fbpx
Connect with us

Entertainment

Viral Side-Eyeing Chloe Meme To Be Sold As NFT

Published

on

There are an infinite number of memes scattered across the internet. A day doesn’t pass by without encountering funny memes as we scroll our social media feeds. Memes can feature either a famous line, iconic movie scene, or anything under the sun. A young girl became an instant internet sensation after her photo turned into a viral meme. 

Based on the September 21, 2021 status update from the girl’s social media accounts, “Side-Eyeing Chloe meme” is sold as an NFT auction amounting to over $15,000. The announcement was confirmed through posts about the sale uploaded on the @withfnd Twitter handle.

What is NFT and Why Does “Side-Eyeing Chloe” Viral Meme Being Auctioned?

NFT stands for a non-fungible token, allowing a person to buy and sell any digital item on the internet. Blockchain keeps track of the owner of the file. Despite holding the digital certificate, buyers have no control over the copyright for the image it represents. NFT cannot be traded or exchanged with any equivalent, unlike cryptocurrencies. Technically, NFT may contain digital assets such as drawings, animated GIFs, video games, or songs.  In addition, NFT can be unique, like a real-life painting or a copy of many, like trading cards.  

Non-fungible tokens have been trending lately, and some even selling for millions of dollars. Chloe Clem’s family has confirmed that the bid for this viral meme will start at 5 Ethereum, which is worth more or less $15,000. The price tag on a meme is not shocking anymore after Twitter founder Jack Dorsey sold his first-ever tweet for a whopping $2.9 million to a Malaysia-based businessman. The said auction signaled the beginning of market deals on ownership rights to digital art on the internet. At present, the Doge meme is the Most Expensive NFT sold for $4 million back in June.

Quick history of the viral meme

The users noticed the Side-Eyeing Chloe viral meme back in 2013 after Chloe’s mother uploaded an unconvinced reaction of her daughter. The meme is now valued at thousands of dollars. It’s all because NFT gives the content a digital certificate of ownership for the item. Remember that there are no copyrights for this, meaning the auction winner will own the digital token representing the meme. 

The viral meme originated from a video posted by Chloe’s mom in September 2013. The video featured her daughters reacting to the Disneyland surprise. The footage suddenly became an internet sensation and was able to gain more than 20 million views. 

Chloe’s mother told the BBC about this and said it was a weird and overwhelming experience for them. She added that her family and friends started sending her these memes. Until now, more memes are being forwarded to them featuring Side-Eyeing Chloe. 

Update: Who Won the Auction?

On September 24, 2021, a music company won and bought the NFT of Side-Eyeing Chloe meme. 

The non-fungible token or NFT of the popular viral meme, Side-Eyeing Chloe, was bought by 3F Music Production Company (@3FMusic) for 25 Ethereum (a form of cryptocurrency). It has an overall value of approximately $75,000. The Dubai-based company also purchased other massive memes like Charlie Bit My Finger, Overly Attached Girlfriend, and Disaster Girl.

The Clem family monitored the online auction of the Side-Eyeing Chloe meme from their Utah home. Based on the report of Washington Post, the Clem family plans to use some of their earnings for the meme NFT sale on a Walt Disney World trip in Florida. The internet star, Chloe, now ten years old, is very excited about the trip since it will be her first time there. 

According to the Washington Post, Chloe Clem also added a horse and a pair of brand-new AirPods to her wish list. The Clem family plans to save the rest of the cryptocurrency in anticipation of the ever-changing market price. 

Why Are Some NFTs So Expensive

It made us curious. Why are some non-fungible tokens so expensive? NFTs verify the ownership of digital files. They can represent digital masterpieces and items associated with video games, collector’s items, and more. Everything stored as data on a blockchain can be considered NFT, often bought by cryptocurrencies.

This year, researchers at the Alan Turing Institute (ATI) completed a study that analyzed the factors affecting the price of NFTs. The experts looked at three components. These include the NFTs visual features, previous sales of similar or related NFTs, and the social network of both the buyer and the seller. ATI used a machine learning model to analyze the dataset of 4.7 million NFTs dealt by more than 500,000 buyers and sellers. The result was that past sales of NFTs were the most critical factor among the three, which accounts for over 50% of the price variance. 

