Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Bitcoin The Almighty Buck United States

Crypto Bid To Buy US Constitution Print Raises Millions (bbc.com) 67

Posted by BeauHD from the decentralized-organizing dept.
In a follow-up to Monday's story, "a crowdfunded effort to buy a rare 1787 copy of the U.S. constitution at auction claims to have received more than [$31 million] worth of cryptocurrency donations," reports the BBC. And this figure is only going to increase as there's more than 24 hours to go. From the report: The group, ConstitutionDAO, says it plans "to put the constitution in the hands of the people," and hopes to raise at least $20 million. But it is not clear how ownership will be arranged if the bid succeeds. There are 13 known copies to have survived from a run of 500 originally printed after the text was settled at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The copy for sale is one of only two not held in the collection of an institution, Sotheby's says. The group wants to put the document on public display.

DAO stands for "decentralized autonomous organization." The idea is to enable individuals to come together to make purchases and share ownership, with their transactions and operating rules recorded on the blockchain - the same underlying technology on which cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum run. ConstitutionDAO launched just a week before the auction, and is soliciting money with which to buy the constitution document in Ethereum. On its website, the group says it is "pooling together money to win this auction."

At first, the website told contributors they were buying "fractional ownership and governance. You will own a piece of the constitution based on how much you contribute." That has since been changed to say those who contribute will not get a share in owning the constitution. The question "Am I receiving ownership of the constitution in exchange for my donation?" is answered: "No, you are receiving a governance token, not fractionalized ownership." The "governance token," the website says, could be used to "advise" on "where the constitution should be displayed, how it should be exhibited, and the mission and values of ConstitutionDAO."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crypto Bid To Buy US Constitution Print Raises Millions More

Crypto Bid To Buy US Constitution Print Raises Millions

Comments Filter:
  • that they chose a copy from a time before the Bill of Rights was introduced?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by N1AK ( 864906 )
      Well it would be hard to buy a version of the first printing of the constitution containing something that didn't exist until about 5 years later; a version printed at the point the bill of rights was passed would still include text restricting voting to land owners and that accepts slavery. It's absurd to suggest someone couldn't be interested in a historic text without having an agenda based on the views contained in that text.
      • Also worth mentioning is that we dont rewrite the original text based on an amendment. The 18th amendment still exists despite the 21st gutting most of it. Before the 18th the federal government had no power to regulate alcohol. The 18th enumerated that power, and the 21st continues to enumerate the authority which we delegate to the ATF. Back then the government wasnt so brazen as to try and cram every meddlesome thing they did under the commerce clause of the constitution.

        • Back then the government wasn't so brazen as to try and cram every meddlesome thing they did under the commerce clause of the constitution.

          A terrible thing foisted on the U.S. by F.D.R through his court-packing threat.

          • Well one cannot pretend to complain that corporations run our government while at the very same time hinge every legislative thing they attempt on a commerce clause. Its better to enumerate it via amendments. It took me a while to realize why healthcare is tied to employment. The government could not regulate or mandate it any other way. But it sucks because it limits our freedoms relative to life and employment choices due to unrelated relationships via medical coverage. On other topics that are 50/50 or

            • OSHA, the government entity that regulates hard hats and backup beepers on forklifts, is now forcing you to have a substance injected into your body. And it wasn't even half of 500 assholes who did that. Just one asshole who's authority comes from losing an un-popularity contest.

              • Many companies, hospitals, and states ALREADY have the legal right to require you to have other types of vaccines. Mandated. Covid is no different here, except that it's at a federal level rather than a state level.

                • Many companies, hospitals, and states ALREADY have the legal right to require you to have other types of vaccines. Mandated. Covid is no different here, except that it's at a federal level rather than a state level.

                  That's the whole issue!!!

                  The federal government does NOT have this power!

                  The state can mandate it for schools. My company can mandate it for me. The federal government can do neither!

                  • The feds can mandate it for federal workers. OSHA however has some gray areas that straddle things, mostly due to interstate commerce clause (since effectively, everything is commerce) making it's existence legal since it was created by congress. It can legally make nationwide rules regarding worker safety.

                    Times have changed, and the idea that states are independent nations, or that they act in the best interests of their residents, is very outdated. After the civil war we effectively have a strong centr

    • What's the bet it's a rugpull?

    • Re:How significant is it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday November 18, 2021 @07:22AM (#61998565)

      The reason there was no Bill of Rights is because James Madison, the architect of the Constitution, didn't believe it was necessary. He believed it was self-evident the Constitution would limit the powers of the government to that which was written and that the people would make the correct decision in electing others to do good by them.

      However, there were those who felt the words did not go far enough and pushed for more clarity and so, as a compromise, Madison and others (reluctantly) agreed to revisit the matter at a later time. He and others felt if the Constitution was not ratified soon after it was proposed, it would never be done, especially when it came to the Southern states who were adamant about preserving slavery (hence the line about continuing slavery for another twenty years) and the counting of slaves (3/5 compromise).

      Once the Constitution was ratified, those who wanted to more clearly delineate rights pressed their case which Madison ascented to while at the same time doing his best to not let things get out of hand, such as a rewriting of the Constitution.

      This is the time when the separation of Church and State came into being as Madison was a strong supporter of no meddling in religious affairs by the government and vice versa. His early history is peppered with him going after either local governments or other religious institutions which were penalizing other religious groups because they weren't cut from the same cloth, particularly Anglicans (Church of England) who at that time had a large presence in the new country.

      Once he became president, Madison vetoed several bills which would have used taxpayer money to fund religious institutions and cited the First Amendment, explicitly stating those bills violated the separation of Church and State. He also felt having a prayer open Congress was a violation of the Constitution's separation of Church and State, but he had no power, as president, to do anything about it (separation of powers).

      There. Now you know a thing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by msauve ( 701917 )
        Yep, and even with the Bill of Rights, the courts act as if those are rights given to the people by the Constitution. They're not. The Bill of Rights was simply meant to make it abundantly clear to the government that it had no power to restrict those rights, which exist apart from the Constitution. The 9th A is simply ignored.

      • especially when it came to the Southern states who were adamant about preserving slavery (hence the line about continuing slavery for another twenty years) and the counting of slaves (3/5 compromise).

        Interestingly, nowadays most people view the 3/5 compromise as something instituted by Southerners, viewing slaves as less than human, but it was the Northern states that pushed for counting slaves as less than one person in order to reduce Southern representation in Congress.

        • Re:How significant is it... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Thursday November 18, 2021 @02:11PM (#61999805)

          Do you have evidence for this? The South *wanted* the slaves to be counted but not able to vote, the North did not want any slaves counted. The 3/5s was a compromise. Having a full count for a slave while denying them a vote was NOT treating them as human it was treating them much less than human.

          The way you word it you make it look like the slaveholders were the good guys, more of that post civil war "lost cause" retcon nonsense.

          • Your description is completely accurate. But, that understanding is mostly backwards from how most people now view it. No retconning intended.
    • Significant to whom? To collectors the things that matter the most are the condition, rarity, and for printed material specifically, a first edition/printing. This is the first printing.

    • The whole thing is just some sort of bizarre publicity stunt. The phrasing of it is strange. The constitution is ALREADY in the hands of the people, you can see copies of it in several locations, so having yet one more location that shows another copy really is not doing anything special. Yet their goals are implying that no one knows about the constitution, they're protecting it, or some other nonsense - probably just to encourage people to give them money. Or duping the gullible ("librals will destroy

  • But it is not clear how ownership will be arranged if the bid succeeds

    Chop it up into pieces sized according to the amount paid, and physically distribute the pieces to their owners.

    Democracy!

    • No. Democracy would be everyone, regardless of ownership, gets to vote on what happens to it. Owning a piece or percentage of it regardless of any contribution to it is capitalism. Cutting it up into pieces may reduce the value of the owners' percentages of it so they'd probably need to hold a meeting & vote on it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jvkjvk ( 102057 )

        >Cutting it up into pieces may reduce the value of the owners' percentages of it so they'd probably need to hold a meeting & vote on it.

        There is no "value" and there is no percent. You do not end up owning a piece of it at all:

        "you are receiving a governance token, not fractionalized ownership"

  • Wow, does this seem so scammy now. First you were going to own a piece of it. Now you're going to own a piece of a company that owns it. That's a huge difference. Or you're just going to own some token the company issues instead that somehow presumably could represent a piece of the company, but doesn't, thus going around SEC securities regulations.

    Or, as I see it, a bunch of rich guys get to scam money out of fools buying into crypto hype so the rich guys can acquire and own an original copy of the Constit

    • You don't need to be particularly rich to pull this off either, anyone can play. You'll need a little cash to set up the website and draw up the inevitable whitepaper, issue the tokens, and generate some hype. By the way, you don't get to own a piece of the company either. You get a "governance token" which doesn't even give you voting rights, just the right to advise on company matters, whatever that means. They explicitly state that your contribution is a donation with no expectation of profit.

    • Wow, does this seem so scammy now. First you were going to own a piece of it. Now you're going to own a piece of a company that owns it. That's a huge difference.

      It's not really that huge a difference in practice when you're not able to actually exercise your ownership in any way but transferring it. Either way the "owners" won't be able to have any say over what is done with it. Meanwhile it's a lot easier to transfer part ownership of a corporation than it is to transfer part ownership of a thing. In order to have group ownership of most things some form of ownership entity [wikipedia.org] is required; why not a corporation? A few things have explicit group ownership in law, like

  • Translation (Score:3)

    by enriquevagu ( 1026480 ) on Thursday November 18, 2021 @07:05AM (#61998531)

    Some people want to buy a copy of the US Constitution using other people's money.

    But "blockchain".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This is marketing. There will be headlines about the US Constitution being bought with crypto currency, and legitimises it and brings more attention to it. The price of crypto currency will rise as more people take it seriously and buy it.

      The people donating are just investing in increasing the value of the crypto currency they hold.

  • like we already do at the National Archives?

    • And other museums. This is just a copy out of a set of 500 that were printed (and not a part of the 14 original handwritten copies). There are presumably 13 remaining copies of this printing, of which the majority are already owned by institutions like colleges, museums, etc. So ya, these things are already put on display or made available for study.

      (the 13 number is a bit iffy, because I've seen different articles present different numbers, which makes me think that either no one really knows or that jo

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

        And other museums. This is just a copy out of a set of 500 that were printed (and not a part of the 14 original handwritten copies). There are presumably 13 remaining copies of this printing, of which the majority are already owned by institutions like colleges, museums, etc. So ya, these things are already put on display or made available for study.

        (the 13 number is a bit iffy, because I've seen different articles present different numbers, which makes me think that either no one really knows or that journalists are bad at cut-and-paste.)

        I always wondered if they'd find some more over time. A copy in someone's attic or basement. I have a feeling they were burned up in fires or discarded by people that had no idea what they had. I figured one would show up during my lifetime.

  • Idolatry or fetishism? (Score:3)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Thursday November 18, 2021 @07:15AM (#61998549)
    Which do you think it is? I bet you can make more money from selling stuff like towels & toilet paper with the US constitution printed on them.

  • Slashdot keeps saying these tulips are worthless. How did they get $31 million from tulips?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Slashdot keeps saying these tulips are worthless. How did they get $31 million from tulips?

      I think economists call it the "Greater Fool Theory". As long as you can find greater fools, you can continue to make money with practically any scam. Pyramid schemes work great as long as you can draw in greater fools - the like of Bernie Madoff made their scam seem normal and good and managed to keep it going for nearly half a century by finding greater and greater fools.

      The problem is once you run out of fools, of

  • DAO stands for "decentralized autonomous organization."
    All this time I thought I meant Data Access Object. Seems I was wrong

  • Timeshare (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Thursday November 18, 2021 @09:07AM (#61998799)
    This is the crypto equivalent of "buying" a timeshare property -- probably even worse because it's likely none of the owners will be allowed to have the document spend a week at their house once a year, for example. So yeah, you pooled your "money" with others to purchase a real world asset but you personally have no direct control over it without the consent of others who have a much larger ownership stake. Yeah, no thanks.

  • Uh, so if I want to exercise my constitutional rights, I need to pay crypto a royalty?

  • 19th century snake-oil salesmen would be proud.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close