Crypto.com Arena (1.Viewing)

The "Staples Center" in LA is getting a new name: "Crypto.com Arena"

Interesting to see how the new name includes a domain name. They could have just called it the "Crypto Arena", but clearly they saw the value of including the domain extension in the name.

I'm not sure any other arena or stadium brands themselves this way, but I bet we'll see more companies follow suit eventually. Times are changing... companies/people are coming to realize that domains are your brand, and if you don't own the matching domain, then you don't really own your brand.

what an advertisement for crypto.

I wonder if they will be able to keep up the payments for the full 20 years.

People are already calling it "The Cryp" and thereby bypassing any inadvertent word-of-mouth branding.

So expect the Lakers and Kings announcers to saying "Crypto.com Arena" about a hundred times a game, as required by their contract.

Plus all the video shots outside and inside of the stadium will show the Crypto.com logo, so imo will make a big impression when people see it over and over. Still a lot of people who haven't bought their first crypto yet.

domains said:

Still a lot of people who haven't bought their first crypto yet.

Click to expand...

For the vast majority of people, there is no reason to.

Its primary use is still for illegal activities like extortion, fraud, tax evasion and money laundering, which is becoming a serious problem due to Bitcoin kiosks. Gang bangers are loading those ATM-bitches up with cash like mad.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/bitcoin-atms-criminals-target-cryptocurrency-transactions.html

DomainRecap said:

People are already calling it "The Cryp"

Click to expand...

or the crypt

domains said:

what an advertisement for crypto.

I wonder if they will be able to keep up the payments for the full 20 years.

Click to expand...

CRO has settled at a 300% gain (approx $15 billion c$) since the announcement. I don’t think the payments will be an issue.

all I'll say is that right now the rate of crypto adoption is increasing, and in 2021 we're at the point of adoption of where the internet was in the 1990's. The younger generations coming up are adapting to it and there are many real use cases for crypto now compared to say in 2017. As technology and the internet have disrupted so many industries so far, I think crypto is starting to disrupt a lot of the financial world - think saving, borrowing, lending, money transfers, also gaming, metaverse and so on. If you want to talk criminal activity, no one ever used that as a reason to be against the US dollar, gold or silver in the past. It's hard to argue now with major institutions, some countries, some cities, and some politicians advancing into crypto - you can buy bitcoin and ether funds on the TSX now for example. If you spend some time studying it, hard to see it all going away instead of continuing to advance to the point where it's easier to use, and sometimes you might not even know you're using it, or how it works (like a lot of the other technology we use today). I think everyone should have at least some exposure to crypto, even if it's only 5% of a portfolio. Plus it's worth doing some hours of research on it to see how big the future implications could be.

Hey, I own Crypto (BTC and ETH) but I don't use it for anything other than buy-and-sell investment, and this is an angle I do not recommend for everyone.

Just being realistic - if I don't use crypto funds to buy actual goods, then there is no way Joe and Jill Lunchbox will require it. And the laws/regulations that are being passed against anonymity kind of scare me.

But to each their own.

Crypto currencies are here to stay I’m sure but it’s just way too volatile for me to trust.

Imagine getting into BTC when it was at 80K, and then a month or two later it’s down to 40K… I know it’s back up again, but it’s still not a roller coaster I want to get on. Not yet anyway, I’m much happier with domains.

I’ll admit I don’t know that much about it but I can’t help feel like there are a few at the top which can manipulate the price to their liking whenever they want… Cashing out when they know it’s the right time, buying the dip, and then repeat.

This link below makes for an interesting read too. They also compare the great crypto crash in 2018 and the .com bubble burst in 2000. https://web.archive.org/web/2018101...t-surpassed-dot-com-levels-as-losses-reach-80

If you want a real "Rollercoaster of Manipulation" then head on over to NFTs.

They're essentially Lootboxes for rich people, and all you hear about are the ones who struck it richer. Not all the poor guys who wasted $$$ paying for minting and gas, just to get a pile of junk commons.

Trust me, that bubble's gonna pop and it won't be pretty.

DomainRecap said:

If you want a real "Rollercoaster of Manipulation" then head on over to NFTs.

They're essentially Lootboxes for rich people, and all you hear about are the ones who struck it richer. Not all the poor guys who wasted $$$ paying for minting and gas, just to get a pile of junk commons.

Trust me, that bubble's gonna pop and it won't be pretty.

Click to expand...

While there might be some potential valid use for nft's, what's going on now surely isn't it. I can't wait to see that bubble pop!

rlm said:

While there might be some potential valid use for nft's, what's going on now surely isn't it. I can't wait to see that bubble pop!

Click to expand...

The problem with NFT's is there is an infinite supply, it will never end and people will pile on forever until the market is so saturated that nobody wants them anymore, hence the value will plummet.

However, like fine art there will always be a few standouts that will have consistent value. Just like paintings the value moving forward is heavily based on the previous selling price.

The ratio of real collectibles vs junk will be quite low though. Just like fine art, a small portion of all art dominates the market.

You also cannot rule out banksy moments where some artists will become extremely popular and valuable. It is a huge gamble but for some early adopters and savvy art connoisseurs there is a way to make it quite a lucrative endeavor.

The only way NFTs make any sense is if it offers actual enforceable legal rights to an image, so that you can control publishing rights, etc... So if you could use it to license rights to reproduce the image for wall-art/posters, t-shirts, etc, etc, then NFTs have value.

rlm said:

The only way NFTs make any sense is if it offers actual enforceable legal rights to an image, so that you can control publishing rights, etc... So if you could use it to license rights to reproduce the image for wall-art/posters, t-shirts, etc, etc, then NFTs have value.

Click to expand...

This article explains nft's rather well.
https://thenextweb.com/news/so-you-bought-an-nft-doesnt-mean-you-also-own-it-syndication

It is worth the read, in fact I recommend everyone who wants to understand nft's should read it.

MapleDots said:

This article explains nft's rather well.
https://thenextweb.com/news/so-you-bought-an-nft-doesnt-mean-you-also-own-it-syndication

It is worth the read, in fact I recommend everyone who wants to understand nft's should read it.

Click to expand...

Good read, thanks. This was eye-opening to me:

Owning a painting does not automatically give you the right to display it in public. It also doesn’t give you the right to sue for infringement of copyright if someone reproduces the image in the painting without permission. To obtain such rights, you either need to be the copyright owner of the work or have the copyright assigned to you by the creator (in writing and signed).

I guess I've always assumed that if you bought an original painting, you owned it and all its rights.. So buy a bunch of paintings, open your own museum, charge for entry, license copies for posters, puzzles, etc, all those rights, I've always assumed were yours as owner. That's the only real value to a painting in my opinion! Crazy. Learned something new today. Then again, I always thought art was stupid, I could only rationalize the valuations if you could monetize it somehow. To pay millions of dollars to _only_ be allowed to look at your own painting (and not be allowed to display it publicly) - that just seems pointless.