Welcome to the WC, where you’re trapped in my mind for eight to twelve minutes weekly.

Just when I thought we were about to close the book on summer opportunities, this came across my desk via an introduction from an Altea member.

I like the deal, and I think you might too, but we’ll have to move quickly if we want to be a part of it.

Due to SEC regulations, I can’t disclose much about it here, but please express your interest to learn more.

📈 What’s the opportunity?

• Cash yield, paid quarterly – your capital sits in the junior tranche of a warehouse lending against >230 k European SME card sales.
• Free equity warrants (3 – 25 % coverage) that could add another 0‑60 % IRR
• 36‑month life + 3‑month tail; repayments come off every card swipe, so cash starts flowing from day one.

Think of it as private credit with venture upside: daily‑skimmed cash flows for yield, and a free option on a fast‑growing fintech.

🛠️ Why I like it

• 98% collection rate on the loan book over the last 12 months (though I expect this to decline)
• The fund is denominated in US dollars, but the vast majority of loans are written globally.
• First‑loss risk capped by short, amortising advances and hundreds of borrowers.
• Founders are writing cheques alongside us (skin‑in‑the‑game).

This opportunity is limited to accredited investors, and participation is only available to ​Altea​ members.

Ed Sheeran is doing art?

Ed Sheeran is arguably good at making music and is undoubtedly very good at making a lot of money from making music.

He is not, however, any good at making art.

His recently released collection of Jackson Pollack knockoffs — ​Cosmic Carpark​ — is awful.

At only $6,000 each, the primary pieces aren’t too expensive, but you do have to apply to get one.

The unlimited editions are $1,250, and print runs will be capped by demand. That means everyone who wants one will get one, then they’ll be numbered.

The art isn’t about the money for Sheeran (though it is about the ego):

Ed Sheeran’s share of the profits of the sale will be donated to the Ed Sheeran Foundation, a UK-wide initiative aimed at providing inclusive, high-quality music education for every child.

Astute readers will note that only Ed’s share of profits goes to charity. The gallery’s share — likely 50% — will go to HENI’s top line.

The astute and cynical reader would then conclude HENI, which also runs the ​Damien Hirst infinite money printing machine​, might conclude this venture is not all about the art and is, in fact, about something more prosaic. And they may also wonder who convinced Ed he was any good at art in the first place.

But HENI and Sheeran aren’t alone. They’re part of a growing Red Chip art movement.

What’s Red Chip Art?

Red Chip art is the art world’s algorithmic fever dream — a hype-driven phenomenon where emerging artists achieve rapid market success through social media virality, celebrity endorsement, and crypto collector enthusiasm rather than traditional institutional validation.

The term plays against “Blue Chip art” — your Picassos and Warhols with decades of museum credibility and auction house pedigree. Red Chip artists bypass the traditional gallery system entirely, building careers through Instagram, TikTok, and NFT platforms.

Which isn’t necessarily bad! The gallery system has a lot of flaws, and asking an artist to give up 50% of their revenue is a lot.

But most of this is garbage.

Think super-flat cartoon aesthetics, multi-colored chrome surfaces, pop culture mashups, and a deliberately flashy sensibility.

The movement’s aesthetic DNA reads like a crypto bro’s vision board: KAWS figurines, Daniel Arsham’s cartoon sculptures, and Beeple’s digital collages.

It’s art designed for shareability over substance, prioritizing viral moments over artistic depth. The collectors aren’t museum trustees or art historians — they’re tech entrepreneurs, celebrities, and millennials who discovered art through social media algorithms.

Ed Sheeran’s Pollock knockoffs fit perfectly into this ecosystem. His “Cosmic Carpark” collection embodies everything Red Chip represents: a celebrity leveraging existing fame to enter the art market, derivative aesthetics designed for instant recognition, and marketing through artificial scarcity and social media buzz rather than critical acclaim.

Should you invest in Red Chip Art?

No.

Ok, say more:

The investment thesis is seductive but flimsy.

Red Chip art treats creativity like venture capital — identify viral artists early, buy at accessible prices, then hope algorithm-driven hype translates into lasting value.

