A recent article titled “95% of NFTs are worthless” has sparked a lot of controversy and debate in the crypto community. The article, published by a website called CryptoArt.io, claims to have analyzed over 10,000 NFTs sold on various platforms and found that only 5% of them have any resale value. The rest, according to the article, are either unsold, delisted, or sold for less than the original price.
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are digital assets that represent unique and scarce items, such as artworks, collectibles, games, music, and more. NFTs are created and traded on blockchain platforms, such as Ethereum, that provide verifiable proof of ownership and authenticity. NFTs have gained popularity and attention in recent years, especially after some high-profile sales, such as the $69 million auction of Beeple’s digital collage “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” at Christie’s in March 2021.
However, not everyone is convinced that NFTs have real value or potential. Some critics argue that NFTs are overhyped, speculative, environmentally harmful, and vulnerable to fraud and theft. In this blog post, we will examine some of the main arguments for and against NFTs, and try to answer the question: are NFTs worthless?
Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 14 (June 3 – Sept 2, 2024) begins registrations; get massive discounts with early registration here.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations here.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and invest in Africa’s finest startups here.
One of the main appeals of NFTs is that they are scarce and expressive. Unlike fungible tokens, such as cryptocurrencies, that are interchangeable and divisible, NFTs are unique and indivisible. This means that each NFT has its own identity and history, and can represent something meaningful and personal to its creator and owner. For example, an NFT can capture the artistic vision of a digital artist, the sentimental value of a family photo, or the cultural significance of a meme.
Moreover, NFTs are scarce because they are limited in supply and demand. The supply of NFTs is determined by the creators, who can decide how many copies or editions of their work to mint as NFTs. The demand for NFTs is driven by the collectors, who can bid for their desired NFTs in online marketplaces or auctions. The scarcity of NFTs creates a sense of exclusivity and prestige for the owners, who can prove their ownership and display their collection to others. Therefore, NFTs are valuable because they are scarce and expressive, and they can enable new forms of creativity, ownership, and exchange in the digital world.
One of the main criticisms of NFTs is that they are not really owned or unique. Unlike physical assets, such as paintings or sculptures, that are tangible and durable, NFTs are intangible and dependent on external factors. For instance, an NFT does not contain the actual digital file or data of the item it represents, but only a link or reference to it.
This means that the owner of an NFT does not have full control or access to the underlying item, which can be copied, altered, deleted, or lost by the creator or a third party. Moreover, an NFT does not grant any legal rights or protections to the owner, such as copyright or trademark rights, unless explicitly stated by the creator or agreed upon by the parties.
Furthermore, NFTs are not really unique because they can be replicated or duplicated by anyone. For example, an NFT of a digital artwork can be easily screenshot or downloaded by anyone who sees it online. Even if the original creator mints only one copy of their work as an NFT, nothing prevents another person from creating a similar or identical work and minting it as a different NFT.
Additionally, some NFTs are based on existing works or assets that are not original or owned by the creators, such as public domain images, licensed characters, or real-world objects. Therefore, NFTs are worthless because they are not really owned or unique, and they can be easily copied or counterfeited by anyone.
However, the article portraying NFT has worthless was criticized based off its methodology and conclusions by many experts and enthusiasts who point out several flaws and biases in the analysis. Some of the main criticisms are:
The article only considers NFTs that are sold on secondary markets, ignoring the primary sales and auctions that often fetch higher prices and reflect the true demand and value of the NFTs.
The article uses a narrow definition of value, focusing only on the monetary aspect and ignoring the artistic, cultural, and social value that NFTs can have for their creators and collectors.
The article does not account for the diversity and complexity of the NFT market, which includes different genres, styles, formats, and platforms. The article treats all NFTs as homogeneous and comparable, which is not the case in reality.
The article does not acknowledge the novelty and innovation of the NFT space, which is still evolving and experimenting with new forms of expression and interaction. The article assumes that the current state of the market is final and definitive, which is not true for any emerging technology or industry.
Therefore, the article’s claim that 95% of NFTs are worthless is not only inaccurate but also misleading and harmful. It undermines the creativity and potential of the NFT space, which is one of the most exciting and promising developments in the digital art world. It also discourages new artists and collectors from exploring and participating in this new medium, which is open, inclusive, and empowering.
NFTs are not worthless. They are valuable in many ways that go beyond money. They are expressions of individuality, identity, and community. They are manifestations of culture, history, and vision. They are experiments with technology, art, and economy. They are not just tokens. They are stories.