![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This is a fairly new idea right now, so doesn't have as many quality sources as I'd like. However, I've pieced together information from many sources, and general information included in specific related topics. I suspect in the future there will be better quality sources that will come online, and some additional references would need to be added in addition to expanding the article. Btcgeek ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the lead author of ERC-721, ask me anything. Full Decent ( talk) 03:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody have references for NFT on EOS and other platforms? Please no draft interfaces. Draft standards have no place on Wikipedia. Full Decent ( talk) 00:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, apologies for the apparent disruption on the Non Fungible Token page. I'd love to have a discussion about the appropriateness (or not) for the definitions inclusion in this page. The technological development is now live and operational on the Ethereum blockchain, and in my opinion is of significance given that it's an extension of the ERC-721 standard that features a built in, permissionless market into the NFT itself. The definition outlined on the cryptomedia.wtf is rather concise and specific, and bears resemblance to the original " What is Hypertext" website by W3. Admittedly, it's quite recent but I don't think it's unworthy of inclusion.
I've been slightly confused by the promotional flags given that there are companies and projects that are also explicitly linked in the page too. If it's about the links I'm happy to contribute an edit without any links.
Would love to hear everyone's perspective. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7a6f7261 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
There was at one point an exchange called Mint Exchange which sold freshly minted Bitcoins at a 10% premium. We also know the BTC from Wannacry was carefully watched and few users would like to have it. Lastly, we can see that on non-regulated/non-KYC exchanges have Bitcoin trading at under the average value: Bisq / Average price. It may be worth adding this to the main article. Dr-Bracket ( talk) 20:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
At this point in time I think the article could use a correction as it has become quite clear that Bitcoin is not fungible. Adil Gunaslan ( talk) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Art was an early use case for blockchain. NFTs prove authenticity and ownership of digital art. [1] The launch of CryptoPunks In June 2017 paved the way for "rare" art on the Ethereum Blockchain. [2] DADA.art built from the CryptoPunks model and launched the first marketplace for rare digital art in Oct 2017. [3] In 2018, one of FRORIEP Legal firm’s partners, Catrina Luchsinger Gaehwiler, [4] purchased what was claimed to be the first art-based asset NFTs in a blockchain governed Patron Protocol (created by artplus.io in 2016) [5] of 8 fractional ownership shares. The work is called “The Absence of Presence” [6] by Romanian artist Dragos Alexandrescu, who lives and works in Vaasa, Finland. Artfintech1 ( talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I took a quick Google of some of the standards listed in the bottom section and couldn't really find much other than a few blog posts and the technical spec. I am not sure that is sufficient in total to count for notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Should these be removed? Kavigupta ( talk) 06:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is the cover image for this article what it is? Seems like random logo that doesn’t actually represent NFTs in any way from what I know. The first, and only major use of the image I’ve seen is on this very article.
Further the caption, “NFT Icon” is misleading for the same reason. Perhaps a collage or something more representative of NFTs is appropriate. HiddenLemon // talk 03:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The article has expanded a lot since I first started it, which is great to see. However, we've lost some accuracy which is what we need to strive for especially in a hot market with lots of media attention.
For starters, the first sentence here is "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital file whose unique identity and ownership are verified on a blockchain" which is inaccurate. An NFT is token standard not a file. The token standard does not need to be correlated to any file. Same in the description section - "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital file stored on a blockchain (a digital ledger)." This is inaccurate. Again, the NFT may correspond to a digital file but it is not a digital file itself. In fact for most NFTs the digital file is not stored on the blockchain at all. There are some exceptions to this rule but that is mostly the case with almost all of the NFTs from CryptoKitties to the Beeple NFTs.
My original description was "Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a special type of cryptographic tokens where each token represents something unique and are thus the tokens are not interchangeable"
I am proposing changing the introduction to something like
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a special type of cryptographic tokens where each token represents something unique and are thus the tokens are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent assets like digital files, digital art, digital audio/video and other forms of digital media. While the digital files themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFT representing them is tracked on the blockchain and provides a proof of ownership to the owner.
As a reminder, NFTs come under crypto and as such should comply with with Crypto GS. As editors, we should err on the side of conservative changes and not changing the article to reflect every news item and instead strengthening the article as an encyclopedia that explains correctly what NFTs are and why the reader should care.
-- Molochmeditates ( talk) 16:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data on a digital ledger (a blockchain) where each unit can represent a unique digital file, and thus the units are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent digital files such as digital art, audio, video, and other forms of digital creative work. While the creative works themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFTs representing them are tracked on the blockchain and provide proof of ownership of the NFTs to the buyers, while copyright ownership of the works is retained by the creators. NFTs conform to different token standards on different blockchains such as Ethereum.
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data on a digital ledger (a blockchain) where each unit can represent a unique digital item, and thus the units are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent digital files such as digital art, audio, video, and other forms of digital creative work. While the creative works themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFTs representing them are tracked on the blockchain and provide proof of ownership of the NFTs to the buyers. NFTs conform to different token standards on different blockchains such as Ethereum.
I am proposing the following text to replace the current text in the carbon emissions section.
NFT purchases and sales have become enmeshed in a growing controversy regarding the high energy use associated with blockchain transactions. In recent years, there have been a number of web articles [1] [2] and academic reports citing high electricity usage associated with the Proof of Work validation process used on the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks. [3], [4] Annual greenhouse gas emission estimates from these studies vary, depending on the level of renewable energy used, but can reach in the hundreds of megatons, and are comparable to those of a country like Sweden [5] A principal cause of these high energy requirements is the Proof of Work process used to validate blockchain transactions, which can include NFT purchases and sales. These validation cycles, however, consume energy at a rate that’s largely independent of the level of NFT activity [6] [7], [8]. Some digital artists, such as Memo Atken, have voiced strong concerns and claims about large environmental impacts from NFT purchases and sales on the Ethereum network [9] In response to these types of concern, the Ethereum Foundation has been moving to a less energy intensive Proof of Stake type validation protocol, which it claims will use less than 1% of the energy used by POW [10]. This transition is expected to be completed by 2022 [11] Some NFT sites also now allow the option of buying carbon offsets when making NFT purchases, or contributing a percentage of revenue to offset programs [12]. |
Justification for this Edit
I want to provide the reader a better understanding of the full context of this issue. Although I think a reference to Memo Atken’s work is important, I am less certain about the accuracy of his calculations, and whether inclusion of them conforms to Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, and I think the value of referencing his work is more in terms of the attention it has generated rather than the specifics of the claims made regarding electricity usage. Also, the latter sentences in the first paragraph cite sources that are, in turn, just citing Atken’s calculations, so it seems like much of the paragraph provides a fairly limited, somewhat circular, perspective that does not have any type of peer review or editorial control associated with it...and again those considerations are core requirements for a WP reliable source.
Although the edits in the past couple of days have included a wider range of perspectives, and thereby have dealt with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns associated with last weeks version of this section, I wanted to propose this change as a way of providing some additional context. I think some of the recent revisions could be combined with the changes I am proposing above. Dtetta ( talk) 06:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Jade Ten, Nonfungible, Axeman89, and Bilorv, it looks like you all have made recent edits to this section. Do you have any thoughts or concerns about these proposed edits?
As I mentioned earlier, the edits over the past few days have helped deal with NPOV concerns re: last week’s version of this section. But I think there are still some issues with the new text. While the intro sentence in the first paragraph now gives some needed background, the NY Times citation doesn’t seem to support the text. In addition, the text (and Atken’s articles) probably don’t satisfy WP criteria for a Reliable source, at least in terms of using them to describe specific carbon emission impacts. Although they have clearly generated media coverage, the way they are now juxtaposed with statements in the second paragraph that dismiss them seems to invite confusion for some readers. This is partly why I chose to eliminate the specific footprint claims, and just describe his work in general terms, with a citation available if the reader wanted to get into those details. I’m sure there are other ways of looking at this. Dtetta ( talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should also add that I am trying to convey the following ideas with this proposed edit:
that'sshould be
that is(more formal tone). — Bilorv ( talk) 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
We should only list things in the history section that are meaningful. This might be a technological first (e.g. cryptokitties) or a large media attention event that is otherwise notable (e.g. Beeple auction), or large sales to show the market.
