Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) has helped to buoy the blockchain frenzy, incorporating the art industry, giving artists a robust chance to increase their earnings with their crafts while protecting their patent.

Since March 11, when Christie’s auctioned off a digital collage of images, “Everyday’s—The First 5,000 Days,” created by Mike Winklemann (Beeple) for $69.3 million, a horde of artists, including Snoop Dogg and Paris Hilton, have jumped on the new market that has become another segment of the everyday crypto talks.

While the frenzy entices and welcomes more artists, concern has been emerging over its sustainability even with massive support of Silicon Valley elites. The concern stems not far from the cryptocurrency volatility, and now some experts think the NFT frenzy will be short-lived.

In an interview on Bloomberg TV this week, Coinbase cofounder Fred Ehrsam drew parallels between the rise of cryptocurrencies and the dotcom boom of the 1990s.

“I go so far as to say that 90% of NFTs produced, they probably will have little to no value in three to five years,” Ehrsam said. “You could say the same thing about early internet companies in the late ’90s.”

‘Ehrsam left his position as a Goldman Sachs trader in 2012 to combine his passions of computer science with gaming – and help set up Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S. with Brian Armstrong. In 2017, he left the day-to-day operations at Coinbase to launch his own investment firm called Paradigm, also focused on blockchain.’

Now he thinks NFTs are no different than any other crypto project born out of the hype overnight, even though he believes, despite the recent crash in the crypto market, that cryptocurrency is truly “the next internet-sized opportunity for the United States.”

“People are going to try all sorts of things. There’ll be millions and millions of cryptocurrencies and crypto assets, just like there were millions and millions of websites. Most of them won’t work,” Ehrsam explained.

While he believes the NFT craze will die prematurely, Ehrsam said the blockchain system is here to stay, and will command a future of global financial system powered by DeFi.

“The world doesn’t change overnight, but you can see the seeds of exponential growth occurring already,” he said in the Bloomberg interview. “I do think we will live in a future where for us to coordinate, we won’t need these centralized platforms today. That’s already true of financial services, in that you can be your own bank. You don’t need a central institution to hold your money anymore.”

Coinbase went public earlier this year at a colossal valuation of $100 billion. But like other exchanges and the entire crypto market, its market cap has since shrunk by half as crypto trading declines amid concerns about the impact of mining energy on the environment and governmental crackdown in China, cryptocurrency’s biggest mining hub.

There is an adage in Igbo culture that says “ife na-ato uto na-egbu egbu”, literally meaning that sweet things can kill. But figuratively, the adage is implying that too much of everything is bad. The adage is used to call on people to apply caution while consuming things that give them pleasure. It calls for moderation, regulation, and restrictions. It also reminds us that everything that has an advantage also has a disadvantage. Though that saying is ancient, it can still be applied to today’s world.

If you check the perspective of this adage, you will agree that there is truly a bad side to everything. For instance, we are warned daily to consume less sugar because it can harm us. People are also advised to be moderate with their alcohol consumption because taking too much of the substance can damage some vital organs. We have been advised to balance our social and career lives because, if the scale tilts to one corner, we will not have a happy life. We should also show moderation and restraint with the food we consume, how we dress, the length of time we sit before television, and so many other things. We should be moderate with everything we do because, even if we enjoy they are the things we value, too much of them can affect us negatively. This is also the same thing with how we use social media.

One thing many people have not realized is that social media, like alcohol and tobacco, can be addictive. You can spend hours before your phone, jumping from one social media platform to another, doing all sorts of things. Some people spend these hours scouting for customers while others use it to collect data for their research works. There are those that search for employers through social media as well as those that use it to search for employees. Some people use social media to build relationships while many others destroy theirs through the same medium. Knowledge can also be acquired from social media because there are many people that use the medium to coach others. You can sharpen your skills, especially argumentative and story-telling skills, build your career, and develop a sense of belonging through social media. However, despite all the good sides of social media, the bad effects of social media cannot be ignored.

When social media was developed, it was meant for the good alone. It turned the world into one global village because, through it, people from different parts of the world come together to interact with one another. However, this technology has been turned into a monster that is capable of causing conflicts between individuals, groups, and nations. Somehow, social media has been turned from being the perfect hub for connections to that of disconnection. It has moved from building relationships to destroying them. It has turned into a place for spewing and propagating hatred, disunity, distrust, intolerance, lies, and half-truths. Like someone rightly said, if another war should start in countries such as Nigeria, it will be caused by whatever was cooked and served through social media. Today, social media has taken the status of the sweet thing that can kill its user.

Like the Igbo adage that calls for moderation in everything a person does, this essay is calling for moderation in the use of social media. You don’t need to let your blood pressure shoot up because you use social media. You don’t have to entertain people that want to destroy your happiness and peace of mind through social media, irrespective of who they are. You don’t need to allow rumour mongers and fake news peddlers to destabilize you because they utilize social media to market their wares and “recruit” the services of ignorant persons.

Learn to build a life outside social media. Maintain good offline relationships with your friends, neighbours, and relatives. Utilise social media as a tool and nothing more. Decide what that tool is and ensure that you don’t get distracted. Remember, before social media you were. Don’t let it destroy what you cherish.

