Crypto Nerds Are Trying To Buy the US Constitution (fastcompany.com) 70
The following sentence may sound like the logline for an as-yet unmade National Treasure 3, but it's very much real: A large group of crypto maximalists is banding together in an effort to obtain the actual U.S. Constitution. From a report: Unlike the antagonists in the previous Nicolas Cage movies, this crew might actually succeed. Or kind of, anyway. On Thursday, November 18, Sotheby's is auctioning off "an exceptionally rare and extraordinarily historic" first printing of the U.S. Constitution. Only thirteen copies remain, besides the one located in Washington D.C.'s National Archives museum, from the original printing of 500 that the founders issued for submission to the Continental Congress. It's the first time in 30 years that this one has become available for purchase, following the 1997 death of its last winner, New York real estate developer S. Howard Goldman. It's expected to fetch between $15 million and $20 million in the auction -- unless, of course, it instead fetches the equivalent in Ethereum.
Sure what the hell (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sure what the hell (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason someone might want to preserve an original printing of the King James Bible or any other number of rare documents; because, well, they're rare and thus valuable. I mean, technically the Mona Lisa is just some paint on a canvas, and you can buy a print on eBay for less than $50, and yet the original is priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment made me wonder about historicity. The classic fake art of James Bond movies and the like seem to make clear the priceless nature is endowed somehow in it's history. Our ability as a species to keep history is one of our greatest inventions and as such this is why we "value" these artifacts. So it seems there is more to it than rarity or artificial scarcity. Which returns to the point of why some people cannot imagine this kind of value, they have no respect for history. A lack of learning, a do
Re: (Score:2)
What history sadly teaches us is that documents are all too perishable. The destruction of the libraries at Alexandria (in the 3rd century) and Baghdad (by the Mongols in the 13th century) were viewed then and ever since as nearly incomprehensible losses to world civilization. In the information we tend to view the storage of documents with a far more cavalier attitude than past peoples did, and yet even now researchers strive to create storage media capable of surviving significant destructive events. And
Re: (Score:2)
First I do not envy the work of being an archivist and I think their labors are far under appreciated. Likely only ever recognized for their labor by historians though before the internet it's arguable that archivists performed the connections between researchers to achieve a higher level of scientific thought.
However, does the archivist care about original copies? As you point, the biggest issue is creating a copy that can survive a great event of destruction and sadly we have become much better at such de
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, all too often far too much value for something is placed in specific attributes of that thing, regardless of the item as a whole.
Take for example the value of a painting cratering on the news that its not by a certain famous artist - the quality of the painting hasn't diminished, but the value decreased because some other artist created it instead. The value of that painting was not in the painting itself but in its pedigree.
See for example the current situation of "Samson and Delilah" supp
Re: (Score:2)
This is the irony of historicity though and potentially the supreme irony.
There are bibles that have mistakes because the printing press but this does not devalue them overtime but often adds value. In fact, some bibles may even have purposeful changes and this gets into a complex issue of literary criticism. Did some monk change the wording because he didn't like thinking of Jesus as "angry" when performing a miracle?
The debate you mention leads to the supreme irony. We likely will never know who the true
Re: (Score:2)
Just an FYI, the Mona Lisa is NOT painted on canvas; it's painted on white poplar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not THE constitution though, it's one of several paper copies. Even the one that's in the National Archives is just a copy, as there's no such thing as the real piece of paper versus the others.
However there was one copy for federal use, 13 copies (handwritten) send to each colony to be ratified. Also 200 copies, broadhsheets and not handcopied, that were printed up and distributed. The version for sale in this article is one of those 200 copies. So it's not the "original", it has value only in that
Re: (Score:2)
It's not THE constitution though, it's one of several paper copies.
I am aware of that. If it was THE constitution, it would not be for sale. But, as one of the first copies produced, there is some "history" there. No argument with your other points.
Re: (Score:3)
Why doesn't the government just buy it back now?
I mean they're passing trillion dollar spending bills . . . nobody would notice if they tucked some small change $10 million for a Constitution in one of those bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems reasonable (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your comment. I'd like to buy it. Is it for sale?
Re: (Score:2)
You know why the crypto bros want it.
Whatever they pay for it, that will be a fraction of what the NFT sells for. Why have the physical document when you can have an entry on the blockchain?!
Eventually purchased by Donald Trump (Score:1)
He wants some of that luxury cotton toilet paper.
Why do cryto-bros want the constitution? (Score:2, Troll)
The important question is: why to a bunch of cryto-bros want an original copy of the US constitution? I have a few theories:
1) They plan to turn it into an NFT and resell it.
2) They want to start their own country and think this will give it some legitimacy.
3) They want to do "research" and discover what the constitution really says ("Taxes are totally optional, it says so in my original copy of the constitution.")
Re: (Score:2)
The important question is: why to a bunch of cryto-bros want an original copy of the US constitution? I have a few theories:
1) They plan to turn it into an NFT and resell it.
... and then burn the original, as is the style of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also just a "printing". Thus it is not even one of the original 14 handwritten copies (one for the federal government's copy, one for each colony to ratify). But one of the "mass produced" 200 printed copies, which at the time did not have any sort of intrinsic value except to serve as information for the verious places it was sent.
If it has amendments, then it's clearly not one of the originals either. The bill of rights were a separate document and not an appendix or postscript. Of course the lat
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC in the original US Constitution taxes weren't exactly optional, but they were taxes on the states rather than on the citizens of those states. And it was REALLY difficult to get more taxes approved. (That was part of what was behind large sales of federal lands.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're talking about a period several decades later than I am. And the senators, usually selected by the state governeor, refused to vote for additional taxes on the state. So, yes, it just took a law, but getting that law passed was difficult when the legislators felt their allegience to their state rather than to the federal government.
To a lesser extent this problem continued up until the income tax became law, but at first it was a real problem.
Re: (Score:2)
1) isn't likely, there are plenty of pictures of the original Constitution already to make NFT
Re: (Score:2)
Or... they want to hype their bubble to extend the con. Even the summary is nonsensical... "might actually succeed. Or, kind of" i.e. not actually. Because this is not even "the constitution" it is one of a few remaining first printings. So it's no different from buying a rare baseball card. But they made it to a slashdot story, which was pretty much the actual goal, to continue to convince people that "crypto" is some hip thing, not just the same old cons dressed up in new clothes.
Note that "turnin
Re: (Score:2)
Or... they want to hype their bubble to extend the con. Even the summary is nonsensical... "might actually succeed. Or, kind of" i.e. not actually. Because this is not even "the constitution" it is one of a few remaining first printings. So it's no different from buying a rare baseball card. But they made it to a slashdot story, which was pretty much the actual goal, to continue to convince people that "crypto" is some hip thing, not just the same old cons dressed up in new clothes.
Note that "turning it into an NFT and reselling it" is the same as a con. They buy it. They "sell" it as an NFT. But then they get to keep it too, "holding" it for the owner of the NFT. Hmm sounds like a scam.
Agreed. I suspect this is more of a PR move. Make a bit of a media splash by "buying the constitution with crypto" and then watch your remaining crypto holdings go up in value (plus some potential income from a series of NFTs based on it).
Craig Wright (Score:1)
will claim that it proves he is Satoshi Nakamoto.
Why so few remain? (Score:2)
Considering 500 were printed, it's surprising that so few of them remain. I tried googling this and couldn't find any explanation. Especially considering these copies were for specific purposes to those quite interested in the new government.
Here are where the other remaining copies are located:
https://csac.history.wisc.edu/... [wisc.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
remember that not everyone who received a copy thought it was of historical significance. Plus even those who did feel it was worth preserving would not have had access to hermetically sealed containers in climate controlled storage environments.
We value it now because we can see what came from it. Back when it was printed it was just another sheet of paper espousing lofty ideals that didn't help put food on the table. History and life is filled with things that we now look back on and regret not cherish
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's that surprising - after they served their initial purpose to publicize the constitution, they probably got filed away somewhere and could have been thrown out or destroyed by fire, moisture, bugs, etc., etc. over the years. And once the bill of rights was ratified, the original constitutions were outdated, and newer ones were more current and authoritative.
The same thing happened to Gutenberg bibles - they were cool when they came out, but within a few decades, better versions were printe
Re: (Score:2)
I tried googling this and couldn't find any explanation.
It's obvious when you think about it. Given what has happened since September 11 it's clear the constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Re: (Score:2)
1)The copies were made to be distributed quickly (and cheaply). As such, the choice of materials was as cheap as possible for this purpose, and there were multiple printings.
2) Little thought was given in preserving these copies. The original, hand written versions have been preserved.
Re: (Score:2)
80-20 rule. Do the possible now, we'll fix it later with amendments.
Any attempt to create a new form of government that included all 13 colonies with no slavery permitted and allowing woman to vote was never going to happen in the 1700s. And all while at war with a reigning super power.
What they accomplished was beyond incredible given the obstacles
Re: Interesting but useless (Score:2)
The UK seems to be doing better, not great but better than US
SPQR ... (Score:3)
Unfortunately, I see ominous parallels ...
Rome morphed from a Republic to an Empire ruled by a single despot, yet its troops still carried the SPQR banners. It means "The Senate and People of Rome".
So in essence the slogan, and laws were a farce, and the actual form of government was completely the opposite of what is written ...
I hope that wise heads prevail over the rapid deterioration in freedoms, rule of law and sound governance in the USA in the past couple of decades ...
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the senate was still there. They just always voted for whatever Cesar wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly ...
Just like the constitution is also 'there', but it is being ignored, and trampled upon repeatedly ...
Re: (Score:2)
Those of us who value freedom, rule of law, and sound governance are a minority.
The masses want their bread and circuses, always of course at someone else's expense. They will vote for whoever will give it to them.
I don't know what will change that.
Re: (Score:2)
You got it all right ...
I am not an American, and I am watching from the outside in, with extreme concern and dismay ...
why? (Score:2)
It's the idea that is valuable, not the piece of paper it's written on.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean the idea that only white men who own property should be able to vote?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting perspective given the very first sentence is
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
Re: (Score:1)
There are two errors in your claim:
1) That comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
2) It is in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence.
Moreso, the very person who wrote those words owned many slaves at the time those words were written. There was quite the disconnect between that lofty proclamation and the reality in which it existed. At that time, the reality was indeed that only white land owners could vote.
Re: (Score:2)
well it's good that isn't at all the case now then isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:2)
hmm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect the plan might be to buy it, burn it, and mint an NFT for it -> profit[.]
1) Already done by the political donation class.
2) Biden is working hard on this one.
3) I don't think anyone that is part of 1 or 2 above would know where to start. But that's fine. After 1 and 2, an NFT would just remind everyone else of the crimes against humanity needed to get here.
At the end of the day, it's just old paper (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make America Great Again (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You really need to get over Reagan. He's gone. Trump is gone too.
That's fine. (Score:2)
If it's for sale at all, who buys it and in what currency is irrelevant.
Only thirteen copies remain (Score:2)
Well, twelve now [imgflip.com].
Is nothing sacred to these dorks? (Score:2)
To do this just so they have bragging rights just spits on the heritage of this country.
The original copy belongs in a museum and treated with respect, not in their "man cave" (or whatever).
I don't want them to ever be able to buy the original copy of the Constitution. However, I will gladly buy a straghtjacket for these deranged clowns.
Re: Is nothing sacred to these dorks? (Score:2)
Original copy. - not meaning the original handwritten draft of course, but these still need to be treated with respect.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems there were 500 prints originally, of which 13 remain. This is just one of the surviving copies. While it may be of historic interest to some collectors, it's still just a copy of a widely available document. As an investment, there's no doubt not unsubstantial upkeep and maintenance costs in keeping it in a controlled environment so it doesn't degrade further. Museums are geared up for that sort of thing, random crypto nerds perhaps not.
Better than 67 Million Beeple (Score:2)
20 million For an original copy of the constitution seems like a nothing burger when people are spending 67 Million dollars for a cryptographicly unique hyperlink to an image file.
Re: (Score:2)
My thought exactly. All it takes it for 2 billionaires to have an interest and $100 million seems reasonable if not low.
Document signing these days is all photo-op, this is the real deal in terms of globally relevant originals.