A Twitter person took to Twitter not too long ago to rant about OpenSea removing its Ethereum Name Service (ENS) NFT. Apparently, the calvin-klein.eth NFT violates OpenSea’s Terms of Service. The person, @eth_turco, expressed frustration with the OpenSea centralization and wondered what happened to Web3.
The person was more than happy with his purchase at first, as the respectable Calvin Klein website online is very similar to his ENS. Anyway, the thing is now off the market.
This is not the first time, the 2nd time, nor the 3rd time that OpenSea has bent its authority over NFT homeowners. The NFT market has canceled NFTs of the overdue photographer – Chi Modu without explanation. However, they also removed some Bored Ape copycats, which the group is okay with.
the Twitter wire collected many private reviews related to this factor. One person wondered why the ENS platform allowed this sale within the first position, whether it violates the current rules. In addition, many customers shared their deleted pieces throughout the thread.
In addition, one Twitter person wondered, what if a little bit of copyright is filed after an ENS NFT is minted. Will the approval ultimately result in a DMCA takedown? On the other hand, there are also customers who see OpenSea’s place as a non-public enterprise. They want to agree to domestic and global laws, and failure to comply could potentially cause unnecessary inconvenience to staff.
In the spirit of the Web3 movement, it’s disappointing to see peer decentralization and real property turns out to be void in a 2d split. But there are also benefits when an organization has the power to make selections, which are reminiscent of protecting the customers in the neighbourhood.
So what aspect are you on? Centralization or decentralization or each?