About a week after the Nigerian government banned Twitter, Russia has taken legislative steps aimed to control US tech companies.

On Thursday, Russian lawmakers passed legislation that would oblige U.S. tech giants to open offices in Russia by January 2022 or face punitive measures.

The move is Part of Russia’s bid to beef up what it calls internet “sovereignty”, towing a path similar to China. The goal is tied to the state’s push to control social media posts among other internet activities and limit the influence of US-powered freedom of expression buoyed by its tech companies in Russia.

Russia has cracked down on U.S. internet companies in recent months and slowed down Twitter’s internet traffic since March to punish it for not deleting what Moscow says is banned content.

Reuters reported that the new legislation, which passed its third and final reading in the lower house of parliament, requires foreign sites with more than half a million daily users in Russia to set up a local branch or Russian legal entity.

It is part of the new requirements offered by the Nigerian government to lift Twitter ban. The West African country said the requirement will help the government to collect taxes from the social media platform.

The lack of such a requirement currently allows foreign sites to formally remain outside of Russia’s jurisdiction, the bill’s authors said.

Websites that do not comply would be marked as being non-compliant on search engines, they could be excluded from search engine results, and banned from advertising in Russia and for Russians, the parliament said on its website.

The bill needs to be approved by the upper house of parliament and signed by President Vladimir Putin before it becomes law. That is widely expected to happen.

However, this move has increased governmental attacks on Twitter, a development seen as attempt by governments to curtail the role of the microblogging app in promoting free speech in countries where the authorities want it in check.

Last week, the Indian government said that Twitter could lose its “safe harbor” protections — the rules that designate it an intermediary, rather than a publisher — and make it responsible for all of the content that appears on the platform if it doesn’t comply with new rules governing social media in the country.

In February, the Indian government introduced new rules governing social media platforms, requiring them to appoint an India-based grievance officer, who would be responsible for acknowledging the complaints or requests from the government, or from ordinary users, within 24 hours. Failing to comply could result in criminal prosecution.

The new rules came after government forces raided Twitter’s office in May, opening the window for a possible legally-backed prosecution of Twitter when a user uses the platform to promote something the government does not like.

The government has frequently demanded the platform remove tweets critical of the regime, requests that Twitter has sometimes resisted. In May, the platform marked some political figures’ tweets as “manipulated media,” spurring the government’s push to curb the social media’s powers.

Nevertheless, Nigeria is the first country among the trio that have been infuriated by Twitter, to ban the platform without legal bases.

Global chip shortage has added to the existing need for the United States to up its semiconductor production. China has become a chipmaking rivalry in recent years, which the US has tried to contain through trade agreements with China, designed among other things, to protect its intellectual properties.

COVID-19 outbreak ushered in a new normal that revved up chip demand, as the whole world relied more on technology and artificial intelligence to carry out tasks. Against this backdrop, from smartphone to auto production has been seriously impacted, and the US government knows it needs to do more to ameliorate the growing chip scarcity.

Thus, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday proposed a 25% tax credit for investments in semiconductor manufacturing as Congress works to increase U.S. chip production. Reuters has the report.

The proposal sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and the top Republican on the panel, Senator Mike Crapo, along with Senators Mark Warner, Debbie Stabenow, John Cornyn and Steve Daines, would provide “reasonable, targeted incentives for domestic semiconductor manufacturing,” they said in a statement.

The group did not immediately provide a cost estimate for the measure, which is on top of recent proposed semiconductor funding. Last week, the Senate approved $52 billion for production and research on semiconductors and telecommunications equipment. That included $2 billion dedicated to chips used by automakers, which have seen massive shortages and made significant production cuts. The House of Representatives must still act on the measure.

Supporters of funding note the U.S. share of semiconductors and microelectronics production has fallen to 12% from 37% in 1990.

The senators said up to 70% of the cost difference for producing semiconductors overseas results from foreign subsidies.

“The United States can’t allow foreign governments to continue to lure companies’ manufacturing overseas, increasing risks to our economy and costing American workers good-paying jobs,” Wyden said.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said last month the funding could result in seven to 10 new U.S. semiconductor plants.

Raimondo anticipates government funding would generate “$150 billion-plus” in investment in chip production and research – including contributions from state and federal governments and private-sector firms.

The tax credit could benefit Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) 2330.TW, which is building a $12 billion semiconductor factory in Arizona, and Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors NV as well as U.S. firms such as Intel Corp and Micron Technology Inc.

The Semiconductor Industry Association praised the proposal, saying it would “strengthen domestic chip production and research, which are critical to U.S. job creation, national defense, infrastructure, and semiconductor supply chains.”

There have been moves by semiconductor manufacturers to increase production by building new factories in the US. Intel announced plan in March to build $20 billion factories in Arizona, a project that will see the US increase its volume of chip production significantly. That would be an immense addition to TSMC’s proposed $12 billion chip plant in Arizona. But it falls short of the growing demand that has seen auto companies shutting down production.

China is yet to announce a new plan to counter the global chip shortage. This means, if the US implements the 25% tax credit proposal for investments in semiconductor manufacturing, it will help it close the 25% production gap that started after 1990.