Take this for example -
On March 6, rapper Azealia Banks, sold her audio sex tape titled "I F----D RYDER RIPPS" said to be a 24-minute long recording of Banks and her fiancé Ryder Ripps having sex, published on the NFT marketplace Foundation, and listed for 10 Ethereum and valued at over $17,000, 12 hours later, a artist who goes by the pseudonym Rulton Fyder, purchased the tape, it was re-listed at over $260 million.
Not sure why this would be notable to include in this section. There are and will be a bunch of celebrities doing this and listing them all doesn't make sense. The sum of $17,000 appears to be on the lower side compared to notable NFT sales. The idea of re-listing an NFT at an outrageous price is meaningless since anyone can list their NFT at any price on a marketplace. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It's just self-promotional spam. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:8109:8500:18FC:D8AD:57FB:611B:D34C (
talk)
11:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I can download a PNG or JPEG of a drawing or screenshot for free. Then Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a digital file? Is that another money laundering method for rich people? You can pay an artist for a custom drawing (nfts aren't custom at all) without harming environment, it's called "commissions".
Why aren't we talking more about its harmful effects on environment? Why aren't we talking about how crypto currencies are harmful to environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeticiaLL ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Somebody wanted to change the image. Not sure this one has any merits over the other, but it is open to discussion. This image may not be rightly licensed (it was taken off this article). UserTwoSix ( talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This looks like an 11-year-old kid's first digital drawing on phone.
LeticiaLL ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In February 2021, Axie Infinity game featured the biggest sale of NFT in the gaming world with 9 assets being sold for more than $1,500,000 as part of a new game mode. [1] [2] The game has been in development since the end of 2018 and will be available for mobile devices in late 2021. Estus1 ( talk) 06:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
References
We need a section that clarifies what "ownership" actually means in the NFT context. In the end, an NFT is just a ledger entry on a blockchain that is interpreted to mean "referenced object/data XYZ belongs to whoever controls the wallet I'm in". That's not necessarily the same as actually "owning" the referenced object XYZ.
E.g., if XYZ is a physical object, then we still need the legal system (which varies by country) to honor this NFT ledger entry as a proof of ownership. And if the referenced object is virtual (e.g., a song or an image file), we need recognition and support from the legal system so we can enforce copyrights / the right of the NFT holder to collect royalties. Or is there no connection to copyright at all? Does it vary by country? How does that harmonize with blockchain, which doesn't know country borders?
I fear there's lots of confusion and I hope that Wikipedia can help the world get this clarified.
Authoritarian Contributor ( talk) 04:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Be advised this article is the subject of WP:GS/Crypto. Additionally for all crypto articles we are only using mainstream sources, such as wsj, nyt, wired, bloomberg, FT, etc. We are not using coindesk, coinmarketcap, bitcoinmagazine, etc. Also no blogs, WP:UGC, WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can look at WP:RSP and if a source is not considered high quality there, you can pretty much assume it is not ok to use on crypto articles. Note that all articles written by contributors (very often such as Forbes) are considered UGC and not ok to use on cyrpto articles. None of those lower-quality sources are acceptable on cryptocurrency articles. If some NFT doesn't have high-quality sources then it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion on this article. I removed a lot of sources today (leaving the content for now here. Do not re-add these types of sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The first known true NFTs were released as part of Etheria" to "The first known NFT on Ethereum"
Change "Such a single-unit coin could be loosely classified as a pointer NFT to an off-chain asset and would have theoretically been exchange-tradable as well, but no evidence that this minting occurred in this timeframe has yet surfaced." to "A single-unit coin was minted with the name OLGA and the description "One & Only". It was minted at the following time 2014-06-12T19:02:10Z GMT. This is the first true NFT that was ever minted.
Source for OLGA: https://xchain.io/tx/16822 https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA Source from the creator of the first NFT: https://twitter.com/jp_janssen/status/1373650790783537162 The creator explaining the details of the OLGA asset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gboNULna0o Theogoodman ( talk) 17:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I find it odd the inclusion of an individual who is anonymous and has no place in the NFT cannon. He merely is a collector and not much of historical importance, I feel only the artistic contributions are of matter in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishamon06 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be good to also add a section in Use Cases called Pornography, since that has been banned on many NFT marketplaces and has been a very debatable and controversial topic and that there are a few players in the space such as TreatDAO that are trying to promote pornography by giving the models most of the benefits by making limited-edition collections of their work. It is possible we might soon see celebrities and others join in on this aspect of the NFT world. Randomperson4893485934 ( talk) 06:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, I just simply want Tezos to be added to the list that provide NFT's. This is very credible. In fact, Tezos offers a cleaner alternative to the Ethereum NFT's with much much less carbon footprint. Kalamint and hicetnunc are my credible sources! Kuy4P1n0y ( talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Social Media Posts
Social media posts such as tweets can also be sold as NFTs. On March 22, 2021, Jack Dorsey sold his first tweet as an NFT on the platform Valuables by Cent for $2.9 million. [1]
Reason for Change: I think it would be a good idea to add a section in Uses called Social Media Posts. Jack Dorsey selling his first tweet was the most notable example of a social media post being sold as an NFT. There are also numerous tweets on sale on the Valuables platform. We could see more celebrities in the future also start selling their tweets or other social media posts. For example, Elon Musk offered to sell one of his tweets as an NFT before backing down. [2]
The claim that this Simple Ledger Protocol (SLP) seems to be UNDUE and cant find any source. google search. Thanks! Comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Briannlongzhao: please read WP:LEDE which states that the lede is only used to summarize content in the body of the article and weight for the lede is determined by what is in the article. It is not a place to introduce new concepts or highlights things not in the article. I have removed some of your edits, that seemed most controversial. Also avoid WP:PROMO and understand that at wikipedia we are only using very high-quality sources for cryptocurrency articles. If you have to ask if a source is high quality, you can pretty much be sure it isnt. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
While one (questionable) function of NFT has been crypto art, it certainly isn't expected to be the primary use case in the years ahead. Instead of applying the feline artwork on this article, it should be featured in the “Crypto art” article instead. People are already confused about the entire NFT and it is so much more than art. ToniTurunen ( talk) 18:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I would add a new subsection "Political activism" under "Uses". Investing dot com announced about the first political performance in a form of an NFT /news/cryptocurrency-news/first-political-performance-nft-launched-on-opensea-marketplace-2460926 Investing is the 3rd largest financial news agency in the World, why is it blocked here? Since Investing dot com is blocked, read it here https://btcpeers.com/first-political-performance-nft-launched/ The same at Jerusalem Post https://www.jpost.com/omg/activist-turns-anti-nazi-act-into-commodified-digital-art-663771 BeInCrypto.com: https://de.beincrypto.com/nft-zerstoerung-des-nazi-denkmals-als-symbol-fuer-das-zeitgenoessische-litauen/ DeFi Expectations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO4Ewsplk_E
~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnamedcrypto ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
What in the WORLD is the "contemporary art" section? It reads like a press release from a big company. I don't care how many sources it cites, someone's slanting that section HARD. 192.161.116.7 ( talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there any RS on Etheria at all that is salvageable? Seems like we can cut down the claims to a sentence or two. There is some other early history probably that we are missing especially pre-Ethereum if anyone has RS they can point to. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insert a scheme:
MarioTaddei ( talk) 22:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
23:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)I edited the environmental concerns section today. It’s a fairly major edit, although I did retain some of the changes made since April 1 that seem like an improvement. There’s a few reasons for this edit.
On a basic level it’s hard to figure out how the various edits done since April 1 really improve the earlier text, and I could not figure that out from the edit comments. More specifically, I don’t understand the logical construction of these new paragraphs, some of which are just single sentences. There are also basic prose and grammar issues with some of this new text.
