A few months ago, the term NFT arrived on the radars of all of us who make life on the Internet. Many people see this term as the salvation of humanity, while others see it as a virus that must be exterminated immediately. I lean more towards the second, and this article expresses only my opinion.
For those who don’t know, NFTs (initials for non-fungible token), are nothing more than a piece of code hosted on the public blockchain that authenticates that “something” on the internet is “yours”. Something like a certificate of authenticity equivalent to a work of art that can be acquired in museums or auctions of a recognized artist.
The point is, on the internet, the vast majority of things can be saved as a copy by simply double clicking and saving as. This opens up a giant debate about whether we really need NFTs or not, since, given their nature, they are something that can only exist on the internet and, like many things on the internet, what they represent can be copied. As has happened before, artists upload their work to platforms like Devianart, but then someone else comes along, copies the file and registers it with another NFT.
That is, that bunch of images of monkeys, monsters and dolls in some games, are not really a NFT, what is the NFT is the code that supports that you are the authentic owner. But who would be interested in owning an image that can be replicated without consequences? Well, only people who want to line their pockets at the expense of unbelievers who can see some value in that.
What I mean is that people who buy NFTs, do not buy them for the image, they buy them with the hope that later that NFT can increase its value to sell it and make a profit, like a work of art. And there are some (the ones with lots and lots of money) who just want to fill their collection so they can rub other people’s faces in the absurd amount of money they can spend on something banal and irrelevant.
Is any of that relevant in the digital world?
But let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the creators of such NFTs and those who put it on the market for the first time. There are many types of this. There are the artists who want to be able to sell their work and make money from it, there are the ones who want to rip off their fans to make money from the popularity and influence they have, and there are the companies who just want to get more and more money out of their consumers. Maybe there are more types, but these are the ones that come to mind.
Of these 3 cases you can find a lot of them on the internet nowadays, but in this page we mainly talk about simracing. And in that section, there is the Virtual Le Mans company that have released a collection of NFTs for sale, for what purpose? To get more money out of their consumers.
Considering the bad reputation this organization already has for making the 24 Hours of Virtual Le Mans an invite-only event and taking away the opportunity for other simulators to be able to organize their own event. And besides, NFTs are very much frowned upon in the gaming world, getting into such a marketing strategy doesn’t promise much for them.
On the other hand, in some cases they don’t even make the attempt to promote or properly tell the buyers what they are going to get with such purchases. They offer them as FIFA Ultimate Team cards, promising a certain amount of “legendary moments” from some simracers’ endurances events that have been done in the year. Are they JPGs, videos, posters? Who knows. Besides, they don’t even offer additional value like Nintendo’s amiibo, which are just collectible figures, but at least they give you extra content in some video games.
But some may think, how does this affect me as a regular user? It is a completely valid question. At the moment, the truth is that they won’t affect you, if you decide not to get into it, it won’t affect you at all. But who knows what might happen in the future. Maybe now to be able to participate in some competition you will have to pay an NFT, which by its very nature, does not have a fixed price and will only increase and increase until the person with the most money can pay it and leave you out. Or maybe you want to be able to have access to a specific series in iRacing, because now you must have a NFT for that series to be unlocked. Or maybe you just want to be able to organize a private racing session in rFactor2, then you must have a NFT that can give you that option.
The truth is that the amount of things that can be blocked behind a NFT, or maybe just give you benefits without blocking anything are immense, but do we really want something like this, that we don’t need at all, to make our lives more difficult and seek to spend exorbitant amounts of money on trifles? The truth is, I don’t want it that way.
See you on the track!
This website uses affiliate links which may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.
Kill it with fire
NFT don’t only represent things on the internet. I’m in the NFT bad camp but please can we dislike it for the correct reasons? It’s not very credible when we decry the technology for a reason that’s only pertinent for some of their application. And even there, with correct implementation, they can indeed result in limited quantity digital items as is their intention. Server based games such as Destiny could easily implement them without risk of copy and paste (although the better point is they could do this without NFT already if they wanted).
Technology is Blockchain, not NFT. NFTs have been created to create digital scarcity and make money. Bits are not limited.
I agree the technology is Blockchain. That doesn’t change the fact that many prominent examples of NFT usage are nothing to do with digital assets. Take ‘love is in the air’ as an example. I could make an NFT of my first fart of 2022 if I thought there was a market.
My point is simply that the fact that bits are not limited misses the point of NFT. Ownership and possession are different when talking about NFT.
Ownership only makes sense within that Blockchain, not for the rest of the Blockchains. What is the official Blockchain? In the article, they haven’t even developed that Blockchain yet. They just want you to buy that image so that in your mind you have that concept of ownership to speculate and make money in the future.
They make money, the buyer doesn’t know if he will make money or lose money.
Right, and now you’re in to legitimate territory to criticise NFT. The whole copy paste thing is ignorant to their purpose and as such isn’t a valid criticism. As is limiting their purpose as you seem to do in paragraph 2, 3 and 4.
FOMO (which can already be implemented without mining and significantly distributed processing) can already be achieved.
I guess you can call me a pedant. And there are things here we certainly agree upon. I think NFT is just an obfuscation on existing anti consumer practices. In some ways you’re highlighting the same thing but in other ways you’re perpetuating that obfuscation.
I just realised that despite my objections this is one of the best articles on this topic. So my apologies for my blunt initial (and subsequent) comments. I’ll shut up now.
A pleasure to exchange point of views!
This was not the best move, and the criticism is deserved. I see now VCO is doing it ‘digital collectables now’, so I hope there’s an article about that too.
The race itself was brilliant though, the most professional presentation I’ve ever seen, really helps esports.
Wow, just seen 🙁
Stop the world, cause im OFF!!!
F***ing NFTs here too?
Fam im Done
NFTs are awful. Its nothing but cash-grabbing no lifers ruining the planet with their greed for owning ugly pixels of a disgusting monkey and then claiming to be “on a higher level than you”.
FUCK NFTS.
I don’t get you Alberto.
Yes, it is business and it is ok to try to generate revenue that does not mean there are deceiving people left and right. Sure, there is a bunch bull shit around NFTs, no doubt with scammers also out there.
The problem is not having a direct use with these NFTs, so they are just for collectors. Assume the Monalisa, which is in every book other, all over the web, then the Louvre creates just 1000 NFTs copies of it, certified and that. Sure, you might have your after you did you ‘save as’ from whatever source, but you will not have one of the ‘certified’ copies, that sure might not mean nothing, but some it does. Then I wonder, in time, things will be attached to a copyright (and be trackable and traceable), meaning, if you own a piece of something that is used, then, you might earn from that used too. Like with Music for example? Smart Contracts allowing that to happen.
There are cool games out there, like Start Atlas or Sandbox, when you create your stuff , own it and sell if you like. I have no problem with that. But rejecting NFTs out of the whim, has not merit.
And don’t start with the environment toll from blockchain such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, all new ones used proof of stake and other system that do not harm no use excessive energy. Algorand is tricking carbon neutral.
Some of your opinions are ok, but you better educated yourself a bit more on the matter.
I am a Big Data architect. I have participated in Blockchain projects in banks and large international companies. You can check my Linkedln.
You are mixing NFT’s with smart contracts and other technologies that have the same bases but are not the same.
Nowadays, there are certificates for art, like certificates for houses and properties or when you get married. Registered by the government of your country, city council or international entities. In other words, they have legitimate validity in databases.
There can be millions of blockchains in the world, even I can create one in 5 minutes. Which blockchain gives me legitimacy over my product?
The only difference is that blockchain is a decentralised system. Art is the biggest form of money laundering in the world, and the blockchain is the best system to do it.
And the most important part:
The image/music/digital content is not stored on the blockchain and most of the images I’ve seen are hosted on web 2.0 storage/databases, which will probably end up as a 404, meaning NFT has even less value.
Thank you for response!
IT engineer with over 25 years experience here. My view is NFTs are just another crypto shill people have fallen for and there is actually no real use case for them that isn’t already being facilitated in traditional ways.
Like most crypto projects they are full of deception, manipulation and great marketing to find ways to get money out of people’s pockets.
100% agreement.
For me I like the Idea of having an NFT for my paint scheme in iRacing so My livery is unique, and give me an ability to maybe build a visual brand through my streaming and competition. However it certainly wouldnt be to make a quick buck out of.
I suppose it is how it is used rather than an outright dislike for it. I am neither for or against it, I dislike the ideas covered in the article, but I can see how it could be beneficial in certain cases
A NFT doesn’t guarantee your paint is unique, only that “you own that paint” backed by used blockchain.