an NFT could itself encode data and not simply point to another object and act solely as proof of ownership.

Jan 1, 2022
SQUARE ENIX HOLDINGS
A New Year's Letter from the President
I would like to begin by wishing everyone a Happy New Year.



The metaverse was a hot topic in 2021, inspiring a lively global conversation first about what the metaverse is and then about what sort of business opportunities it presents. Against this backdrop, Facebook changed its name in October to Meta, serving as evidence that the concept is not a mere buzzword but here to stay. The metaverse garnered so much attention that 2021 was dubbed the “Metaverse Year”



I attribute this in large part to advances in extended reality (XR) technology, the increasing prevalence of the cloud and 5G, more sophisticated blockchain technology, and other technological evolutions that have taken place in a variety of fields over the past several years. That is because these advances are giving rise to services that fall under the metaverse umbrella. The metaverse will likely see a meaningful transition to a business phase in 2022, with a wide range of services appearing on the scene. As this abstract concept begins to take concrete shape in the form of product and service offerings, I am hoping that it will bring about changes that have a more substantial impact on our business as well.



Another term that gained quick currency in 2021 was “NFT” or “non-fungible token.” The advent of NFTs using blockchain technology significantly increased the liquidity of digital goods, enabling the trading of a variety of such goods at high prices and sparking conversations the world over. I see 2021 not only as “Metaverse: Year One,” but also as “NFTs: Year One” given that it was a year in which NFTs were met with a great deal of enthusiasm by a rapidly expanding user base. However, we do observe examples here and there of overheated trading in NFT-based digital goods with somewhat speculative overtones, regardless of the observed value of the content provided This, obviously, is not an ideal situation, but I expect to see an eventual right-sizing in digital goods deals as they become more commonplace among the general public, with the value of each available content corrected to their true estimated worth, and I look for them to become as familiar as dealings in physical goods.



To address these changes in our business environment, the medium-term business strategy that we unveiled in May 2020 identified AI, the cloud, and blockchain games as new domains on which we should focus our investments, and we have subsequently been aggressive in our R&D efforts and investments in those areas.

In the AI space, we established SQUARE ENIX AI & ARTS Alchemy Co., Ltd. (“AI & AA”) in March 2020 to pursue development efforts in the wider field of “entertainment AI” rather than being constrained by traditional concepts of gaming AI. The firm’s R&D efforts focus primarily on natural language processing, world models, and simulation technology. These efforts will help us develop the games that we release into the world and enhance their overall quality, but that is not all. By incorporating the output of these R&D efforts into virtual avatars and elsewhere, we plan to apply that output to a wide variety of content and provide the relevant technology to other companies, with a view to leveraging these R&D efforts across our entire Digital Entertainment business.



We are exploring potential efforts in the cloud space from two primary perspectives, the first being leveraging cloud technologies to distribute content and the second being developing content that offers customers new forms of excitement enabled by the cloud’s attributes. More telecommunications infrastructure is being built, as exemplified by expanding 5G coverage. Devices are also making performance gains. As these trends continue, I believe that the content we provide will become more accessible, making it more likely that our customers will discover enjoyment as we gain new touchpoints with them. Leveraging cloud technologies is extremely effective as a means of making our content and services uniformly available and as a catalyst for creating new forms of excitement that expand upon the content development capabilities for which we are known. As such, we will be making ample investments in the cloud space.



Lastly is blockchain games. Be they single-player or online games, games have traditionally involved a unidirectional flow whereby creators such as ourselves provide a game to the consumers that play them. By contrast, blockchain games, which have emerged from their infancy and are at this very moment entering a growth phase, are built upon the premise of a token economy and therefore hold the potential to enable self-sustaining game growth. The driver that most enables such self-sustaining game growth is diversity, both in how people engage with interactive content like games, and in their motivations for doing so. Advances in token economies will likely add further momentum to this trend of diversification. I see the “play to earn” concept that has people so excited as a prime example of this.



I realize that some people who “play to have fun” and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so. However, I believe that there will be a certain number of people whose motivation is to “play to contribute,” by which I mean to help make the game more exciting. Traditional gaming has offered no explicit incentive to this latter group of people, who were motivated strictly by such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit. This fact is not unrelated to the limitations of existing UGC (user-generated content). UGC has been brought into being solely because of individuals’ desire for self-expression and not because any explicit incentive existed to reward them for their creative efforts. I see this as one reason that there haven’t been as many major game-changing content that were user generated as one would expect.



