A Twitter user recently took to Twitter to rant about OpenSea delisting his Ethereum Name Service (ENS) NFT. Apparently, the calvin-klein.eth NFT is in violation of OpenSea’s Terms of Service. The user, @eth_turco expressed his frustration towards OpenSea centralization, wondering what happened to Web3.
The user was initially very happy with his purchase, given that the official Calvin Klein website is similar to his ENS. Regardless, the item is now off the market.
This is not the first time, second time, nor the third time that OpenSea has flexed its authority over NFT owners. The NFT marketplace delisted NFTs of the late photographer – Chi Modu without giving any reasons. However, they also delisted several Bored Ape copycats, which some members of the NFT community are fine with.
The Twitter thread gathered many personal opinions regarding this issue. A user questioned why the ENS platform allowed this sale in the first place, if it is in violation of current regulations. Many users also shared their delisted items within the thread.
One Twitter user also questioned, what if somewhat applies for copyright after an ENS NFT has been minted. Will the approval eventually lead to a DMCA takedown? On the other hand, there are also users that understand OpenSea’s position as a private company. They need to comply with domestic and international law, and non-compliance may bring unnecessary inconvenience to the team.
In the spirit of the Web3 movement, it is disappointing to see decentralization and true ownership become void in a split second. But there are also benefits when a company has the authority to make decisions, such as protecting the users in the community.
So which side are you on? Centralization or decentralization or both?
All investment/financial opinions expressed by NFTevening.com are not recommendations.
This article is educational material.
As always, make your own research prior to making any kind of investment.