But virality isn’t artistry. Most of these pieces will age like NFT profile pictures from 2021 — cultural artifacts of a particular moment’s digital excess rather than enduring works of art.

What’s particularly cynical about Red Chip art is its rejection of art historical knowledge as elitist gatekeeping. By dismissing decades of critical framework as irrelevant, it creates a market where anything can be valuable as long as it gets enough likes. It’s democratization theater disguising what’s essentially celebrity merchandise.

A populist pump and dump.

HENI’s partnership with Sheeran is the platonic ideal here: create artificial scarcity through applications, offer unlimited editions to capture maximum demand, then number them for the illusion of exclusivity.

It’s not about art — it’s about monetizing fame through aesthetic products designed for social media consumption.

The real winners aren’t the artists or collectors, but the platforms facilitating these transactions. Like most hype-driven markets, Red Chip art redistributes wealth from enthusiastic buyers to savvy intermediaries who understand the game better than their customers.

In fact, it feels a lot like this.

Ranking the worst celeb artists

Not all celeb artists are Red Chip sloppers.

They’re not in it for the money.

Many of them think they’re good at it!

Some started out as artists but got famous for something else.

Regardless, lots of famous people have tried their hand at painting, and I’m going to spend a few minutes ranking and laughing at them.

12. Pete Doherty

The Art:

Using his own blood (and allegedly Amy Winehouse’s) as paint medium

What happened:

• Created blood painting “Ladylike” which sold for £35,000 in 2012
• Held exhibition “On Blood: A Portrait of the Artist” at Cob Gallery, London
• Recent Berlin exhibition at Janine Bean Gallery featured more blood paintings

The reception:

Guardian covered his ​blood painting sold for £35,000​, while NME documented his ​blood-spattered art exhibitions​ with mixed fascination and disgust.

Verdict:

Shock value over substance. Using bodily fluids doesn’t make bad art profound.

11. Jim Carrey

The Art:

Self-important paintings and sculptures with a messianic complex

What happened:

• “Nothing to See Here” exhibition at Heather James Fine Art Gallery, Palm Springs (2011)
• Six years of painting with complete technical incompetence
• Made a self-important video about his artistic “journey”

The reception:

Guardian’s brutal 2017 review called him an ​astonishingly bad painter and sculptor​, while Reddit discussions questioned why ​Hollywood stars should stay away from galleries​.

Verdict:

Comedy genius, artistic disaster with zero self-awareness.

10. Adrien Brody

The Art:

Peak Red Chip art cynicism with celebrity cash-grab paintings

What happened:

• “Made in America” exhibition at Eden Gallery, NYC (June 2025)
• Marilyn Monroe portraits and Mickey Mouse imagery
• Embodies the worst aspects of the celebrity Red Chip art movement

The reception:

ArtNews asked ​Why Are People Pretending It Isn’t horrendous?​, while the ​NY Times covered his exhibition​ with skepticism.

Verdict:

Embodies everything wrong with the celebrity Red Chip art movement.

9. Johnny Depp

The Art:

Terrible paintings with awful technical execution and bisection problems

What happened:

• “A Bunch of Stuff” NYC exhibition (2024)
• Skull paintings and portrait work
• A full decade of consistently poor attempts

The reception:

The 2024 ​NY Post called it a “derivative delusional ego bath”​. His exhibition site ​A Bunch of Stuff​ showcases the work in question.

Verdict:

Consistently terrible across a decade of attempts.

8. Ed Sheeran

The Art:

Shameless Jackson Pollock knockoffs called “Cosmic Carpark”

What happened:

• HENI Gallery exhibition, London (July 2025)
• Drip paintings priced £900-£6,000
• Admitted “think Jackson Pollock but with colourful house paint”

The reception:

ArtNews declared ​Ed Sheeran Is Ripping Off Jackson Pollock​, while the ​Guardian covered his Cosmic Carpark paintings sale​ with bemusement.

Verdict:

At least he admits the derivative nature, but that doesn’t excuse it.

