Keeping in mind this is an established market now (5+ years old) - and that the vast majority of sales are known to be wash trades - this is a small, extremely insignificant market.
Magic the Gathering, at this point, is substantially larger than the non-wash trade NFT market.
Last year there was an NFT advertisement every 10 minutes during UFC broadcasts, telling you to pick up the latest UFC NFT packs. For the past 6 months I haven't heard the announcers mention NFTs a single time.
If you can't even market this stuff to the UFC crowd, it's completely dead.
You know that you shouldn't watch, but you just can't help it.
The sad thing is that a lot of people will get burned by this.
I think they should open source the code for the contract and be transparent about it, but it's not surprising they maintain control over it.
That surprised, me I thought the whole point of these smart contracts were that everyone could see them like the transactions that take place.
Some websites like etherscan show the the source code with the version of compiler which was used to compile it. I assume that it works by author of contract uploading original source to the website as gesture that there is nothing to hide. But not every author does that. Assuming a reproducible build the website and anyone else who wants can then verify that it's the original (ore equivalent to original) source code by compiling it with specified compiler version. If the compiled output matches with what's on blockchain, it's then relatively safe to assume it's the original source code and analyze that instead of decompiling bytecode.There is still a chance that clever person hid a backdoor by exploiting a bug or quirk of compiler, making it harder to find unless you reverse engineer compiled bytecode or aware of specific bug in that version of compiler.
I expect we'll start to see some backlash where major new NFT projects build more safeguards into their contracts to try and reel back in some of the control the marketplaces have gained.
Given this, it must be asked how NFTs are in any way different from the traditional art markets for the artists themselves.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2022/11/02/whats-going-on-with-nft-ro...
The submission title does not specify who can take anybody's tokens. Anyone who reads the article can see that the author claims that Open Sea administrators can seize anybody's tokens, and questions whether it is legal for them to retain this ability. This is much more of a nuanced situation than "omg open sea has a backdoor all your nfts are belong to us". The author also says that they will write more about this in a follow-up post.
I believe the author is correct. This is behaviour pertinent to Open Sea's ERC1155 contract (called the Open Sea Shared Storefront), and not their marketplace as a whole.
That actually is how I first read it. Not saying that doesn't make this a bad thing, but the HN title should really be reverted to the article title.
1. they meant it as a question "does backdoor in opensea allow to take anyone's tokens?".
2. they meant it as a statement "backdoor in opensea allows you to take anyone's tokens"
Obviously #2 is a lot worse. Hopefully they just forgot the question mark and weren't intentionally being malicious.
Best title for submission would be: OpenSea administrators can take any tokens minted on the OpenSea Shared Storefront
