Sharing

🎁

He decided to release it after all.

There are only 10 award slots available, but seeing how enthusiastic many people are, I don't mind giving out a few more.

1.87$

If you happen to come across Pavel Durov and get a chance to ask him one question, what would you ask?

Some individuals believe they can single-handedly move or influence the market, which is nothing more than an illusion. If that were truly the case, then the NFT market would be one of the most fragile things imaginable.

In reality, no single investor (excluding project founders) can meaningfully determine the overall direction of the NFT market. Market confidence comes from the collective consensus and participation of the wider community, not from any one individual.

Although the current situation looks messy, the broader TON ecosystem still appears to have long-term potential.

After his own bad decisions blew up, he sent dozens of 10,000 Stars messages to Durov. No reply, so he turned silence into a scapegoat.

There’s a Chinese guy who branded himself as a “Telegram NFT leader” and constantly preached in groups and channels that everything he bought was basically permanently locked — never to be sold — all in the name of restoring confidence and reviving the Telegram NFT market.

Then after getting scammed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the first thing he did was dump a large amount of his staked TON into USDT and move it out.

So much for “long-term conviction.”

And there seems to be a pattern: whenever players win big against his casino operation and liquidity gets tight, he starts selling NFTs to refill the balance sheet. At this rate, seeing him dump more PEPE and other NFT holdings to recover losses wouldn’t be surprising at all.

Looking back now, all the “permanent lock,” “never selling,” and “market savior” talk feels more like branding than belief. Ironically, the first person to lose confidence in the Telegram NFT market seems to be the self-proclaimed leader himself.

The Iranian regime is about to suffer a devastating blow. 3 days to go.

If you have recently invested in the cryptocurrency market or the stock market, please be cautious!

After our internal discussions, we have decided that the compensation for the victim will be: Please be more careful next time.

However, I think Getgems will give some compensation to the victims, such as sending them 10 bears.

Let me give a simple example:

If a bank sends you a “confirm transfer” request, but you fail to carefully check the recipient address and the amount before entering your password and approving the transfer, and you end up getting scammed, then the responsibility lies more with the user’s own mistake rather than the bank itself.

The bank is simply providing a transfer tool. It didn’t force you to confirm the transaction, nor did it make the decision for you. Of course, the platform should improve risk warnings and security reminders, but it’s unreasonable to place all the blame on the platform just because the user failed to carefully review the transaction details.

Getgems works in a very similar way. The platform provides trading and authorization functions, but the final decision to approve or confirm a transaction is always in the user’s own hands.

Personally, I don’t think Getgems should bear direct responsibility for this incident. The bidding feature on the platform is essentially open to everyone, meaning anyone can make an offer, and users are always free to ignore or reject those requests.

In many scam cases, the core issue is not that the platform forces users into transactions, but that some users authorize requests without carefully reviewing the transaction details, which ultimately leads to losses. From my perspective, many of these risks could be avoided if users took the time to properly verify what they are approving before confirming any transaction.

Of course, platforms should continue improving security warnings and user education, but overall, I think Getgems handled the PR response to this situation fairly well. That’s why I still support Getgems.

Проблема в том, что в ончейн-среде мы технически не можем "замораживать" НФТ или откатывать сделки после подписи — актив сразу перемещается между кошельками на уровне блокчейна.

Для такого механизма Getgems пришлось бы хранить активы пользователей у себя и вручную контролировать выводы, а это уже кастодиальная модель, а не децентрализованный маркетплейс.

Для офчейн-подарков это изредка применимо, и кажется, что не только на ГГ.

Smart people are often ruined by their own cleverness, so maybe it’s better to just be an ordinary and humble person. After all, being too smart might make you go bald.