Talk:CryptoPunks

History / Controversies
These sections should likely be rewritten / combined. I'll try to spend some time on it in the coming days. Seanbonner (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I've combined these sections for better organization and expanded on the history with additional sources. Seanbonner (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Was there any coverage in RSes whatsoever, or just in crypto blogs? If the latter, it doesn't belong here - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've included a number of sources though out the section including [WP:SELFSOURCE] where the owner of the company has made a statement about what they did, the rest are crypto specific news sites discussing a crypto art project so while they may not be considered RS for geopolitical news they are RS for a crypto specific topic as is detailed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix:_Reliability_in_the_context . None of the sources I've included are "crypto blogs" and your mass deleting the entire section rather than addressing specific details or sources could be considered [WP:VAND]. Perhaps my restructuring of the page confused you so I'll correct that, in the future please address specific points rather than deleting entire sections. Seanbonner (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * No, crypto sites are promotional nonsense. If you have no RSes, you have no sources suitable for Wikipedia. If your section is sourced to rubbish, then it's not sourced. Please find a clear WP:NEWSORG even mentioning this stuff, not rubbish sources - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly asked you to discuss this and made additional edits to improve the section. As you refuse to discuss specifics and just keep deleting everything I'm taking this to dispute resolution.
 * Seanbonner (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As there, I urge you to just ... stick to clearly green-rated RSes, not adding primary sources and crypto blogs. This really isn't hard - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And as that, I urge you to stop mass deleting entire sections and instead discuss individual sources you believe are questionable here on the talk page so that a solution can be achieved. Deleting everything and calling it nonsense doesn't help anything. Seanbonner (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Donation to Ukrainian Government
Hello, Aside all vandalism and all the unreliable edits that have been made after my edit, I now manually reverted all the edits back to mine. I added a more reliable source regarding the CryptoPunk Ukrainian Government donation. I couldn't do so before because my edit was made 1 hour after the news came out, so I couldn't find much more; but now it should do. Thanks. JohnnyCoal (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?
is it just me or are top 10 lists not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigSibling (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022
Tiffany & Co Tiffany & Co. is a luxury jewelry and specialty retailer. On 31st July 2022, the luxury brand announced limited supply of handcrafted bespoke pendant for a mint price of 30 ETH. The token is called NFTiff. The NFTiff is redeemable for a custom made piece of physical jewellery based on the cryptopunk. This new and modern approach to marketing was executed as a guerrilla marketing campaign via company's Executive Vice President of Product, Alexandre Arnault. Each Cryptopunk is limited to a maximum of 3 NFTiff token. NFT owners have to verify via its ownership via its existence in the digital wallet of the holder which needs to be the same onto which the NFTiff Cryptopunk is minted. 87 traits and 159 colors of the 10,000 punks will be converted into the similar looking gemstone of enamel color. The pendant itself will be composed of 18-karat rose/yellow gold and each punk will have atleast 30 stones. Size of the piece is 30-20-30mm approx. Jatin Pathi (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 13:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022
Change "There are 10,000 CryptoPunk tokens in both the V1 and V2 contracts." to "There are 10,000 CryptoPunk tokens."

None of the linked articles mention anything about V1 and V2 contracts. Espiritito (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Ovinus (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023
Currently the wiki states CryptoPunks were published June 2017. Thanks to the blockchain we know the date is exactly June 9th 2017 (https://etherscan.io/tx/0x9fef127966d59d440c70f28c8e6f1eac3af0d91f94384e207deb3c98ff9c3088). This is also the date that Larva Labs filed their copyright for, regarding CryptoPunks artwork. The article should be updated to reflect these facts and unambiguous sources. Here is the copyright filing for CryptoPunks, referencing June 9th as the publication date. https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&SC=Author&SA=Larva%20Labs%20LLC&PID=DNua7MTNP4XWrJL1eQyq0vQ40pUD7gP&SEQ=20230413182812&SID=2 Straybits (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The research you provide is valuable, but it is WP:OR and thus unsuitable for inclusion as-is. For example, it is not immediately clear that etherscan data indicate "publishing" in the context of the article. The link to the copyright filing that you provided does not seem to work, so I cannot verify anything there. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)