In addition, there are now issues with some WP policies and standards. In the later part of March, the NFT article was flagged for the following: “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article has been edited with too much promotional content and not enough reliable and secondary sources.”
I think the recent edits have reintroduced some of those problems. For instance, references to Nyan Cat and Art Station raise promotional content concerns, and seem at odds with the basic NPOV standard as described at Wikipedia:Five pillars, IMO.
I propose that this section focus on the following ideas (and constructed the edit today with these in mind):
In an earlier edit I had included the additional idea that studies and web sites indicate the annual GHG emissions for the largest blockchain networks, Bitcoin and Ethereum, is in the hundreds of megatons, comparable to those of a small country. But that text is probably better suited to the blockchain article itself, so eliminating it here does improve the brevity of this section. I will try to add this info into the WP blockchain article instead.
In terms of reliable sources, particularly for a science oriented issue that has some controversy associated with it, I think it would be good to follow the WP Scientific Journal guidance where possible. That article does acknowledge that Popular press stories can be used to supplement scientific journals, but the priority seems to be on journals. This emphasis is a little hard to do here, but I did reinsert the Nature Sustainability journal article that had been deleted as part of the citation in the first paragraph, second sentence. It would be nice to also have a science journal source for the third sentence, dealing with specific footprint estimates for NFTs, but I have not been able to find anything yet.
I also essentially deleted the last paragraph, as it seemed like it was overly detailed, and summarized it in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Would appreciate knowing if anyone thinks that particular edit was too “bold”.
Briannlongzhao, Jtbobwaysf, Dalecri, and Jade Ten - You all have been involved in recents edits to this section of the article, so I would appreciate any thoughts or response to this issues I’m raising here, as well as to the basic outline for the edit that I’ve done. Apologies for any work you’ve done that I may have negated with this edit. Dtetta ( talk) 00:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I was expecting a section talking about how many artists including high-profile artists in many fields are reporting their art is being tokenized without their permission and scammers are making money from it, and there's no way to stop them. Where is that discussion? The article as it is makes it seem like NFTs are fully benevolent and have zero issues with copyright or usage since "it's about ownership"... CesarFelipe ( talk) 18:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Film" section the film industry change the first line 'has been slow" to:
The first NFT featured by a major film release was in May, 2018 with the Fox Filmed Entertainment and Marvel Studios launch of a series Deadpool 2 NFTs [1] . The assets are currently trading on Opensea.io [2] NFThistory ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be great to have a very general description high up about what an NFT is and the why it would exist. Is it a way of positively identifying ownership? Provenance? Is it a currency? When would you use one, and when not? Jumping into applications does not necessarily illuminate the issue for those unfamiliar with the concept. Cellmaker ( talk) 23:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Really it does seem it has no meaning. Everybody can get exactly the same file (and as they say below the file itself is not even part of the blockchain - but then what is?). Viewing the file will show no information
on ownership or authenticity. It's not like you can show off with a blockchain like you would with an original signed painting. This may become a biiig bubble. Hoemaco ( talk) 12:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone add the following to the end of the History section?:
In mid-April 2021, Bloomberg Businessweek wrote:
Thank you. 24.90.229.114 ( talk) 04:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
By mid April 2021, the buying frenzy had substantially subsided, and buyers who had gotten in early had "done supremely well" according to Bloomberg Businessweek. [1]
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The end of the introduction portion of the article:
``` The rise of NFT transactions has also led to increased environmental criticism. The computation-heavy processes associated with proof-of-work blockchains, the type primarily used for NFTs, require high energy inputs that are contributing to global warming. The carbon emissions produced by the energy needed to maintain these blockchains has forced some in the NFT market to rethink their carbon footprint. ```
has no references and is therefore sensationalist. Please remove it, add references, or move it outside of the introduction. 108.39.198.194 ( talk) 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a section for NFTs for Novels, Fiction, Nonfiction, Authors see http://www.litether.com
http://www.wippublishing.com
Early innovators in this space include: Thomas Daniel Dylan (NFT book author, founder of Librenet), Christopher Damitio (NFT book author and founder of Litether.com) as well as Robbie Pollock (NFT book author), Jilian Godsil (NFT book author), James Riordan-Waters (NFT book author), Redding Hunter (NFT book author), and Erick Stow (NFT book author). While there were other authors who experimented with putting covers and small portions of text out as NFTS, those listed above were the first to put full length books on the blockchains as NFTs. Chrisdamitio ( talk) 05:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I plan to revise and edit the music section with the goal of strengthening and further clarifying preexisting information. Additionally, I will include information regarding how the covid 19 pandemic has impacted the music industry, and how NFTs are now allowing artists to recoup from the losses. Specifically, one fact I will include is that NFTs generated around $25 million within the music industry in the short span of the months February and March. I will also reference Mike Dean's NFT collection "4:22". Joshn49 ( talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You can add:
if you want MarioTaddei ( talk) 16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add some information on NFT page Please allow me to edit this page SShussein ( talk) 12:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that the article doesn't describe the tax evasion and money laundering utility of NFTs, which are the sole factors behind the multi-million dollar auction prices. 74.194.157.22 ( talk) 05:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change elminating to eliminating Benjamin Loison ( talk) 12:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per my original mention on this talk page of the irrelevance and non-representative cover image: Archive1#Cover Image/icon ... why is this image still being used? It seems Hocus00 had removed it, but it returned. There's no representative logo for a non discrete subject matter such as NFTs.
If I recall when investigating where it originated from, it was created by a for-profit company in the blockchain space but had not traceable usage except for in this very Wikipedia article. As such its inclusion only leads to misleading self-referential use as the "logo" of NFTs, including this "see also" article ( Old revision of List of most expensive non-fungible tokens) that is stating it to be the logo that "represents" NFTs. This "logo" wouldn't persist if it wasn't for its continued inclusion here, which isn't what Wikipedia should be about.
That's not even to mention the fact that the graphic is just generally not a good logo or aesthetically appealing to begin with, but I digress...
HiddenLemon //
talk
10:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I propose the following changes from the current lead, which is missing a lot of critical information and is partially wrong:
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. [1] [2] NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audio, and other types of digital files. Access to any copy of the original file, however, is not restricted to the buyer of the NFT. While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtain, NFTs are tracked on blockchains to provide the owner with a proof of ownership that is separate from copyright.
In 2021, there has been increased interest in using NFTs. Blockchains like Ethereum, Flow, and Tezos have their own standards when it comes to supporting NFTs, but each works to ensure that the digital item represented is authentically one-of-a-kind. NFTs are now being used to commodify digital assets in art, music, sports, and other popular entertainment. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs. [3] The NFT market value tripled in 2020, reaching more than $250 million. [4]
to this
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. [2] The entry in the digital ledger is similar to traditional physical public ledgers, such as those used to ascertain ownership over land in many countries. citation needed NFTs (and the associated license to use, copy or display the underlying asset) can be traded and sold on digital markets, some of them selling for millions of dollars. [5]
Ownership of the NFT is often associated with a license to use the underlying digital asset, but generally does not confer copyright to the buyer: some agreements only grant a license for personal, non-commercial use, while other licenses also allow commercial use of the underlying digital asset. [6] If the license to use the asset is non-exclusive, multiple NFTs can be created for the same artwork and sold individually, similarly to limited editions in lithography. Access to a copy of the original file may or may not be restricted only to the buyer of the NFT. In some cases, the underlying digital items are available for anyone to obtain or watch for free. [7]
NFTs are often implemented using blockchain technology that are suited as a digital ledger. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; [8] however, other blockchains like Ethereum, Flow, and Tezos have their own standards when it comes to supporting NFTs, but they all have the property that each NFT is represented as a single, indivisible digital token.