However, with advances in token economies, users will be provided with explicit incentives, thereby resulting not only in greater consistency in their motivation, but also creating a tangible upside to their creative efforts. I believe that this will lead to more people devoting themselves to such efforts and to greater possibilities of games growing in exciting ways. From having fun to earning to contributing, a wide variety of motivations will inspire people to engage with games and connect with one another. It is blockchain-based tokens that will enable this. By designing viable token economies into our games, we will enable self-sustaining game growth. It is precisely this sort of ecosystem that lies at the heart of what I refer to as “decentralized gaming,” and I hope that this becomes a major trend in gaming going forward. If we refer to the one-way relationship where game players and game providers are linked by games that are finished products as “centralized gaming” to contrast it with decentralized gaming, then incorporating decentralized games into our portfolio in addition to centralized games will be a major strategic theme for us starting in 2022. The basic and elemental technologies to enable blockchain games already exist, and there has been an increase in the societal literacy and acceptance of crypto assets in the past few years. We will keep a close eye on societal shifts in this space while listening to the many groups of users that populate it, and ramp up our efforts to develop a business accordingly, with an eye to potentially issuing our own tokens in the future.



Our lifestyles have changed, and we are learning to coexist with COVID-19. Against that backdrop, I believe that the new technologies and concepts that I have discussed and the changes that they bring to our business environment will provide us with numerous opportunities to enrich people’s lives through digital entertainment, which is at the core of our business. This at the same time means that we are seeing the beginnings of further leaps forward for our business. We remain committed to creating, developing, and providing world-class content, and we will contribute to the happiness of society and its people by offering new forms of excitement.



I wish you all the best for 2022.


Yosuke Matsuda
President and Representative Director,
SQUARE ENIX HOLDINGS CO., LTD.

bilateralrope wrote: ↑2022-01-05 12:38am Does any of that sound like it will lead to them making games that interest you?

tezunegari wrote: ↑2022-01-07 02:37am

bilateralrope wrote: ↑2022-01-05 12:38am Does any of that sound like it will lead to them making games that interest you?

I read that long text but I still don't understand how NFTs are supposed to make games better.
All I read into this is that they are trying to make games that allow user-created DLC to be sold by the creators (with a cut for SE, of course).

tezunegari wrote: ↑2022-01-07 02:37am

bilateralrope wrote: ↑2022-01-05 12:38am Does any of that sound like it will lead to them making games that interest you?

I read that long text but I still don't understand how NFTs are supposed to make games better.
All I read into this is that they are trying to make games that allow user-created DLC to be sold by the creators (with a cut for SE, of course).

LadyTevar wrote: ↑2022-01-07 04:25pm

tezunegari wrote: ↑2022-01-07 02:37am

bilateralrope wrote: ↑2022-01-05 12:38am Does any of that sound like it will lead to them making games that interest you?

I read that long text but I still don't understand how NFTs are supposed to make games better.
All I read into this is that they are trying to make games that allow user-created DLC to be sold by the creators (with a cut for SE, of course).

If you think about it, many games already sell NFTs -- custom clothing, special weapons, "collectables" that you can only use/wear/show off in Games, much of which you pay real cash for. Is this going to be any different?

Last summer, Shinoda released an album, DROPPED FRAMES VOL. 1, which he composed, with the help of fans, on TWITCH. Anything I have to say about any of this should be read with the understanding that I'm playing analog checkers and he's playing digital chess. I'd trust him. His NFTs come with rules, such as: "you have no right to license, commercially exploit, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, publicly perform, or publicly display the NFT or the music or the artwork therein," which I think is his way of saying that for your 1.6 WETH you're basically getting a digitally autographed MP3. Also, he's holding onto a 33 percent ownership of each copy, which, if I'm getting this right, means if instead of buying a song for $1.29 on ITUNES you choose to buy it for $1,029 on Zora, and if you want to trade it in next year at your local used NFT store, you're going to owe him a third of whatever you get for it. Whatever exactly it is.

Dominus Atheos wrote: ↑2022-02-11 01:22pm That's definitely not how NFTs were promised to be going to work.

Yang wants to push crypto-friendly regulations while somehow ending poverty with a DAO where more money equals more say.
EO
By Edward Ongweso Jr

Failed U.S. presidential and NYC mayoral candidate Andrew Yang has finally found his groove: Web3, or more specifically, Lobby3, a new group that will push for policies in favor of crypto in Washington, D.C. But not only that. Yang says that pushing for friendly regulation in an emerging space currently overrun with grifts and scams will "eradicate poverty."

"My goal is simple - eradicate poverty. Web3 technologies represent the biggest anti-poverty opportunity of our time,” Yang tweeted on Thursday in a tweet thread announcing his plan. “Millions of lives are being transformed and creators empowered by new ways to exchange and generate value on the blockchain. It's bottom-up not top-down."

For all the bombast about eradicating poverty, the website has surprisingly little on how Web3 could do this or how lobbying could make it so besides vague gestures towards "partnerships" with public officials to run programs "demonstrating the capacity" of blockchains to reduce poverty. What it does have is a lot of buzzwords, and a commitment to "ensure that any new regulations are mindful of the realities of Web3 firms and create an environment here in the US where innovation can continue to thrive."

The "What is Lobby3?" section is a self-referential call-to-arms emphasizing that bad policy can "prevent Web3 from reaching its full potential" but Lobby3 will fight that by educating lawmakers about the "positive potential" here. The "How it Works" section also offers no information about how this might help eradicate poverty, instead simply sketching a roadmap for rubbing shoulders with "like-minded thought-leaders, innovators, and Web3 enthusiasts" as they try to talk with lawmakers. The "Membership" and "Roadmap" sections also gesture towards building the economic potential of Web3, but not what it actually is. They will have meetings, more meetings, lots of meetings, and, because part of the plan involves starting a Lobby3 DAO (decentralized autonomous organization), votes among token-holders.

One thing that's worth nothing is the DAO does not currently exist. The roadmap points out that only after the lobbying infrastructure is built will a portion of the funds be used to create the Lobby3 DAO where members can vote. There’s also the question of whether this is actually a good idea: DAOs allocate votes through purchasing power―the more tokens you have, the more of a say you get. While DAOs are often promoted as being the next step for democratic governance, being governed by those with the most money is often pointed out by critics as being a very anti-democratic idea (albeit a very familiar one). Indeed, venture capital firms like a16z are increasingly buying tokens to have a say in DAOs.

With this set-up, Lobby3 feels less like a scrappy lobbying operation meant to liberate Web3 and more like a support group for high-rollers, or a bougie social club with high requirements for entry at the top tier.

"Each token is one vote, and you can buy multiple if you’d like your voice to be louder (just know we reserve the right to balance the scales a bit if we see voting isn’t reflecting the masses!)" Lobby3's website states.

Tier 1 costs 0.07 ETH ($TK) and allows access to the discord, status updates, and participation in AMAs with Andrew Yang. Level 2 costs 1 ETH (roughly $3,000) and allows you access to monthly meetings with "special guests, partner organizations and Web3 leaders" to "help shape" policy priorities. You'll also get access to in-person events, exclusive merch, NFTs, and recognition on the website. Tier 3 costs 40 ETH ($120,000) is invite only, giving you "one-on-one access" to Yang and the core team as well as "100 leaders in the Web3 space." You can also vote to have Yang appear as a keynote speaker to five events a year, ranging from "casual meals" to speeches. Additionally, you get to join off-the-record group meetings with "policy leaders" as the group tries to lobby lawmakers to "decentralize economic opportunity."

Another issue for Yang's lobbying DAO is that it's still not exactly clear what Web3 refers to or whether it actually exists once you start sifting through the hype.

Is it the third iteration of the Internet—an attempt to use blockchain technologies to decentralize a Web centralized by tech giants like Apple, Facebook, and Google? Or does, as tech critic Evgeny Morozov suggests, the “3” refer to the three major VCs interested in centralizing themselves in the Web3 ecosystem: Andreessen Horowitz with its major lobbying push and $2.2 billion crypto venture fund, Paradigm with its “monster” $2.5 billion Web3 venture fund, or Union Square Ventures’ push into financing DAOs and crypto companies?

Is Web3 an ecosystem that will liberate artists from traditional markets and allow them to make a living while pursuing their creative endeavors? Or is it a complete disaster rife with theft, scams, insider trading, and bad art? Is it an exciting opportunity to develop a plethora of potential use cases that could revolutionize finance to be more decentralized? Or is it simply recreating financial instruments and risks we are already familiar with?

These are all great questions that Yang and his DAO will likely waste no time answering. Instead, the assumption is that there is a "clear need for the Web3 community to have a voice making the case on Capitol Hill for the positive potential of these technologies" even as those supposed benefits (eradicating poverty, I guess?) continue to be overshadowed by what amounts to prodigious gambling in the best cases, with few exceptions.

I wish nothing but the worst for everyone involved in making me type that headline
ByLuke Plunkett

Late last year, Pepe the Frog creator Matt Furie decided to run an NFT auction, selling off an image of the controversial character in which it was waist-deep in a pool, its asscrack peeping over the surface. Everything that has happened since is exactly how you would imagine such an auction in the insipid Web3 space would go down.

Furie—who tried to “reclaim” the character in 2017 after it had become co-opted as a symbol of the far right—had formed a Decentralized Autonomous Organization, or DAO called PegzDAO and on October 8 auctioned off a single NFT representing the image above, while at the same time clearly stating that aside from the one being auctioned, there would be 99 more NFTs representing the same image made and kept in the DAO’s possession and never put up for sale.

As Web3 Is Going Just Great report, a man by the name of Halston Thayer went on to win the auction, spending the cryptocurrency equivalent of $537,084. He was no doubt thrilled with his unique purchase until a couple of weeks later, when PegzDAO released 46 of those other 99 NFTS—which, remember, represent the exact same image as the one Thayer paid half a million dollars for—for free.

As first posted by lawyer Rob Freund, Thayer has now decided to sue Furie and his associated companies, claiming that the free release “significantly devalu[ed] Plaintiff’s Pepe NFT to less than $30,000", which considering we’re talking about an utterly worthless image that you are all free to right click and save for yourselves here, is one of the funniest sentences I have ever read. The suit opens with:

This action arises from Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, which includes their unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading advertising and wrongful actions with respect to an auction for a particular nonfungible token (“NFT”) that led Plaintiff and others to grossly overbid on the NFT. Plaintiff therefore brings this action for fraudulent inducement, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition and unlawful business acts and practices, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

Thayer is seeking to have the full price of his original “investment” returned, as well as “punitive damages”.

On January 9, an ice cream-themed NFT project called "Frosties" made off with $1.1 million in a rug pull only an hour after the NFTs were launched. Less than three months later, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York announced that they had charged the two 20-year-old individuals behind the scheme with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Although it is bizarrely common to see people question whether NFT rug pulls are actually crimes, the USAO was quite clear: "Rather than providing the benefits advertised to Frosties NFT purchasers, Nguyen and Llacuna transferred the cryptocurrency proceeds of the scheme to various cryptocurrency wallets under their control." The Special Agent in Charge stated, "the same rules apply to an investment in an NFT or a real estate development. You can’t solicit funds for a business opportunity, abandon that business and abscond with money investors provided you."
The statement also alleged that the duo were working on another NFT project called "Embers", which they hoped would generate around $1.5 million. The project was set to mint on March 26, and the 60,000-member Discord has been thrown into disarray. Some of the community moderators began deleting links to the D.O.J. announcement, and attempted to suggest that the Department of Justice website had been faked to "FUD" the project.

The individuals behind the Frosties scheme face charges that each carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, if they are convicted.

[*]Two Defendants Charged In Non-Fungible Token (“NFT”) Fraud And Money Laundering Scheme

Solauren wrote: ↑2022-03-25 12:52pm If only they'd go after all NFTs and Cyrptocurrency the same way.

NFT-based battler Axie Infinity just suffered a major hack
ByEthan Gach
Today 2:16PM

Pokémon-style NFT battler Axie Infinity was one of the biggest “success” stories in the world of crypto gaming. Now it’s responsible for one of the biggest thefts in the history of the technology. The gaming-focused blockchain Ronin Network announced earlier today that an Axie Infinity exploit allowed a hacker to “drain” roughly $600 million worth of crypto currency from the network.

“There has been a security breach on the Ronin Network,” the company announced on its Substack. “Earlier today, we discovered that on March 23rd, Sky Mavis’s Ronin validator nodes and Axie DAO validator nodes were compromised resulting in 173,600 Ethereum and 25.5M USDC drained from the Ronin bridge in two transactions.”

The person responsible allegedly used hacked private keys to order the fraudulent withdrawals. How, you ask? According to Ronin, “the attacker found a backdoor through our gas-free RPC node, which they abused to get the signature for the Axie DAO validator.”

Basically, the Ronin “side-chain” for games like Axie Infinity uses “9 validator nodes” to prevent fraudulent transactions. However, in November, due to overwhelming demand by new Axie players, Ronin gave special privileges to Sky Mavis, the company behind the game, so it could sign transactions on its behalf.

Released back in 2018, Axie Infinity has exploded in popularity in certain quarters of the internet with the rise of NFTs and market speculation around blockchain gaming and the metaverse. Part critter collectathon, part deck building battle game, Axie Infinity claimed 1.8 million daily users last year, and broke $4 billion in lifetime NFT sales earlier this year. Now it seems to have paid a price for its rapid growth, cutting security corners to rapidly service new users.

“The Axie DAO allowlisted Sky Mavis to sign various transactions on its behalf,” Ronin writes. “This was discontinued in December 2021, but the allowlist access was not revoked. Once the attacker got access to Sky Mavis systems they were able to get the signature from the Axie DAO validator by using the gas-free RPC.“

Ronin has apparently locked down accounts while it continues its investigation into the hack, meaning no one can get their funds out even as the price of RON, the network’s native token, has reportedly plummeted more than 25%.

Weird how crypto currency networks, championed for their security and decentralization, keep getting burgled. Last August, a hacker made off with over $600 million from the Poly Network, though many of the funds were later returned. In January, hackers withdrew more than $30 million from Crypto.com in what the company initially referred to as a low-key “incident.” Most of those funds were restored as well. It remains to be seen what will happen with the latest massive crypto breach.

Hello, and welcome to another episode of 'dumb crypto stuff not working in the real world'
ByLuke Plunkett
Yesterday 9:30PM

F1 Delta Time, an official NFT and crypto-powered racing game that launched back in 2019, closed its doors last month, leaving everyone who had spent money and invested in the project probably wishing they had done something else with their time.

The game—which was one of the first licensed NFT titles out there, years before other leagues and sports got into the scam—announced its closure on March 15, giving users...one day before the game shut down on March 16. If you’ve never seen F1 Delta Time before, and you’re thinking “wow, did I miss an exciting Formula 1 racing game?!?!”, you did not:
First Races in F1 Delta Time! (HOW TO START RACING)

Games shut down all the time, but what’s notable about this one is that it was at one point a pretty big deal, at least in this cursed space! Example: the most expensive NFT sold in all of 2019 was a car for this game, which went for over $100,000, and a combination of the official F1 license and a promised ability for players to “play to earn” made it an early test case for how NFT-powered games could work.

With owners Animoca unable to renew the F1 license, however, it is now also a test case for what happens when a licensed NFT game dies, because all that money splashed out on cars and other items—some players would later spend almost $300,000 on a single transaction—is now ostensibly worthless. Sure, the tokens themselves live on, but without the game they were bought for there’s no actual value there.

Fully aware of this, the developers have promised the owners of those F1 NFTs that they can now have some generic replacement tokens for a different racing game instead:

As part of our commitment to an open ecosystem, we are providing F1® Delta Time asset owners with the following options:

- All F1® Delta Time car owners will receive Replacement Cars, which are equivalent cars for REVV Racing on Polygon based on the rarity and power of your original F1® Delta Time cars

- Your F1® Delta Time cars can be swapped for a Race Pass, which is used in staking and gives access to future NFT mints and airdrops

- Staking v4.0 will have our largest reward pool yet: 20 million REVV. To participate you will need to use your new REVV Racing assets together with a Race Pass. Future staking events to be announced.

-Event Segment owners receive 6 months of rewards, and an option to swap for Track Vouchers, redeemable for a REVV Motorsport track NFT in the future

- 2019 Crates and 2020 Keys can be bridged and staked into a SHRD earning pool on Polygon

- All other F1® Delta Time assets can be swapped for Proxy Assets, which will be used in the future to obtain NFTs for products across the REVV Motorsport ecosystem

Like I said, games shut down all the time, and many of them have had players who spent money on items, levels, weapons and other types of digital content. The difference here is that in a regular video games, those are part of the experience; this game’s items, like everything else crypto-related, were pitched as an investment.

Womp.

Because, really, what is even the point of playing Dungeons & Dragons if you're not buying a premade character from a limited set of options, playing premade adventures with it, getting "Gripnr certified" as a dungeonmaster (or finding someone who is), paying transaction fees every time you level up or get new equipment, or reselling your characters after the campaign ends (to someone who apparently wants a "used" D&D character)?
A company called Gripnr is already working to line up NFT pre-sales, despite acknowledging that they have no idea how they will prevent fraudulent data input—an issue commonly known as the oracle problem. It's also unclear how they intend to change the game so that it's sufficiently different from the Wizards of the Coasts game that they will not face legal action (an issue that ended another crypto project planned to be based around a WotC game). We can only hope that none of this may last long enough to become an issue, given that Gripnr have come up with an idea that I can't imagine appealing to a single person who's ever played D&D.

bilateralrope wrote: ↑2022-04-11 08:24pm In "NFT bros don't understand the market they want to push NFTs in" I bring you: NFTs Are Here to Ruin D&D. Too long to quote, but I can't see how any step in the process for this NFT based D&D would sound appealing to anyone who already enjoys tabletop RPGs.

Instead, I'll just quote the summary from web 3 is going great:

Because, really, what is even the point of playing Dungeons & Dragons if you're not buying a premade character from a limited set of options, playing premade adventures with it, getting "Gripnr certified" as a dungeonmaster (or finding someone who is), paying transaction fees every time you level up or get new equipment, or reselling your characters after the campaign ends (to someone who apparently wants a "used" D&D character)?
A company called Gripnr is already working to line up NFT pre-sales, despite acknowledging that they have no idea how they will prevent fraudulent data input—an issue commonly known as the oracle problem. It's also unclear how they intend to change the game so that it's sufficiently different from the Wizards of the Coasts game that they will not face legal action (an issue that ended another crypto project planned to be based around a WotC game). We can only hope that none of this may last long enough to become an issue, given that Gripnr have come up with an idea that I can't imagine appealing to a single person who's ever played D&D.

Though if you read the full article you'll find out that this scheme is worse than the summary makes it sound.

Bedlam wrote: ↑2022-04-12 03:00am Oddly the whole thing sounds like things which happen in a comic strip parodying D&D and roleplay in general called Knights of the Dinner Table. Reality mirrors absurdity I guess.

Crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi bought Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s first-ever tweet as an NFT for $2.9 million last year. He listed the NFT for sale again at $48 million last week.
By Sandali Handagama
Apr 14, 2022 at 6:48 a.m.
Updated Apr 14, 2022 at 9:26 a.m.

A non-fungible token (NFT) of Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s first-ever tweet could sell for just under $280. The current owner of the NFT listed it for $48 million last week.
Iranian-born crypto entrepreneur Sina Estavi purchased the NFT for $2.9 million in March 2021. Last Thursday, he announced on Twitter that he wished to sell the NFT, and pledged 50% of its proceeds (which he thought would exceed $25 million) to charity. The auction closed Wednesday, with just seven total offers ranging from 0.09 ETH ($277 at current prices) to 0.0019 ETH (almost $6).
“The deadline I set was over, but if I get a good offer, I might accept it, I might never sell it,” Estavi told CoinDesk via a WhatsApp message on Wednesday.
Estavi has two days to accept the bid, or it will expire.

Estavi, whose crypto ventures Bridge Oracle and CryptoLand collapsed following his arrest in Iran last year, is in the middle of relaunching his Bridge Oracle tokens (BRG), which were originally on the Tron blockchain, to the Binance Smart Chain.

BRG investors are waiting for Estavi to exchange their old tokens for the new ones. Estavi, who announced the token swap on the same day he put up Dorsey’s tweet NFT for sale again, told CoinDesk that the swap is being run manually and the process may take up to two months to complete.

DISCLOSURE

The leader in news and information on cryptocurrency, digital assets and the future of money, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups. As part of their compensation, certain CoinDesk employees, including editorial employees, may receive exposure to DCG equity in the form of stock appreciation rights, which vest over a multi-year period. CoinDesk journalists are not allowed to purchase stock outright in DCG.