For example, past sales of CryptoPunks collection NFTs would be a good baseline of future sales of tokens from the same group. The second most crucial element involves the visual features, accounting for a maximum of 20%. Meanwhile, the popularity of the traders influenced the performance by 10 percent. In conclusion, these three factors can explain up to 70 percent of the unpredictability of NFT prices. 

Price tags for NFTs of internet memes have tremendously increased in the previous year. It is worth noting that Internet sensations like Nyan Cat ($880,000), Doge ($4 million), Charlie Bit My Finger ($760,000), Overly Attached Girlfriend ($411,000), and Disaster Girl ($500,000) have reaped considerable earnings in NFT. 

Not only that, digital artist Beeple sold a collection of NFTs at auction for $69 million earlier this year. Several years ago, Twitter founder Jack Dorsey sold an NFT of his first tweet for $2.9 million.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

What You Know About the Fatal Shooting on Alec Baldwin’ Rust Movie Set

Published

on

On October 21, a gun being used as a prop by actor Alec Baldwin went off on the filming site of the Western movie “Rust” in New Mexico. The unfortunate incident had killed the film’s cinematographer and injured the director.  A few months after the alleged Alec Baldwin Rust shooting, the authorities issued a search warrant for the actor’s cell phone. Officials believe that it could hold evidence that might be useful as they investigate the case. 

Baldwin held a revolver in one of the films’ rehearsals when it fired. He had asserted that Halyna Hutchins, the cinematographer, herself asked him to point the gun off-cam and toward her armpit before firing it. Joel Souza, the director, was also hurt in the filming site at the Bonanza Creek Ranch.

Baldwin said that he pulled the hammer back at Hutchins cue and that it fired when he let go. Likewise, he said he wasn’t aware that the gun contained a live bullet. 

What Investigators Found

Investigators have assumed “some complacency” in how weapons were used on the movie “Rust” set. They are preparing for charges. Plus, they have been working to identify the source of live rounds found at the filming site. 

Based on the search warrant affidavit, detectives are looking for any text messages, photos, videos, calls, or other information related to the movie and the suspected Alec Baldwin Rust shooting incident. 

Court documents show that Baldwin told investigators during an interview that there were email exchanges between himself and the film’s armorer Gutierrez Reed. In the emails, Reed showed him different styles of guns and that he had requested a bigger one. Baldwin ended up choosing a Colt revolver with a brown handle. 

Moreover, a search of Hutchins’ phone revealed conversations about the production back in July and photos of receipts from businesses in Santa Fe.  

Baldwin: “Someone is responsible” for the incident but “not me.”

In a separate interview with ABC News, Baldwin said he feels mind-boggling sadness and regret over the shooting, but not guilt.

“Someone is responsible for what has occurred, and I can’t say who that is, but it’s not me. Honestly, if I felt I was accountable, I might have killed myself. There is only one question to be resolved, and that’s where the live bullet came from.” – Alec Baldwin.

Baldwin explained that he would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. He also confirmed that Hutchins directed him to point the weapon just off-camera. 

The actor also shared that 45 minutes to an hour before he figured out that a live round had been loaded in the revolver. At first, he thought that Hutchins might have been hurt or had a heart attack. 

Baldwin said he met with the Rust’s armorer Hanna Gutierrez Reed for a gun training session before the shoot. She appeared capable and responsible, so he assumed that she was fit for the job. 

Gutierrez Reed has been in question regarding the case. However, her attorney said she did not put the round in the gun and believes she was a victim of sabotage. Meanwhile, investigators say they have found no evidence of such a claim. Baldwin recounted no manifestation that crew members were unsatisfied with safety conditions on the movie set.  

Baldwin emphasized that the incident left him emotionally devastated in the same interview. When asked by an ABC reporter if his career is over, Baldwin responded, ‘it could be.’

Production of Rust was suspended indefinitely while the incident is being investigated. 

For other news, read more here in Owner’s Mag!

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Fashion Designer Sues LEGO For ‘Queer Eye’ Jacket

Published

on

That’s a mouthful of pop culture, ain’t it? “Fashion Designer Sues LEGO for Queer Eye jacket.” 

It’s true, New York-based fashion designer James Concannon has filed a lawsuit against LEGO. He claims the company made a “blatant copy” of a jacket he designed for Queer Eye cast member Antoni Porowski. 

Somebody’s hard for cash and attention, eh? 

Concannon claims that LEGO didn’t ask for permission to use the “unique placement, coordination, and arrangement of the individual artistic elements.” 

A side-by-side comparison of the jacket by the designer and the LEGO version show obvious similarities. They also show obvious differences in those similarities. The design has been LEGO-fied … or LEGO-ized. I’m not sure of the technical term. 

Well, Did LEGO Steal The Design?

About as much as they stole Star Wars or Harry Potter. The Queer Eye LEGO set is one of the more recent in a line of sets for adult collectors. There are also LEGO sets of Friends and Seinfeld

No word on whether Jerry Seinfeld or Jennifer Aniston are suing the iconic Danish toy company.

LEGO’s lawyers did admit that they copied Concannon’s sweet design. Just like they copied Chewbacca’s design for their Chewbacca LEGO. Or how they copied Iron Man’s design for their Chewbacca LEGO. 

Now, maybe LEGO had Disney’s permission to use those designs. In fact, I’m sure they had a deal worked out. Just like how Netflix, which produces Queer Eye probably has a deal with LEGO. 

Concannon, being a super cool guy about all this, claims that the hit Netflix series had always asked permission to use his designs. That was not the case regarding the jacket in question. Concannon claims he gifted this brilliant and unique jacket to Antoni and never objected to its use on the show in the past. 

It wasn’t until LEGO released the Queer Eye – The Fab 5 Loft that the designer changed his mind. 

Interesting.

Is LEGO Going To Have To Pay?

According to Julie Zerbo, founder of The Fashion Law:

Concannon’s jacket itself is not protectable. What’s protectable here – and what is at issue in this case – is the skull, the peace sign, the writing, and the placement of those elements on the jacket.

“In order to be able to really make a successful and viable case against LEGO, the court will have to find that these elements are, in fact, protectable by copyright, and that LEGO’s jacket replicates them in a way that is substantially similar.

“I don’t anticipate that this will be an easy case for James Concannon.

I’m not sure Concannon’s PR team is thrilled with the headline “Fashion Designer sues LEGO ‘Queer Eye’ jacket.” Kinda makes the New York designer seem like a whiney, greedy wimp who’s perpetuating a harmful letigious culture this country struggles with. 

But what do I know?

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Logan Paul Bought Fake Pokemon Cards For $3.5 Million

Published

on

Logan Paul, YouTuber, fighter, and idiot, is a known Pokemon enthusiast. He wore his $150K Charizard around his neck at one of his fights, if you were unsure of his enthusiasm. He has spent millions on special collections. This very same Logan Paul bought fake Pokemon cards for $3.5 million dollars. 

That’s right. Logan Paul bought fake Pokemon cards for $3.5 million. 

S#@! I Shouldn’t Have Thrown Out My Old Pokemon Cards!

No, you shouldn’t have. There is currently a Pokemon card rush hitting valuations in the thousands. That binder your parents told you to throw out could have been potentially worth millions. 

How Did Logan Paul End Up With Fake Cards?

Paul has shared some of his Pokemon purchases on his YouTube channel. This set in particular had some people buzzing online that it was fake. In response to the speculation, Paul decided to fly to Chicago to see the Baseball Card Exchange (BBCE). 

These are the card guys. The previous owner, card collector Matt Allen, claimed that this potentially fake set had been verified by the BBCE. 

Seems legit, right? 

Well…

In a dramatic reveal, Paul, Allen, the BBCE, and onlookers opened the boxes in question to find that they weren’t Pokemon cards at all. 

They were G.I. Joe collectible cards. 

We all got duped.

How exactly did the BBCE get “duped?” How did the most credible card valuation organization in the country confuse G.I. Joe for Pikachu? Do they even look at the cards they’re valuing? 

In the video, Allen said that he never would have purchased the set if it wasn’t approved by the BBCE. 

Paul, visibly angry, said in his super positive bro tone:

I’m a super positive person, bro, and I’ll always be the one to look at the bright side. And I’m trying by this is very hard.” 

Bro, you spent $3.5 million on G.I. Joe cards. Did you not look at them before you dropped millions? Are you making so much money that you can get “duped” for the views, bro? 

One thing’s for certain. Logan Paul bought fake Pokemon cards.

Continue Reading

Trending