This would correct the following issues in the current lead:
I think all of these are sensible changes. My version is a proposal, feel free to change and adopt - I was not aware that there is so much controversy here so I was just WP:BOLD but am happy to discuss first. Please let me know to which of these you agree and how we can improve the lead @ JBchrch: and others. Best -- hroest 15:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
And in the case of the digital files typically being attached to NFTs today, anybody can watch the same basketball highlights anytime, or save a copy of the same digital image to their own hard drive. All an NFT does is authenticate and record the provenance of the NFT itself, as with a limited-edition reproduction of a photograph — but when the art object attached to the NFT is freely available, there’s no inherent reason why it would have any value at all.The Verge says
Buyers typically get limited rights to display the digital artwork they represent, but in many ways, they’re just buying bragging rights and an asset they may be able to resell later.Overall, I think the current version of the lead does a better job a summarizing the copyright issues.
While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtainis more accurate than the proposed version, since it looks like that is the case for most NFTs (per the reliable sources), and not only
In some cases.
Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs.?
The entry in the digital ledger is similar to a certificate of ownership which can be traded and sold on digital markets, some of them selling for millions of dollars. [5] [9]
solely for the following purposes..., including
for your own personal, non-commercial use. But that's already permitted by law in this jurisdiction! So this is classic case of legal jargon hiding in plain sight the fact that nothing material has been granted. In any case, exclusive licenses are a tricky thing, because in general (subject to local law and the specifics of the case blablabla), it's not very clear what happens to the other copyright rights that aren't subject to the license. So an exclusive license to display a work for personal and non-commercial purposes may presumably allow the creator to grant a license for commercial use of the copyright to someone else. Not saying this is the case all the time everywhere, and it will depend on the language of the license.
Because NFTs are so new, IP rights associated with a sale may be unclear unless carefully set by contract.[19];
Taking a look at some of the most recent high-profile NFT sales, the terms underpinning each smart contract have not typically assigned any IP rights.[20];
NFT transactions don’t purport to convey copyright or other intellectual-property interests regarding the work in question[21];
In one sense, the purchaser acquires whatever the art world thinks they have acquired. They definitely do not own the copyright to the underlying work unless it is explicitly transferred.[22].
Currently, when a person acquires an NFT, the underlying asset is owned, but not the copyright.[23];
Owning an NFT does not mean you own the copyright to a given asset, but it does grant you bragging rights.[24];
Owning an NFT doesn’t equate to owning the copyright to a given asset, music or otherwise, but scarcity has helped push up valuations.[25];
The buyer of an NFT will not necessarily acquire a copyright, or even sole access to a work[26];
NFT purchasers don’t really own anything at all, other than a URL and some bragging rights. Creators almost always reserve their copyright[27]. JBchrch talk 14:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
For example, this https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmQwyhubhyig5RyUgjz26fojndeeP4cWnc5xx4jQ1So7HH is IPFS hash (using cloudflare proxy) for that NFT for some code that Tim Berners-Lee sold. 2A00:1370:812D:E29E:F86A:4FE6:57CB:C983 ( talk) 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{Advert}} to the top of the article. The tone of the article is a far-cry from neutral and does not meet Wikpedia's encyclopedic standards. The Uses section, while not the only problematic one, for example, is incredibly egregious. A Medical sub-section where NFTs are claimed to cure cancer would fit right in with the others.
I am not disputing any of the sources or statements in themselves - it's the overall tone of the article that clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. 2804:431:C7CE:8F81:4A2B:64B9:32C:7325 ( talk) 01:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
puffery}}
that I had removed, reading this request as a form of
WP:BRD.
JBchrch
talk
10:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Film section include following trivia:
On July 4th, 2021 it was announced that drama series Crypto Keepers would become Asia's 1st NFT series.
Proof is evidenced in these articles: https://variety.com/2021/digital/asia/crypto-keepers-nft-drama-series-amm-global-1235010481/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/hk-production-company-plans-to-launch-crypto-themed-drama-series-on-nfts https://cryptonews.com/news/world-s-longest-running-manga-to-focus-on-crypto-in-new-seri-10953.htm Hollerme ( talk) 16:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token#NFT buying surge (2021–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change USD$5.4 to USD $5.4 million in section NFT buying surge (2021–present)
Incorrect summary of Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s web source code NFT sells for $5.4 million BI613en ( talk) 20:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the hyperlink 'ETH' in the Academia subheading of the Uses section from ETH Zurich, a Swiss institute of technology to Ethereum, the cryptocurrency used for the transaction 2001:8004:2770:AB5B:59D:37E:484D:C56 ( talk) 08:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
and was sold for USD$5.4.
should be:
and was sold for USD$5.4 M. 188.60.188.49 ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "Memes" to "Uses" section
User:JBchrch would love to get your perspective on this proposed addition as a use case section. Meme NFTs have been an emergent category over the past 6 months and there is sufficient enough activity that I believe warrants a mention. I've matched the formatting of the "Academia" section in terms of source links and structure.
In June 2021, the original Doge meme was minted by Atsuko Sato, the meme's original creator. The NFT was sold on June 12, 2021 for 1696 ETH (USD $4,100,000) [1], making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date [2]. Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger [3] , Nyan Cat [4] and Disaster Girl. [5] Memenft ( talk) 02:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Memenft ( talk) 06:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
In June 2021, the original Doge meme was minted by Atsuko Sato, the meme's original creator. The NFT was sold on June 12, 2021 for 1696 ETH (USD $4,100,000) [1], making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date [2]. Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger [3] , Nyan Cat [4] and Disaster Girl. [5]
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose the addition of Dada.nyc to the section titled Public awareness (2017–2021). On 31 October 2017 [1] Dada.nyc released a collection of limited edition NFT's titled "Creeps and Weirdos" available on their online marketplace for collaborative digital art. [2] [3]
Louww22 ( talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Last year, Dada began selling images from its Creeps & Weirdos collection as a proof of concept.
"In a new list, Fortune ranks the most influential builders, creatives, and influencers on the scene. Meet the NFTy 50." https://fortune.com/nfty-50/2021/ 46.128.40.12 ( talk) 19:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Language on here seems to imply DRM. The ledger and contracts can control the rights of the token itself and any other rights afforded rely on traditional contracts and copyright outside of the chain. Additionally, however, there is something like a catch-22 in that if the chain cannot be forked due to systemic dependence, then the resiliency of the token itself is not from distributed consensus, but if the chain can be forked, then a owner will be able to sell the token in as many forks. Regardless, due to the infinite reproducibility of digital data, and fundamental bypass, nothing besides the actual token numbers themselves are cryptographically secure, and anything implied by or beyond that is a social or political construct only, is reliant upon traditional law, and not technologically enforceable with this technology. 65.60.159.46 ( talk) 07:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
A few days ago
[28], user
Hocus00 removed the {{
puffery}}
cleanup template that was sitting at the top of the page. I think this template should be left there, as the page still contains a decent amount of puffery and promotional material that would need to be reviewed and rewritten in-depth before it could be considered satisfactory. Such a template would serve as a warning to readers, drawing their attention to the fact that some of the passages in this article are not entirely neutral and encyclopedic, and that the community is aware of that and will try to fix it at some point.
JBchrch
talk
21:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure there will be a large number of "firsts" associated with NFTs; it's sufficient to briefly mention those that are well-sourced, as was already done here. It's not necessary (and WP:UNDUE) to advertisements about the software used to create the NFT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. JBchrch talk 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
puffery}}
template on top of the article (see section just above), which I will no proceed to restore.
JBchrch
talk
04:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, add this line to the Early History.
In November, 2016, the first NFT that stored images directly on the blockchain, PixelMap, was launched. Inspired by the million dollar homepage, PixelMap was rediscovered in August of 2021, selling the first 3000 tiles for $3.3 million.
Source: https://editorial.superrare.com/2021/08/27/uncovering-abandoned-multi-million-dollar-ethereum-projects-the-life-of-an-nft-archeologist/ Biomed3000 ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact(emphasis added). JBchrch talk 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
In June 2018, the EverDragons, the First Cross-Chain NFTs went online. [1] 2A02:2455:465:9600:F04D:9B24:4C4A:9A85 ( talk) 13:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello the sentence "suum cuique" (to each their own) translates in german to Jedem das Seine which has nazi connotations. GmBH stresses the german meaning here, I'm going to take the liberty to expunge every "suum cuique gmbh" mention and/or files from the page. SenseiSam ( talk) 11:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
ERC-721 was finalized in June 2018, not January. Source: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/commit/b015a86658cfc12917507c067fff06f5fbec47fd
I have also collected many notes about the history of ERC-721, including contemporaneous interviews, articles and more, at https://phor.net
The first project to use the complete ERC-721 standard is Su Squares and a detailed history of the beginning of Su Squares is at https://tenthousandsu.com/articles/2021-09-17-project-history
I am the lead author of ERC-721, and the founder of Su Squares (it was made as a demo of what is possible with ERC-721), so it might be best if somebody else can take these notes and move them into the main article.
Full Decent ( talk) 02:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, @ Full Decent:! Thanks for contributing to the talk page (and for authoring ERC-721!). I appreciate your insight here. I've amended the statement regarding the dates. I'll also consider adding Su Squares to this section. Please could you point me toward reliable sources, aside from the standard itself, identifying Su Squares was created to serve as a demo of the standard. Thanks. DecentrallyConnected ( talk) 21:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
All of the use cases enumerated, at the time of this posting, are those belonging to IP licenses or copyright, and not the "NFT" itself. For instance, the "Games" sub-heading mentions "NFTs allow assets to be traded on third-party marketplaces without permission from the game developer." which is a falsehood, this could only be accomplished inside programs running on a developer's servers through the developer's continuing permission, and could easily be denied or regulated at any time.
The heading should only include the uses owed to the NFT itself; uses that can be accomplished without the NFT should be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.89.69 ( talk) 00:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
NFT has been experiencing a strong trend in the news starting in February, 2021. The app/product NBA Top Shot being a specific focus. There is no article yet for NBA Top Shot and it yet to be seen whether it will be noteworthy enough to have one. So, I think it is appropriate to mention it briefly and properly cited in this article for now.
In regards to the overall NFT market, if it grows enough it may rate its own article (to document its history and growth) separate to the technical description of NFT in this article. Again, it is always a discussion about when or if something this new has reached notability. StainlessSteelRat ( talk) 03:46, 4 March 2021
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The crypto art article covers two distinct subjects: crypto-themed artworks and "the second, and more popularized definition" of NFT art. The second aspect could and should be merged into the main NFT article, the remaining sentence about how sometimes people make artwork that's about cryptocurrency doesn't look like it would support a full article. Lord Belbury ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
References
This article mentions (in the Storage off-chain section) how NFTs are often subject to link rot. However, with the popularity of the InterPlanetary_File_System (which effectively eliminates the link rot issue) in the use of NFTs, it may be pertinent to add a sentence or two about the system- either in or around the Storage off-chain section, or somewhere else. -- 172.89.191.151 ( talk) 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
There are so many random NFT projects that are mentioned in the article, that it may actually be most of the article's content. They are often laden with promotional language and "first" this and that. The "first NFTs of gum wrappers" or similar projects can all reside in a page about "notable NFT projects" if they are worth being somewhere on Wikipedia, this page should stay on the topic of the general technology around non-fungible tokens. I will be editing (culling) this nonsense accordingly, insights would be appreciated. Mewnst ( talk) 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section 2 "Uses" subsection "Other Uses"
The last line that reads: "In March 2021, Injective Protocol (through the name BurntBanksy) destroyed a $95,000 original screen print entitled "Morons" from the famous English graffiti artist Banksy as an act of performance art which they minted and sold as a video NFT.[59] According to the performance artist, the act was a way to transfer a physical work of art to the NFT space.[60]"
Burnt Banksy is his own entity that burned the Banksy. It should read:
"In March 2021, Burnt Banksy, along with investors Injective Protocol, destroyed a $95,000 original screen print entitled "Morons" from the famous English graffiti artist Banksy as an act of performance art which they minted and sold as a video NFT.[59] According to the performance artist, the act was a way to transfer a physical work of art to the NFT space.[60]"
Can use this as a reliable source as well: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/burnt-banksys-inflammatory-nft-not-art Chromegirlx3 ( talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I found an article by one of the creators of NFTs explaining how they ended up being, for lack of a better word, a disaster. The article in question will be included via reference. [1] Consider adding this article to the main article? 172.112.210.32 ( talk) 01:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Quentin Tarantino is spelled as Quenton. I believe this is a typo. Judawag ( talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The term "NFT" has 3 layers of meaning, the undeniable technical/literal definition and then two additional meanings growing further away from it.
Side note: Whether an expiring token (Namecoin names, especially Quantum/Monegraph) can qualify as an "NFT" is hotly debated. These fit the literal definition of NFT, but can they be truly "owned"? Christie's, McCoy and the Quantum auction curator may have succeeded, at least for the time being, in including expiring tokens in general use of the term "NFT", but this isn't entirely settled, especially since they "re-minted" Quantum in non-expiring form (on Ethereum) for the auction.
In any case, I propose this (significant) change to the first sentence, accounting for definitions 1 and 2 above (floating here first due to outsized impact and desire not to start an edit war):
Re: all of this... crypto has this weird property where people buy X and then go out and propagate X because they are financially incentivized to do so. The whole space has a bizarre evangelical aspect to it. So while "NFT" may have started life with the literal definition only, it seems to have expanded under the steady, loud, and widespread drumbeat of SFT holders (curio cards, spells of genesis and especially rare pepes). This shift helped, no doubt, by the fact that SFT projects have tens of thousands of units and holder-shills while "true" NFT projects tend to be much smaller (Etheria, Fidenza, Quantum, etc).
In any case, it's hard to find anyone who would deny that Rare Pepes are an NFT now, whether correct or not and whether we like it or not.
Is this right? Is this fair? Does it matter? To the victors go the spoils, I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5109nfsaln ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. JBchrch talk 23:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
In the popular culture section, most of the info was dedicated to the popularity of NFTs themselves rather than the more relevant topic of how NFTs are represented in popular culture. The irrelevant info has thus been removed, as the topic of NFT popularity is already discussed many times elsewhere in the article. Mewnst ( talk) 08:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Add an additional section in history. Relationship between crypto art and off-chain digital art 2. Add a sub-section under "Uses" regarding 'Physical art' to describe Fewocious sales at Sotheby's, tethered NFTs (Augmented reality activated NFTs) etc.
I can provide sources for these changes. I am a digital art curator. Apotrophia ( talk) 02:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
to omit the 'd' in created because it is written as infinitive.
Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded as many digital art NFT images as he could to create "The NFT Bay", modelled after The Pirate Bay, replacing Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded as many digital art NFT images as he could to created "The NFT Bay", modelled after The Pirate Bay, 95.182.232.227 ( talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Already done
PianoDan (
talk)
18:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Virtual worlds such as Decentraland, Sandbox, Star Atlas, CryptoVoxels, and Somnium Space" to "Virtual worlds such as Decentraland, Sandbox, and Somnium Space" as two of the games are not listed in the supporting source. This article already has too much trivia as it is even ignoring unsupported claims like this.
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In subsection Non-fungible token#Storage off-chain, it is stated that Huntley downloaded 19 terabytes of media. This claim has since been challenged by several parties, including one who’d provided computably verifiable proof of the archive only spanning 20-or-so gigabytes of actual data, padded with trillions of zeroes to inflate the apparent size of the torrent. Furthermore, a firsthand source cited in the above article claims that even the actual .tar file is either full of duplicate images or not a valid archive to begin with.
Given the amount of incredulous FUD surrounding the claim, I suggest that it be reworded into something weaker, like: “Huntley, […], published The NFT Bay, a mimicry of The Pirate Bay, advertising a torrent file purported to contain 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images.”
I'm not sure how exactly to adorn this with citations (so that it makes sense to the reader), nor am I a Wikipedia editor, so feedback is appreciated. Uakci ( talk) 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
“grown to be a significant sector of the Western art industry”. Forgive me if I am not convinced. Several high-profile auctions and a cottage industry online don't seem like a significant sector of the art industry. Steepleman ( t) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This is a fairly new idea right now, so doesn't have as many quality sources as I'd like. However, I've pieced together information from many sources, and general information included in specific related topics. I suspect in the future there will be better quality sources that will come online, and some additional references would need to be added in addition to expanding the article. Btcgeek ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the lead author of ERC-721, ask me anything. Full Decent ( talk) 03:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody have references for NFT on EOS and other platforms? Please no draft interfaces. Draft standards have no place on Wikipedia. Full Decent ( talk) 00:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, apologies for the apparent disruption on the Non Fungible Token page. I'd love to have a discussion about the appropriateness (or not) for the definitions inclusion in this page. The technological development is now live and operational on the Ethereum blockchain, and in my opinion is of significance given that it's an extension of the ERC-721 standard that features a built in, permissionless market into the NFT itself. The definition outlined on the cryptomedia.wtf is rather concise and specific, and bears resemblance to the original " What is Hypertext" website by W3. Admittedly, it's quite recent but I don't think it's unworthy of inclusion.
I've been slightly confused by the promotional flags given that there are companies and projects that are also explicitly linked in the page too. If it's about the links I'm happy to contribute an edit without any links.
Would love to hear everyone's perspective. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7a6f7261 ( talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
There was at one point an exchange called Mint Exchange which sold freshly minted Bitcoins at a 10% premium. We also know the BTC from Wannacry was carefully watched and few users would like to have it. Lastly, we can see that on non-regulated/non-KYC exchanges have Bitcoin trading at under the average value: Bisq / Average price. It may be worth adding this to the main article. Dr-Bracket ( talk) 20:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
At this point in time I think the article could use a correction as it has become quite clear that Bitcoin is not fungible. Adil Gunaslan ( talk) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Art was an early use case for blockchain. NFTs prove authenticity and ownership of digital art. [1] The launch of CryptoPunks In June 2017 paved the way for "rare" art on the Ethereum Blockchain. [2] DADA.art built from the CryptoPunks model and launched the first marketplace for rare digital art in Oct 2017. [3] In 2018, one of FRORIEP Legal firm’s partners, Catrina Luchsinger Gaehwiler, [4] purchased what was claimed to be the first art-based asset NFTs in a blockchain governed Patron Protocol (created by artplus.io in 2016) [5] of 8 fractional ownership shares. The work is called “The Absence of Presence” [6] by Romanian artist Dragos Alexandrescu, who lives and works in Vaasa, Finland. Artfintech1 ( talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I took a quick Google of some of the standards listed in the bottom section and couldn't really find much other than a few blog posts and the technical spec. I am not sure that is sufficient in total to count for notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Should these be removed? Kavigupta ( talk) 06:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is the cover image for this article what it is? Seems like random logo that doesn’t actually represent NFTs in any way from what I know. The first, and only major use of the image I’ve seen is on this very article.
Further the caption, “NFT Icon” is misleading for the same reason. Perhaps a collage or something more representative of NFTs is appropriate. HiddenLemon // talk 03:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
The article has expanded a lot since I first started it, which is great to see. However, we've lost some accuracy which is what we need to strive for especially in a hot market with lots of media attention.
For starters, the first sentence here is "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital file whose unique identity and ownership are verified on a blockchain" which is inaccurate. An NFT is token standard not a file. The token standard does not need to be correlated to any file. Same in the description section - "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital file stored on a blockchain (a digital ledger)." This is inaccurate. Again, the NFT may correspond to a digital file but it is not a digital file itself. In fact for most NFTs the digital file is not stored on the blockchain at all. There are some exceptions to this rule but that is mostly the case with almost all of the NFTs from CryptoKitties to the Beeple NFTs.
My original description was "Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a special type of cryptographic tokens where each token represents something unique and are thus the tokens are not interchangeable"
I am proposing changing the introduction to something like
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a special type of cryptographic tokens where each token represents something unique and are thus the tokens are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent assets like digital files, digital art, digital audio/video and other forms of digital media. While the digital files themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFT representing them is tracked on the blockchain and provides a proof of ownership to the owner.
As a reminder, NFTs come under crypto and as such should comply with with Crypto GS. As editors, we should err on the side of conservative changes and not changing the article to reflect every news item and instead strengthening the article as an encyclopedia that explains correctly what NFTs are and why the reader should care.
-- Molochmeditates ( talk) 16:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data on a digital ledger (a blockchain) where each unit can represent a unique digital file, and thus the units are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent digital files such as digital art, audio, video, and other forms of digital creative work. While the creative works themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFTs representing them are tracked on the blockchain and provide proof of ownership of the NFTs to the buyers, while copyright ownership of the works is retained by the creators. NFTs conform to different token standards on different blockchains such as Ethereum.
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data on a digital ledger (a blockchain) where each unit can represent a unique digital item, and thus the units are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent digital files such as digital art, audio, video, and other forms of digital creative work. While the creative works themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFTs representing them are tracked on the blockchain and provide proof of ownership of the NFTs to the buyers. NFTs conform to different token standards on different blockchains such as Ethereum.
I am proposing the following text to replace the current text in the carbon emissions section.
NFT purchases and sales have become enmeshed in a growing controversy regarding the high energy use associated with blockchain transactions. In recent years, there have been a number of web articles [1] [2] and academic reports citing high electricity usage associated with the Proof of Work validation process used on the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks. [3], [4] Annual greenhouse gas emission estimates from these studies vary, depending on the level of renewable energy used, but can reach in the hundreds of megatons, and are comparable to those of a country like Sweden [5] A principal cause of these high energy requirements is the Proof of Work process used to validate blockchain transactions, which can include NFT purchases and sales. These validation cycles, however, consume energy at a rate that’s largely independent of the level of NFT activity [6] [7], [8]. Some digital artists, such as Memo Atken, have voiced strong concerns and claims about large environmental impacts from NFT purchases and sales on the Ethereum network [9] In response to these types of concern, the Ethereum Foundation has been moving to a less energy intensive Proof of Stake type validation protocol, which it claims will use less than 1% of the energy used by POW [10]. This transition is expected to be completed by 2022 [11] Some NFT sites also now allow the option of buying carbon offsets when making NFT purchases, or contributing a percentage of revenue to offset programs [12]. |
Justification for this Edit
I want to provide the reader a better understanding of the full context of this issue. Although I think a reference to Memo Atken’s work is important, I am less certain about the accuracy of his calculations, and whether inclusion of them conforms to Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, and I think the value of referencing his work is more in terms of the attention it has generated rather than the specifics of the claims made regarding electricity usage. Also, the latter sentences in the first paragraph cite sources that are, in turn, just citing Atken’s calculations, so it seems like much of the paragraph provides a fairly limited, somewhat circular, perspective that does not have any type of peer review or editorial control associated with it...and again those considerations are core requirements for a WP reliable source.
Although the edits in the past couple of days have included a wider range of perspectives, and thereby have dealt with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns associated with last weeks version of this section, I wanted to propose this change as a way of providing some additional context. I think some of the recent revisions could be combined with the changes I am proposing above. Dtetta ( talk) 06:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Jade Ten, Nonfungible, Axeman89, and Bilorv, it looks like you all have made recent edits to this section. Do you have any thoughts or concerns about these proposed edits?
As I mentioned earlier, the edits over the past few days have helped deal with NPOV concerns re: last week’s version of this section. But I think there are still some issues with the new text. While the intro sentence in the first paragraph now gives some needed background, the NY Times citation doesn’t seem to support the text. In addition, the text (and Atken’s articles) probably don’t satisfy WP criteria for a Reliable source, at least in terms of using them to describe specific carbon emission impacts. Although they have clearly generated media coverage, the way they are now juxtaposed with statements in the second paragraph that dismiss them seems to invite confusion for some readers. This is partly why I chose to eliminate the specific footprint claims, and just describe his work in general terms, with a citation available if the reader wanted to get into those details. I’m sure there are other ways of looking at this. Dtetta ( talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess I should also add that I am trying to convey the following ideas with this proposed edit:
that'sshould be
that is(more formal tone). — Bilorv ( talk) 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
We should only list things in the history section that are meaningful. This might be a technological first (e.g. cryptokitties) or a large media attention event that is otherwise notable (e.g. Beeple auction), or large sales to show the market.
Take this for example -
On March 6, rapper Azealia Banks, sold her audio sex tape titled "I F----D RYDER RIPPS" said to be a 24-minute long recording of Banks and her fiancé Ryder Ripps having sex, published on the NFT marketplace Foundation, and listed for 10 Ethereum and valued at over $17,000, 12 hours later, a artist who goes by the pseudonym Rulton Fyder, purchased the tape, it was re-listed at over $260 million.
Not sure why this would be notable to include in this section. There are and will be a bunch of celebrities doing this and listing them all doesn't make sense. The sum of $17,000 appears to be on the lower side compared to notable NFT sales. The idea of re-listing an NFT at an outrageous price is meaningless since anyone can list their NFT at any price on a marketplace. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It's just self-promotional spam. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:8109:8500:18FC:D8AD:57FB:611B:D34C (
talk)
11:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I can download a PNG or JPEG of a drawing or screenshot for free. Then Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a digital file? Is that another money laundering method for rich people? You can pay an artist for a custom drawing (nfts aren't custom at all) without harming environment, it's called "commissions".
Why aren't we talking more about its harmful effects on environment? Why aren't we talking about how crypto currencies are harmful to environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeticiaLL ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Somebody wanted to change the image. Not sure this one has any merits over the other, but it is open to discussion. This image may not be rightly licensed (it was taken off this article). UserTwoSix ( talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This looks like an 11-year-old kid's first digital drawing on phone.
LeticiaLL ( talk) 01:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In February 2021, Axie Infinity game featured the biggest sale of NFT in the gaming world with 9 assets being sold for more than $1,500,000 as part of a new game mode. [1] [2] The game has been in development since the end of 2018 and will be available for mobile devices in late 2021. Estus1 ( talk) 06:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
References
We need a section that clarifies what "ownership" actually means in the NFT context. In the end, an NFT is just a ledger entry on a blockchain that is interpreted to mean "referenced object/data XYZ belongs to whoever controls the wallet I'm in". That's not necessarily the same as actually "owning" the referenced object XYZ.
E.g., if XYZ is a physical object, then we still need the legal system (which varies by country) to honor this NFT ledger entry as a proof of ownership. And if the referenced object is virtual (e.g., a song or an image file), we need recognition and support from the legal system so we can enforce copyrights / the right of the NFT holder to collect royalties. Or is there no connection to copyright at all? Does it vary by country? How does that harmonize with blockchain, which doesn't know country borders?
I fear there's lots of confusion and I hope that Wikipedia can help the world get this clarified.
Authoritarian Contributor ( talk) 04:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Be advised this article is the subject of WP:GS/Crypto. Additionally for all crypto articles we are only using mainstream sources, such as wsj, nyt, wired, bloomberg, FT, etc. We are not using coindesk, coinmarketcap, bitcoinmagazine, etc. Also no blogs, WP:UGC, WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can look at WP:RSP and if a source is not considered high quality there, you can pretty much assume it is not ok to use on crypto articles. Note that all articles written by contributors (very often such as Forbes) are considered UGC and not ok to use on cyrpto articles. None of those lower-quality sources are acceptable on cryptocurrency articles. If some NFT doesn't have high-quality sources then it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion on this article. I removed a lot of sources today (leaving the content for now here. Do not re-add these types of sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The first known true NFTs were released as part of Etheria" to "The first known NFT on Ethereum"
Change "Such a single-unit coin could be loosely classified as a pointer NFT to an off-chain asset and would have theoretically been exchange-tradable as well, but no evidence that this minting occurred in this timeframe has yet surfaced." to "A single-unit coin was minted with the name OLGA and the description "One & Only". It was minted at the following time 2014-06-12T19:02:10Z GMT. This is the first true NFT that was ever minted.
Source for OLGA: https://xchain.io/tx/16822 https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA Source from the creator of the first NFT: https://twitter.com/jp_janssen/status/1373650790783537162 The creator explaining the details of the OLGA asset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gboNULna0o Theogoodman ( talk) 17:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I find it odd the inclusion of an individual who is anonymous and has no place in the NFT cannon. He merely is a collector and not much of historical importance, I feel only the artistic contributions are of matter in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishamon06 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it would be good to also add a section in Use Cases called Pornography, since that has been banned on many NFT marketplaces and has been a very debatable and controversial topic and that there are a few players in the space such as TreatDAO that are trying to promote pornography by giving the models most of the benefits by making limited-edition collections of their work. It is possible we might soon see celebrities and others join in on this aspect of the NFT world. Randomperson4893485934 ( talk) 06:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, I just simply want Tezos to be added to the list that provide NFT's. This is very credible. In fact, Tezos offers a cleaner alternative to the Ethereum NFT's with much much less carbon footprint. Kalamint and hicetnunc are my credible sources! Kuy4P1n0y ( talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Social Media Posts
Social media posts such as tweets can also be sold as NFTs. On March 22, 2021, Jack Dorsey sold his first tweet as an NFT on the platform Valuables by Cent for $2.9 million. [1]
Reason for Change: I think it would be a good idea to add a section in Uses called Social Media Posts. Jack Dorsey selling his first tweet was the most notable example of a social media post being sold as an NFT. There are also numerous tweets on sale on the Valuables platform. We could see more celebrities in the future also start selling their tweets or other social media posts. For example, Elon Musk offered to sell one of his tweets as an NFT before backing down. [2]
The claim that this Simple Ledger Protocol (SLP) seems to be UNDUE and cant find any source. google search. Thanks! Comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Briannlongzhao: please read WP:LEDE which states that the lede is only used to summarize content in the body of the article and weight for the lede is determined by what is in the article. It is not a place to introduce new concepts or highlights things not in the article. I have removed some of your edits, that seemed most controversial. Also avoid WP:PROMO and understand that at wikipedia we are only using very high-quality sources for cryptocurrency articles. If you have to ask if a source is high quality, you can pretty much be sure it isnt. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
While one (questionable) function of NFT has been crypto art, it certainly isn't expected to be the primary use case in the years ahead. Instead of applying the feline artwork on this article, it should be featured in the “Crypto art” article instead. People are already confused about the entire NFT and it is so much more than art. ToniTurunen ( talk) 18:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I would add a new subsection "Political activism" under "Uses". Investing dot com announced about the first political performance in a form of an NFT /news/cryptocurrency-news/first-political-performance-nft-launched-on-opensea-marketplace-2460926 Investing is the 3rd largest financial news agency in the World, why is it blocked here? Since Investing dot com is blocked, read it here https://btcpeers.com/first-political-performance-nft-launched/ The same at Jerusalem Post https://www.jpost.com/omg/activist-turns-anti-nazi-act-into-commodified-digital-art-663771 BeInCrypto.com: https://de.beincrypto.com/nft-zerstoerung-des-nazi-denkmals-als-symbol-fuer-das-zeitgenoessische-litauen/ DeFi Expectations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO4Ewsplk_E
~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnamedcrypto ( talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
What in the WORLD is the "contemporary art" section? It reads like a press release from a big company. I don't care how many sources it cites, someone's slanting that section HARD. 192.161.116.7 ( talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there any RS on Etheria at all that is salvageable? Seems like we can cut down the claims to a sentence or two. There is some other early history probably that we are missing especially pre-Ethereum if anyone has RS they can point to. -- Molochmeditates ( talk) 20:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Insert a scheme:
MarioTaddei ( talk) 22:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
23:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)I edited the environmental concerns section today. It’s a fairly major edit, although I did retain some of the changes made since April 1 that seem like an improvement. There’s a few reasons for this edit.
On a basic level it’s hard to figure out how the various edits done since April 1 really improve the earlier text, and I could not figure that out from the edit comments. More specifically, I don’t understand the logical construction of these new paragraphs, some of which are just single sentences. There are also basic prose and grammar issues with some of this new text.
In addition, there are now issues with some WP policies and standards. In the later part of March, the NFT article was flagged for the following: “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article has been edited with too much promotional content and not enough reliable and secondary sources.”
I think the recent edits have reintroduced some of those problems. For instance, references to Nyan Cat and Art Station raise promotional content concerns, and seem at odds with the basic NPOV standard as described at Wikipedia:Five pillars, IMO.
I propose that this section focus on the following ideas (and constructed the edit today with these in mind):
In an earlier edit I had included the additional idea that studies and web sites indicate the annual GHG emissions for the largest blockchain networks, Bitcoin and Ethereum, is in the hundreds of megatons, comparable to those of a small country. But that text is probably better suited to the blockchain article itself, so eliminating it here does improve the brevity of this section. I will try to add this info into the WP blockchain article instead.
In terms of reliable sources, particularly for a science oriented issue that has some controversy associated with it, I think it would be good to follow the WP Scientific Journal guidance where possible. That article does acknowledge that Popular press stories can be used to supplement scientific journals, but the priority seems to be on journals. This emphasis is a little hard to do here, but I did reinsert the Nature Sustainability journal article that had been deleted as part of the citation in the first paragraph, second sentence. It would be nice to also have a science journal source for the third sentence, dealing with specific footprint estimates for NFTs, but I have not been able to find anything yet.
I also essentially deleted the last paragraph, as it seemed like it was overly detailed, and summarized it in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Would appreciate knowing if anyone thinks that particular edit was too “bold”.
Briannlongzhao, Jtbobwaysf, Dalecri, and Jade Ten - You all have been involved in recents edits to this section of the article, so I would appreciate any thoughts or response to this issues I’m raising here, as well as to the basic outline for the edit that I’ve done. Apologies for any work you’ve done that I may have negated with this edit. Dtetta ( talk) 00:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
I was expecting a section talking about how many artists including high-profile artists in many fields are reporting their art is being tokenized without their permission and scammers are making money from it, and there's no way to stop them. Where is that discussion? The article as it is makes it seem like NFTs are fully benevolent and have zero issues with copyright or usage since "it's about ownership"... CesarFelipe ( talk) 18:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the "Film" section the film industry change the first line 'has been slow" to:
The first NFT featured by a major film release was in May, 2018 with the Fox Filmed Entertainment and Marvel Studios launch of a series Deadpool 2 NFTs [1] . The assets are currently trading on Opensea.io [2] NFThistory ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It would be great to have a very general description high up about what an NFT is and the why it would exist. Is it a way of positively identifying ownership? Provenance? Is it a currency? When would you use one, and when not? Jumping into applications does not necessarily illuminate the issue for those unfamiliar with the concept. Cellmaker ( talk) 23:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Really it does seem it has no meaning. Everybody can get exactly the same file (and as they say below the file itself is not even part of the blockchain - but then what is?). Viewing the file will show no information
on ownership or authenticity. It's not like you can show off with a blockchain like you would with an original signed painting. This may become a biiig bubble. Hoemaco ( talk) 12:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone add the following to the end of the History section?:
In mid-April 2021, Bloomberg Businessweek wrote:
Thank you. 24.90.229.114 ( talk) 04:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
By mid April 2021, the buying frenzy had substantially subsided, and buyers who had gotten in early had "done supremely well" according to Bloomberg Businessweek. [1]
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The end of the introduction portion of the article:
``` The rise of NFT transactions has also led to increased environmental criticism. The computation-heavy processes associated with proof-of-work blockchains, the type primarily used for NFTs, require high energy inputs that are contributing to global warming. The carbon emissions produced by the energy needed to maintain these blockchains has forced some in the NFT market to rethink their carbon footprint. ```
has no references and is therefore sensationalist. Please remove it, add references, or move it outside of the introduction. 108.39.198.194 ( talk) 06:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a section for NFTs for Novels, Fiction, Nonfiction, Authors see http://www.litether.com
http://www.wippublishing.com
Early innovators in this space include: Thomas Daniel Dylan (NFT book author, founder of Librenet), Christopher Damitio (NFT book author and founder of Litether.com) as well as Robbie Pollock (NFT book author), Jilian Godsil (NFT book author), James Riordan-Waters (NFT book author), Redding Hunter (NFT book author), and Erick Stow (NFT book author). While there were other authors who experimented with putting covers and small portions of text out as NFTS, those listed above were the first to put full length books on the blockchains as NFTs. Chrisdamitio ( talk) 05:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I plan to revise and edit the music section with the goal of strengthening and further clarifying preexisting information. Additionally, I will include information regarding how the covid 19 pandemic has impacted the music industry, and how NFTs are now allowing artists to recoup from the losses. Specifically, one fact I will include is that NFTs generated around $25 million within the music industry in the short span of the months February and March. I will also reference Mike Dean's NFT collection "4:22". Joshn49 ( talk) 13:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You can add:
if you want MarioTaddei ( talk) 16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add some information on NFT page Please allow me to edit this page SShussein ( talk) 12:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
It's hard to believe that the article doesn't describe the tax evasion and money laundering utility of NFTs, which are the sole factors behind the multi-million dollar auction prices. 74.194.157.22 ( talk) 05:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change elminating to eliminating Benjamin Loison ( talk) 12:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per my original mention on this talk page of the irrelevance and non-representative cover image: Archive1#Cover Image/icon ... why is this image still being used? It seems Hocus00 had removed it, but it returned. There's no representative logo for a non discrete subject matter such as NFTs.
If I recall when investigating where it originated from, it was created by a for-profit company in the blockchain space but had not traceable usage except for in this very Wikipedia article. As such its inclusion only leads to misleading self-referential use as the "logo" of NFTs, including this "see also" article ( Old revision of List of most expensive non-fungible tokens) that is stating it to be the logo that "represents" NFTs. This "logo" wouldn't persist if it wasn't for its continued inclusion here, which isn't what Wikipedia should be about.
That's not even to mention the fact that the graphic is just generally not a good logo or aesthetically appealing to begin with, but I digress...
HiddenLemon //
talk
10:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I propose the following changes from the current lead, which is missing a lot of critical information and is partially wrong:
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. [1] [2] NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audio, and other types of digital files. Access to any copy of the original file, however, is not restricted to the buyer of the NFT. While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtain, NFTs are tracked on blockchains to provide the owner with a proof of ownership that is separate from copyright.
In 2021, there has been increased interest in using NFTs. Blockchains like Ethereum, Flow, and Tezos have their own standards when it comes to supporting NFTs, but each works to ensure that the digital item represented is authentically one-of-a-kind. NFTs are now being used to commodify digital assets in art, music, sports, and other popular entertainment. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs. [3] The NFT market value tripled in 2020, reaching more than $250 million. [4]
to this
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. [2] The entry in the digital ledger is similar to traditional physical public ledgers, such as those used to ascertain ownership over land in many countries. citation needed NFTs (and the associated license to use, copy or display the underlying asset) can be traded and sold on digital markets, some of them selling for millions of dollars. [5]
Ownership of the NFT is often associated with a license to use the underlying digital asset, but generally does not confer copyright to the buyer: some agreements only grant a license for personal, non-commercial use, while other licenses also allow commercial use of the underlying digital asset. [6] If the license to use the asset is non-exclusive, multiple NFTs can be created for the same artwork and sold individually, similarly to limited editions in lithography. Access to a copy of the original file may or may not be restricted only to the buyer of the NFT. In some cases, the underlying digital items are available for anyone to obtain or watch for free. [7]
NFTs are often implemented using blockchain technology that are suited as a digital ledger. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; [8] however, other blockchains like Ethereum, