Copy of US Constitution Sells for $43.2 Million as Crypto Group DAO Is Outbid (wsj.com) 54
The art market wasn't ready for revolution. A rare, first-edition copy of the U.S. Constitution sold for $43.2 million at Sotheby's Thursday, but it appears the winner is a private collector rather than an online group of cryptocurrency investors. From a report: The group, called ConstitutionDAO, caused a stir in art and crypto circles this week by pooling more than $40 million to bid, but an anonymous phone bidder pledged even more and will take home one of the 13 surviving official copies of the Constitution.
Sotheby's sale on Thursday transforms the governing document into the priciest six pages in auction history, surpassing Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates's $30.8 million copy of Leonardo da Vinci's scientific notebook known as the Codex Leicester. The Constitution also exceeded the $21.3 million paid for a copy of the 1297 Magna Carta by Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein in 2007. The winner remains anonymous, but the group pledging the second-highest price was ConstitutionDAO, an online organization that its founders say was formed as a lark last week and wound up pooling donations from 17,437 people to try to win the historic artifact. "What we tried to do was make the Constitution more accessible to the public," said core organizer Anisha Sunkerneni of San Francisco. "Although we might have not completely accomplished doing just that, I think we've raised enough awareness to illustrate that a DAO is another option."
Sotheby's sale on Thursday transforms the governing document into the priciest six pages in auction history, surpassing Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates's $30.8 million copy of Leonardo da Vinci's scientific notebook known as the Codex Leicester. The Constitution also exceeded the $21.3 million paid for a copy of the 1297 Magna Carta by Carlyle Group co-founder David Rubenstein in 2007. The winner remains anonymous, but the group pledging the second-highest price was ConstitutionDAO, an online organization that its founders say was formed as a lark last week and wound up pooling donations from 17,437 people to try to win the historic artifact. "What we tried to do was make the Constitution more accessible to the public," said core organizer Anisha Sunkerneni of San Francisco. "Although we might have not completely accomplished doing just that, I think we've raised enough awareness to illustrate that a DAO is another option."
Re: (Score:1)
Which God? Different Gods afford different rights and privileges.
As a libertarian, you MUST be accepting of abortion, gay marriange, polygamy, any and all religions, and you must be anti fascist, anti theocracy, anti corporatocracy, and anti capitalism. You can not be a libertarian and subscribe to any ideal that forces you do something against your will.
So basically, libertarians are left wingers, just one step before anarchism
What do you see as the missing final step?
Re:The Constitution is Bunk. So is SlashDEAD. (Score:4, Insightful)
I was already wondering what the fuck this tidbit of tabloid info is doing on /. until I remembered that this isn't news for nerds anymore, it's a field lairage for astroturfers now.
Gideon accessible. (Score:2)
"What we tried to do was make the Constitution more accessible to the public," said core organizer Anisha Sunkerneni of San Francisco.
More accessible than the bible?
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution of the USA and the bible are incompatible. No later than the first amendment and the first commandment it's over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution of the USA and the bible are incompatible. No later than the first amendment and the first commandment it's over. ....
Oh really? What say you, do you mean by "incompatible" ?
The Constitution does not compel or require you or your government to do anything prohibited by the Ten commandments Nor does the constitution forbid you or government administrators from doing anything required by the 10 Commandments.
The Ten Commandments does not compel you or your government to do undertake any act
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment grants you the right to believe in anyone or anything you like, or not believe in anything if you prefer (among other things, but let's stay in the religious context).
The first commandment demands that you do not put any gods before the Hebrew god.
The only way this can be compatible is by choosing the Hebrew god as your chosen god. But that's not a choice, is it? If the only choice you have is one choice, you have no choice. Can I make, say, Hanuman the Monkey god my main deity? Accordin
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment grants you the right to believe in anyone or anything you like, or not believe in anything if you prefer (among other things, but let's stay in the religious context).
The first commandment demands that you do not put any gods before the Hebrew god.
These two are not in conflict. The first amendment assures that the government will not interfere with your legal right in the free exercise of the religion you choose. The 1st commandment instructs people recognize God and put no other god
Re: (Score:2)
You know one evangelical nutjob who wouldn't turn their favorite fantasy book into a law book government has to heed?
Rich fucks own the US constitution (Score:2)
Literally this time.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they just own one printed copy out of a bactch of 500. Or one copy out of millions (gosh, I hope everyone has their own copy at home, i know I do). These are rare documents in terms of the paper and ink, but the words themselves are not in any way rare or unknown, and the words are not "owned" by anyone.
Accessibility? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does one make a document that is in the public domain, reprinted bountifully, and (mandatorily) taught in elementary schools in the US more accessible to the public by buying a first printing of it?
Re:Accessibility? (Score:5, Informative)
Donating it to a museum perhaps? Although, of the 11 copies known to exist, 9 are already on display in public institutions (8 in the US and 1 in the UK). I suppose donating it to a museum in Asia or Africa would technically make it more publicly available, but I doubt that was their plan.
Re: (Score:2)
If they want to make it more accessible: they should have it put in a virtual
museum where people can go online in their web browser and/or with VR and see it.... Also, as a VR object they could have every page scanned in very high resolutions, capture material and haptic information, and allow people to virtually touch the thing and page through it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the person writing that was trying to drum up interest in donating more money. There are gullible people out there who possibly believe that the constitution is under attack and that buying a piece of paper might save it. And if you think no one is dumb enough to fall for that, then possibly you aren't familiar with Americans...
Re: (Score:2)
There are gullible people out there who possibly believe that the constitution is under attack and that buying a piece of paper might save it. And if you think no one is dumb enough to fall for that, then possibly you aren't familiar with Americans...
Sadly, when you pointed that people believe it's under attack an buying this might save it, I thought of people I know who literally would believe that...so I am, sorry to say, familiar enough with Americans to know better...
NFTs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's more of a DeFi thing and not NFT if they have created smart contracts that is supposed to represent 1 Share of ownership of a physical object -- also, I think the SEC might have something to say about the DAOs, since a Marketable contract representing an interest in a debt or property (Equity) is a kind of security which have to be registered and follow regulations to be publicly traded.
How fitting that it should be sold as art (Score:2)
It's should be a historical document, yet I fear a lot of it is more fiction or utopia than reality. So yeah, it's art alright.
So will they refund their backers? (Score:4, Informative)
Or were a bunch of people fleeced as is usual whenever the word crypto is in a title?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be reading the alt-Slashdot. No one says bitcoin is worthless, they say it has no value (two very different things), and above all the posts specifically point out that the only way anyone uses bitcoin for any legal transaction is to convert them *to* dollars. But you can't convert it to dollars in too large of a mass, just like you can't sell all shares in a company.
You'd understand this if you took basic economics.
DAO, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something fishy behind the idea of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). Sure, you want to have shared ownership. That sort of thing happens all the time with, for example, shareholders in public corporations. But when the object is a single entity that needs protection and preservation, and some body (individual or corporation) to take ownership, that starts to sound more like a centralized organization, kind of like a normal corporation, rather than something radically new and fresh.
Furthermore, the idea of making the US Constitution accessible to the people would suggest something like display in a public museum, of which there are already more than one. The autonomous part of DAO suggests an independent museum. Now we're really talking a corporation, even if it is organized as a not-for-profit foundation. Original copies of the US Constitution are already freely accessible by all who would wish to view the document, and non-original copies are, as others have pointed out, likely to be found in every school in the US. Some large fraction of the US public school students probably have held a copy at one point or another.
So, to summarize, something was fishy from the get-go.
Re: (Score:2)
There is something fishy behind the idea of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization). Sure, you want to have shared ownership.
Well from the previous article on this:
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."
Perhaps that's the same thing as a corporation (if I own stock in Apple I don't think I own part of their
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps that's the same thing as a corporation (if I own stock in Apple I don't think I own part of their of their campus)
You are, actually. If you buy a share of Apple stock, then you are an Equity holder in the company -- A fraction of every asset that is theirs Minus a fraction of every liability of theirs belongs to you, because the Equity holders, the shareholders collectively own the corporation. Of course that does not give you the right to manage any of their assets, and because of the o
Re: (Score:1)
There is something fishy behind the idea of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization).
Thanks for defining the acronym. I've been wondering why a Data Access Object needs a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
Some large fraction of the US public school students probably have held a copy at one point or another.
I seriously doubt the Constitution is taught in schools anymore. If it was, people wouldn't think the President has the power to order you to take a medication.
Re: (Score:2)
doubt the Constitution is taught in schools anymore. If it was, people wouldn't think the President has the power to order you to take a medication.
People would believe this if they studied both the Constitution and the Case law from the courts who decide how the constitution will be interpreted -- they have a strong argument that the President ordering vaccinations would be within the innate Executive power to use during times of emergency, and the epidemic represent an emergency; unless the President f
Re: (Score:2)
It was even fishier from the update a few days ago.
It was, basically, a scheme in which some people got lots of other people to buy big expensive stuff for them. I think a poster called it a "GoFundMe to buy crap".
Which is what it was eventually - you basically paid into someone else buying something big and expensive, but with enough buzzwords and other fintech gobbledegook to make it appear you were getting something of value, when in reality, you were basically paying for something someone else wanted.
Ad
Conspiracy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was selling something with the potential for such high prices, would I consider setting up a buyer that announces how much it was willing to spend just before the auction?
Possibly, but what would have happened if that other bidder didn't phone in with a bigger bid?
Raising awareness that DAOs are an option (Score:2)
WTF is a DAO? I think you've not raised anywhere near as much awareness as you think.
Hmmmm (Score:2)
Was it bought by Nic Cage to go with his stolen copy of the Declaration of Independence?
Anybody else see the irony? (Score:3)
That the constitution was sold off to the highest bidder?
Re: (Score:2)
Poor could have pooled their pennies.
Just Curious... (Score:2)
So, now that DAO has $40M in crypto... are they going to 'refund' it to those who contributed, or just look for something else to do with it? Or perhaps something else more nefarious? This seems like an excellent opportunity to abscond with some currencies.
Hyperbole (Score:2)
The art market wasn't ready for revolution.
Boo hoo.
1. group buying isn't revolutionary
2. group buying... But With Crypto is not revolutionary, but inevitable
3. That they didn't win the auction isn't a sign of anything beyond that they didn't have enough money to win.
Madison could have made an NFT (Score:2)
With all this demand, the founding fathers could have gotten rich if they'd thought ahead and made a few NFTs of the Constitution.
This DAO is not the way. This parable from the Dao of Programming [mit.edu] applies:
Wow (Score:2)
Copy of US Constitution Sells for $43.2 Million
The Smithsonian gift shop is expensive ...