This is because NFTs don't actually understand the concept of a "sale". They can be transferred to another wallet, but this wallet may belong to the same person as the previous wallet in which case paying royalties wouldn't make much sense.
Paying royalties is entirely optional. What's built into the contract is a calculation of a value for royalties to be paid, but it's up to the marketplace to use it. Other platforms already ignored it.
Nate's actual conviction was for fraud and money laundering, not insider trading... yet they keep framing it as an insider trading conviction when it has absolutely no bearing here. The guy did some sketchy stuff at a privately held company. Normally being fired would be enough, but he's clearly being made an example of, and a poor one at that when the DOJ is completely sleeping on folks running multi-million dollar grifts.
So what? Fraud and money laundering are illegal too. Make him an example, who cares. Just because the coverage of it frames it a certain way or that other people are doing worse things doesn't move me at all.
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 33.3 ms ] threadPaying royalties is entirely optional. What's built into the contract is a calculation of a value for royalties to be paid, but it's up to the marketplace to use it. Other platforms already ignored it.