@ -0,0 +1,349 @@ |
||||
--- |
||||
title: >- |
||||
NFTs |
||||
description: >- |
||||
Some thoughts about. |
||||
tags: tech crypto |
||||
--- |
||||
|
||||
NFT stands for "non-fungible token". The "token" part refers to an NFT being a |
||||
token whose ownership is recorded on a blockchain. Pretty much all |
||||
cryptocurrencies, from bitcoin to your favorite shitcoin, could be called tokens |
||||
in this sense. Each token has exactly one owner, and ownership of the token can |
||||
be transferred from one wallet to another via a transaction on the blockchain. |
||||
|
||||
What sets an NFT apart from a cryptocurrency is the "non-fungible" part. |
||||
Cryptocurrency tokens are fungible; one bitcoin is the same as any other bitoin |
||||
(according to the protocol, at least), in the same way as one US dollar holds as |
||||
much value as any other US dollar. Fungibility is the property of two units of |
||||
something being exactly interchangeable. |
||||
|
||||
NFTs are _not_ fungible. One is not the same as any other. Each has some piece |
||||
of data attached to it, and each is recorded separately on a blockchain as an |
||||
individual token. You can think of an NFT as a unique cryptocurrency which has a |
||||
supply of 1 and can't be divided. |
||||
|
||||
Depending on the protocol used to produce an NFT, the data attached to it might |
||||
be completely independent of its identity, even. It may be possible to produce |
||||
two NFTs with the exact same data attached to them (again, depending on the |
||||
protocol used), but even so those two NFTs will be independent and not |
||||
interchangeable. |
||||
|
||||
## FUD |
||||
|
||||
Before getting into why NFTs are interesting, I want to first address some |
||||
common criticism I see of them online (aka, in my twitter feed). The most |
||||
common, and unfortunately least legitimate, criticism has to do with the |
||||
environmental impact of NFTs. While the impact on energy usage and the |
||||
environment when talking about bitcoin is a topic worth going into, bitcoin |
||||
doesn't support hosting NFTs and therefore that topic is irrelevant here. |
||||
|
||||
Most NFTs are hosted on ethereum, which does have a comparable energy footprint |
||||
to bitcoin (it's somewhat less than half, according to the internet). _However_, |
||||
ethereum is taking actual, concrete steps towards changing its consensus |
||||
mechanism from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), which will cut the |
||||
energy usage of the network down to essentially nothing. The rollout plan for |
||||
Ethereum PoS covers the next couple of years, and after that we don't really |
||||
have to worry about the energy usage of NFTs any longer. |
||||
|
||||
The other big criticism I hear is about the value and nature of art and what the |
||||
impact of NFTs are in that area. I'm going to talk more about this in this post, |
||||
but, simply put, I don't think that the value and nature of art are immutable, |
||||
anymore than the form of art is immutable. Perhaps NFTs _will_ change art, but |
||||
change isn't bad in itself, and furthermore I don't think they will actually |
||||
change it all that much. People will still produce art, it's only the |
||||
distribution mechanism that might change. |
||||
|
||||
## Real, Useful, Boring Things |
||||
|
||||
Most of the coverage around NFTs has to do with using them to represent |
||||
collectibles and art. I'd like to start by talking about other use-cases, those |
||||
where NFTs are actually "useful" (in the dull, practical sense). |
||||
|
||||
Each NFT can carry some piece of data along with it. This data can be anything, |
||||
but for a practical use-case it needs to be something which indicates ownership |
||||
of some internet good. It _cannot_ be the good itself. For example, an NFT which |
||||
contains an image does not really convey the ownership of that image; anyone can |
||||
copy the image data and own that image as well (intellectual property rights be |
||||
damned!). |
||||
|
||||
A real use-case for NFTs which I'm already, if accidentally, taking advantage |
||||
of, is domain name registration. I am the proud owner of the |
||||
[mediocregopher.eth][ens] domain name (the `.eth` TLD is not yet in wide usage |
||||
in browsers, but one day!). The domain name's ownership is indicated by an NFT: |
||||
whoever holds that NFT, which I currently do, has the right to change all |
||||
information attached to the `mediocregopher.eth` domain. If I want to sell the |
||||
domain all I need to do is sell the NFT, which can be done via an ethereum |
||||
transaction. |
||||
|
||||
Domain names work well for NFTs because knowing the data attached to the NFT |
||||
doesn't actually do anything for you. It's the actual _ownership_ of the NFT |
||||
which unlocks value. And I think this is the key rule for where to look to apply |
||||
NFTs to practical use-cases: the ownership of the NFT has to unlock some |
||||
functionality, not the data attached to it. The functionality has to be digital |
||||
in nature, as well, as anything related to the physical world is not as easily |
||||
guaranteed. |
||||
|
||||
I haven't thought of many further practical use-cases of NFTs, but we're still |
||||
in early stages and I'm sure more will come up. In any case, the practical stuff |
||||
is boring, let's talk about art. |
||||
|
||||
[ens]: https://nfton.me/nft/0x57f1887a8bf19b14fc0df6fd9b2acc9af147ea85/7558304748055753202351203668187280010336475031529884349040105080320604507070 |
||||
|
||||
## Art, Memes, and All Wonderful Things |
||||
|
||||
For many the most baffling aspect of NFTs is their use as collectibles. Indeed, |
||||
their use as collectibles is their _primary_ use right now, even though these |
||||
collectibles procur no practical value for their owner; at best they are |
||||
speculative goods, small gambles, and at worst just a complete waste of money. |
||||
How can this be? |
||||
|
||||
The curmudgeons of the world would have you believe that money is only worth |
||||
spending on goods which offer practical value. If the good is neither consumable |
||||
in a way which meets a basic need, nor produces other goods of further value, |
||||
then it is worthless. Obviously NFTs fall into the "worthless" category. |
||||
|
||||
Unfortunately for them, the curmudgeons don't live in reality. People spend |
||||
their money on stupid, pointless shit all the time. I'm prepared to argue that |
||||
people almost exclusively spend their money on stupid, pointless shit. The |
||||
monetary value of a good has very little to do with its ability to meet a basic |
||||
necessity or its ability to produce value (whatever that even really means), and |
||||
more to do with how owning the shiny thing or doing the fun thing makes us |
||||
stupid monkeys very happy (for a time). |
||||
|
||||
Rather than bemoan NFTs, and our simple irrationality which makes them |
||||
desirable, let's embrace them as a new tool for expressing our irrationality to |
||||
the world, a tool which we have yet to fully explore. |
||||
|
||||
### A Moment Captured |
||||
|
||||
It's 1857 and Jean-François Millet reveals to the world what would become one of |
||||
his best known works: _The Gleaners_. |
||||
|
||||
{% include image.html dir="nfts" file="gleaners.jpg" width=5354 %} |
||||
|
||||
The painting depicts three peasants gleaning a field, the bulk of their harvest |
||||
already stacked high in the background. The [wikipedia entry][gleaners] has this |
||||
to say about the painting's eventual final sale: |
||||
|
||||
> In 1889, the painting, then owned by banker Ferdinand Bischoffsheim, sold for |
||||
> 300,000 francs at auction. The buyer remained anonymous, but rumours were |
||||
> that the painting was coveted by an American buyer. It was announced less than |
||||
> a week later that Champagne maker Jeanne-Alexandrine Louise Pommery had |
||||
> acquired the piece, which silenced gossip on her supposed financial issues |
||||
> after leaving her grapes on the vines weeks longer than her competitors. |
||||
|
||||
I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief for Jeanne-Alexandrine. |
||||
|
||||
I'd like to talk about _why_ this painting was worth 300k francs, and really |
||||
what makes art valuable at all (aside from the money laundering and tax evasion |
||||
that high-value art enables). Millet didn't merely take a picture using paints |
||||
and canvas, an exact replica of what his eyes could see. It's doubtful this |
||||
scene ever played out in reality, exactly as depicted, at all! It existed only |
||||
within Millet himself. |
||||
|
||||
In _The Gleaners_ Millet captured far more than an image: the image itself |
||||
conveys the struggle of a humble life, the joy of the harvest, the history of |
||||
the french peasantry (and therefore the other french societal classes as well), |
||||
the vastness of the world compared to our little selves, and surely many other |
||||
things, each dependant on the viewer. The image conveys emotions, and most |
