The Person Who Made $69 Million from NFTs Four Years Ago Is Still Making Money

marsbitPubblicato 2025-12-09Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-09

Introduzione

Four# 1st-Project This is my first project

Author: Cookie

Beeple, the man who sold one NFT for a staggering $69 million, has long been seen as a symbol of the golden age of NFTs that once was.

Although the glory of NFTs has faded, Beeple and his team have remained active in the NFT circle. At this year's Art Basel, he brought another "golden dog" to the currently quiet NFT market—Regular Animals.

Yesterday, multiple Regular Animals sold for over 10 ETH (approximately $35,000) on OpenSea, and these works were given away for free at Art Basel, with a total of 256 pieces. At this price, Beeple essentially gave away nearly ten million dollars worth of NFTs at Art Basel.

The project that Beeple and his team brought to this Art Basel is precisely Regular Animals. These are a bunch of robot dogs, as shown in the image below. They look a bit eerie because these robot dogs have human faces, and they are faces of well-known figures like Musk, Andy Warhol, Zuckerberg, Picasso, and even Beeple himself.

Of course, it's not just the eerie visual effect; these robot dogs use the cameras on their heads to observe their surroundings and employ an evolving visual algorithm to create artworks.

The celebrities these robot dogs portray were not chosen arbitrarily. The reason for selecting the aforementioned figures is that they have influenced how humans view the world, whether through algorithms, art, or politics. As humans, we observe the world through these perspectives, and so do these robot dogs. At Art Basel, these robot dogs and humans observed each other, and the moments of observation became the artworks created by these robot dogs—artworks that also serve as autobiographies for these machines.

Interestingly, Regular Animals also has a physical series, with a total of 1,024 pieces. On eBay, someone has already listed one for sale at a fixed price of $6,500. The market's valuation suggests that NFTs are far more valuable than physical paintings, reminiscent of Damien Hirst's "The Currency" series years ago, which forced owners to choose between the physical and the NFT.

Before achieving great success in the NFT field, Beeple had been creating art every day since 2007 but had never sold anything for more than $100. After achieving fame and fortune, Beeple did not splurge like some artists or crypto project teams. He acquired a studio/gallery of about 460 square meters, assembled a team of dozens of 3D artists, engineers, and researchers (even including a former Boeing engineer), invited Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev, the former director of the Castello di Rivoli Museum of Contemporary Art, as an advisor, continuously exhibited at art shows around the globe, and created new artworks.

This exhibition of Beeple's robot dogs has not only gained attention in the crypto circle due to its price but has also been covered by traditional media like the WSJ.

Domande pertinenti

QWho is the artist that sold an NFT for $69 million four years ago?

ABeeple.

QWhat is the name of the new NFT project Beeple launched at the Art Basel exhibition?

ARegular Animals.

QHow many Regular Animals NFTs were given away for free at Art Basel, and what was their estimated total value based on secondary market sales?

A256 NFTs were given away, with an estimated total value of nearly $9 million based on sales of over 10 ETH (approx. $35,000) each.

QWhat unique feature do the Regular Animals robot dogs have that allows them to create art?

AThey use cameras in their heads to observe their surroundings and a continuously evolving visual algorithm to create artworks.

QBesides the NFT collection, how many physical pieces are in the Regular Animals series, and what was one listed price for a physical piece on eBay?

AThere are 1024 physical pieces, and one was listed for sale on eBay at a fixed price of $6,500.

Letture associate

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit3 h fa

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit3 h fa

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手3 h fa

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手3 h fa

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit5 h fa

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit5 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片