7. Bob Dylan

The Art:

Wretched visual art from Nobel Prize-winning musician

What happened:

• “Mondo Scripto” at Halcyon Gallery, London (2018)
• Lyrics with drawings, inconsistent technique
• Multiple failed attempts at visual art across decades

The reception:

The Quietus review was titled ​”Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Wrong: Bob Dylan, Sunday Painter”​, with critics saying he would have been “better collecting all his albums and setting them on fire.” Documentation of his ​Mondo Scripto exhibition​ shows the extent of the problem.

Verdict:

Musical genius doesn’t translate to visual arts. Stick to songwriting.

6. James Franco

The Art:

Overhyped multimedia work riding entirely on celebrity status

What happened:

• Various gallery exhibitions and MoCA Los Angeles showings
• Consistently appears in worst celebrity artist roundups
• Academic programs and art world infiltration

The reception:

PBS SoCal analyzed the phenomenon as ​”Celebrity vs Culture: The James Franco-fication of Art World”​, with academic criticism of his overhyped multimedia work.

Verdict:

Talented actor, overrated artist riding on celebrity status.

5. Sylvester Stallone

The Art:

Earnest but technically poor landscape and portrait paintings

What happened:

• Art retrospective in Germany (2021)
• Landscape and portrait paintings spanning decades
• Professional gallery representation despite technical limitations

The reception:

Featured in multiple celebrity art criticism roundups, but generally receives credit for genuine effort and sincerity, unlike many celebrity artists who treat it as ego projects.

Verdict:

Gets points for sincerity, loses points for execution.

4. Anthony Hopkins

The Art:

Prolific but poor paintings from the acclaimed actor

What happened:

• Various private collections and occasional gallery showings
• Continues painting despite mixed critical reception
• Decades of consistent artistic output

The reception:

VitnaMedia included him in their analysis of ​”3 of the worst celebrity artists”​ compilations.

Verdict:

Talented actor, persistent but limited painter.

3. Kurt Cobain

The Art:

Limited artistic output, mostly personal sketches and therapeutic drawings

What happened:

• Personal sketches and drawings from Nirvana era
• Some finger paintings and experimental work
• Therapeutic outlet rather than professional pursuit

The reception:

Few examples exist of serious artistic attempts. Most work was clearly personal and therapeutic rather than intended for public consumption or commercial sale.

Verdict:

Gets a pass for not taking it too seriously – art as therapy, not commerce.

2. Winston Churchill

The Art:

Competent amateur landscape and still life paintings

What happened:

• “The Goldfish Pool at Chartwell” (1932) sold for $11.5 million
• Hundreds of paintings created during wartime breaks and retirement
• Record auction prices and sustained collector interest

The reception:

Art critics note “a genuine sense of a strong amateur artist exploring his ability,” while the ​NY Times covered record auction prices​. Art UK’s database includes ​The Goldfish Pool at Chartwell​ as a significant work.

Verdict:

Competent amateur work with historical significance. Actually painterly.

1. Hitler

The Art:

Technically competent but soulless architectural paintings and landscapes

What happened:

• Various landscape and architectural studies from his pre-political period
• Failed art school entrance, but showed actual drawing ability
• Technically superior execution to most celebrity artists

The reception:

Artlyst posed the uncomfortable question: ​”Adolf Hitler vs Winston Churchill: Who Was the Better Artist?”​

Verdict:

Ironically, the most technically competent of the bunch. History’s worst human, but could actually draw.

Want more analysis just like this? Like making money?

That’s all for this week; I hope you enjoyed it.

Cheers,

Wyatt

Disclosures & Disclaimers

The information contained in this newsletter is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice. Altea does not offer or sell securities through this newsletter. Any references to investment opportunities are not offers to buy or sell any security. You should not construe any such references as a recommendation to invest.

All investments carry risk and may result in loss. You are solely responsible for conducting your own due diligence and consulting with your own legal, tax, and investment advisors before making any investment decisions.

Altea does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information provided by third parties. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Only accredited investors as defined by applicable laws may participate in Altea investment opportunities.