||||
importantly it conveys emotions captured at a particular moment, a moment which |
||||
no longer exists and will never exist again. The capturing of such a moment by |
||||
an artist capable of doing it some justice, so others can experience it to any |
||||
significant degree far into the future, is a rare event. |
||||
|
||||
Access to that rare moment is what is being purchased for 300k francs. We refer |
||||
to the painting as the "original", but really the painting is only the |
||||
first-hand reproduction of the moment, which is the true original, and proximity |
||||
to the true original is what is being purchased. All other reproductions must be |
||||
based on this first-hand one (be they photographs or painted copies), and are |
||||
therefore second and third-hand. |
||||
|
||||
Consider the value of a concert ticket; it is based on both how much in demand |
||||
the performance is, how close to the performance the seating section is, and how |
||||
many seats in that section there are. When one purchases the "original" _The |
||||
Gleaners_, one is purchasing a front-row ticket to a world-class performance at |
||||
a venue with only one seat. That is why it was worth 300k francs. |
||||
|
||||
I have one final thing to say here and then I'll move onto the topic at hand: |
||||
the history of the work compounds its value as well. _The Gleaners_ conveys an |
||||
emotion, but knowing the critical reaction of the french elite at its first |
||||
unveiling can add to that emotion. |
||||
|
||||
Again, from the [wiki entry][gleaners]: |
||||
|
||||
> Millet's The Gleaners was also not perceived well due to its large size, 33 |
||||
> inches by 44 inches, or 84 by 112 centimetres. This was large for a painting |
||||
> depicting labor. Normally this size of a canvas was reserved for religious or |
||||
> mythological style paintings. Millet's work did not depict anything |
||||
> religiously affiliated, nor was there any reference to any mythological |
||||
> beliefs. The painting illustrated a realistic view of poverty and the working |
||||
> class. One critic commented that "his three gleaners have gigantic |
||||
> pretensions, they pose as the Three Fates of Poverty...their ugliness and |
||||
> their grossness unrelieved." |
||||
|
||||
Now scroll back up and see if you don't now have more affinity for the painting |
||||
than before you knew that. If so, then the face value just went up, just a |
||||
little bit. |
||||
|
||||
[gleaners]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gleaners |
||||
|
||||
### The Value of an NFT |
||||
|
||||
With this acknowledgement of _why_ people desire art, we can understand why they |
||||
would want an NFT depicting an artwork. |
||||
|
||||
A few days ago an NFT of this image sold for almost $500k: |
||||
|
||||
{% include image.html dir="nfts" file="disaster-girl.jpg" width=2560 %} |
||||
|
||||
Most of the internet knows this image as _Disaster Girl_, a meme which has been |
||||
around since time immemorial (from the internet's perspective, anyway, in |
||||
reality it was taken in 2007). The moment captured is funny, the girl in the |
||||
image smiling as if she had set the fire which blazes in the background. But, as |
||||
with _The Gleaners_, the image itself isn't everything. The countless usages of |
||||
the image, the original and all of its remixes, all passed around as memes on |
||||
the internet for the past 14 years, have all worked to add to the image's |
||||
demand. _Disaster Girl_ is no longer just a funny picture or a versatile meme |
||||
format, it's a piece of human history and nostalgia. |
||||
|
||||
Unlike physical paintings, however, internet memes are imminently copyable. If |
||||
they weren't they could hardly function as memes! We can only have one |
||||
"original" _The Gleaners_, but anyone with a computer can have an exact, perfect |
||||
copy of the original _Disaster Girl_, such that there's no true original. But if |
||||
I were to put up an NFT of _Disaster Girl_ for sale, I wouldn't get a damned |
||||
penny for it (probably). Why was that version apparently worth $500k? |
||||
|
||||
The reason is that the seller is the girl in the image herself, now 21 years old |
||||
and in college. I have no particular connection to _Disaster Girl_, so buying an |
||||
NFT from me would be like buying a print of _The Gleaners_ off some rando in the |
||||
street; just a shallow copy, worth only the material it's printed on plus some |
||||
labor, and nothing more. But when Disaster Girl herself sells the NFT, then the |
||||
buyer is actually part of the moment, they are entering themselves into the |
||||
history of this meme that the whole world has taken a part in for the last 14 |
||||
years! $500k isn't so unreasonable in that light. |
||||
|
||||
### Property on the Internet |
||||
|
||||
I don't make it a secret that I consider "intellectual property" to be a giant |
||||
fucking scam that the world has unfortunately bought into. Data, be it a |
||||
physical book or a digital file, is essentially free to copy, and so any price |
||||
placed on the copying or sharing of knowledge is purely artificial. But we don't |
||||
have an alternate mechanism for paying producers of knowledge and art, and so we |
||||
continue to treat data as property even though it bears absolutely no |
||||
resemblance to anything of the kind. |
||||
|
||||
Disaster Girl has not, to my knowledge, asserted any property rights on the |
||||
image of herself. Doing so in any real sense, beyond going after a handful of |
||||
high-value targets who might settle a lawsuit, is simply not a feasible option. |
||||
Instead, by selling an NFT, Disaster Girl has been compensated for her labor |
||||
(meager as it was) in a way which was proportional to its impact on the world, |
||||
all without the invocation of the law. A great success! |
||||
|
||||
Actually, the labor was performed by Disaster Girl's father, who took the |
||||
original image and sent it into a photo contest or something. What would have |
||||
happened if the NFT was sold in his name? I imagine that it would not have sold |
||||
for nearly as much. This makes sense to me, even if it does not make sense from |
||||
a purely economical point of view. Disaster Girl's father did the work in the |
||||
moment, but being a notable figure to the general public is its own kind of |
||||
labor, and it's likely that his daughter has born the larger burden over time. |
||||
The same logic applies to why we pay our movie stars absurd amounts even while |
||||
the crew makes a "normal" wage. |
||||
|
||||
Should the father not then get compensated at all? I think he should, and I |
||||
think he could! If he were to produce an NFT of his own, of the exact same |
||||
image, it would also fetch a decent price. Probably not 6 figures, possibly not |
||||
even 4, but considering the actual contribution he made (taking a picture and |
||||
uploading it), I think the price would be fair. How many photographers get paid |
||||
anything at all for their off-hand pictures of family outings? |
||||
|
||||
And this is the point I'd like to make: an NFT's price, like in all art, is |
||||
proportional to the distance to the moment captured. The beauty is that this |
||||
distance is purely subjective; it is judged not by rules set down in law by |
||||
fallable lawyers, but instead by the public at large. It is, in essence, a |
||||
democritization of intellectual property disputes. If multiple people claim to |
||||
having produced a single work, let them all produce an NFT, and the market will |
||||
decide what each of their work is worth. |
||||
|
||||
Will the market ever be wrong? Certainly. But will it distribute the worth more |
||||
incorrectly than our current system, where artists must sell their rights to a |
||||
large publisher in order to see a meager profit, while the publisher rakes in |
||||
the vastly larger share? I sincerely doubt it. |
||||
|
||||
### Content Creation |
||||
|
||||
Another interesting mechanism of NFTs is that some platforms (e.g. |
||||
[Rarible][rarible]) allow the seller to attach a royalty percentage to the NFT |
||||
being solde. When this is done it means the original seller will receive some |
||||
percentage of all future sales of that NFT. |
||||
|
||||
I think this opens some interesting possibilities for content creators. Normally |
||||
a content creator would need to sell ads or subscriptions in order to profit |
||||
from their content, but if they instead/in addition sell NFTs associated with |
||||
their content (e.g. one per episode of their youtube show) they can add another |
||||
revenue stream. As their show, or whatever, begins to take off, older NFTs |
||||
become more valuable, and the content creator can take advantage of that new |
||||
increased value via royalties set on the NFTs. |
||||
|
||||
There's some further interesting side-effects that come from using NFTs in this |
||||
way. If a creator releases a work, and a corresponding NFT for that work, their |
||||
incentive is no longer to gate access to that work (as it would be in our |
||||
current IP system) or burden the work with advertisements and pleas for |
||||
subscriptions/donations. There's an entirely new goalpost for the creator: |
||||
actual value to others. |
||||
|
||||
The value of the NFT is based entirely and arbitrarily on other's feelings |
||||
towards the original work, and so it is in the creator's interest to increase |
||||
the visibility and virality of the work. We can expect a creator who has sold an |
||||
NFT for a work, with royalties attached, to actively ensure there is as |
||||
little gatekeeping around the work as possible, and to create work which is |
||||
completely platform-agnostic and available absolutely everywhere. Releasing a |
||||
work as public-domain could even become a norm, should NFTs prove more |
||||
profitable than other revenue streams. |
||||
|
||||
### Shill Gang |
||||
|
||||
While the content creator's relationship with their platform(s) will change |
||||
drastically, I also expect that their relationship with their fans, or really |
||||
their fan's relationship with the creator's work, will change even more. Fans |
||||
are no longer passive viewers, they can have an actual investment in a work's |
||||
success. Where fans currently shill their favorite show or game or whatever out |
||||
of love, they can now also do it for personal profit. I think this is the worst |
||||
possible externality of NFTs I've encountered: internet fandom becoming orders |
||||
of magnitude more fierce and unbearable, as they relentlessly shill their |
||||
investments to the world at large. |
||||
|
||||
There is one good thing to come out of this new fan/content relationship though, |
||||
and that's the fan's role in distribution and preservation of work. Since fans |
||||
now have a financial incentive to see a work persist into the future, they will |
||||
take it upon themselves to ensure that the works won't accidentally fall off the |
||||
face of the internet (as things often do). This can be difficult currently since |
||||
work is often tied down with IP restrictions, but, as we've established, work |
||||
which uses NFTs for revenue is incentivized to _not_ tie itself down in any way, |
||||
so fans will have much more freedom in this respect. |
||||
|
||||
[rarible]: https://rarible.com/ |
||||
|
||||
### Art |
||||
|
||||
It seems unlikely to me that art will cease to be created, or cease to be |
||||
valuable. The human creative instinct comes prior to money, and we have always |
||||
created art regardless of economic concerns. It's true that the nature of our |
||||
art changes according to economics (don't forget to hit that "Follow" button at |
||||
the top!), but if anything I think NFTs can change our art for the better. Our |
||||
work can be more to the point, more accessible, and less encumbered by legal |
||||
bullshit. |
||||
|
||||
## Fin |
||||
|
||||
That crypto cat is out of the bag, at this point, and I doubt if there's |
||||
anything that can put it back. The world has never before had the tools that |
||||
cryptocurrency and related technologies (like NFTs) offer, and our lives will |
||||
surely change as new uses of these tools make themselves apparent. I've tried to |
||||
extrapolate some uses and changes that could come out of NFTs here, but I have |
||||
no doubt that I've missed or mistook some. |
||||
|
||||
It's my hope that this post has at least offered some food-for-thought related |
||||
to NFTs, beyond the endless hot takes and hype that can be found on social |
||||
media, and that the reader can now have a bigger picture view of NFTs and where |
||||
they might take us as a society, should we embrace them. |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 485 KiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 736 KiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 1.1 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 1.5 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 1.8 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 2.7 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 2.8 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 4.2 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 5.9 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 130 KiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 200 KiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 2.8 MiB |
After Width: | Height: | Size: 15 MiB |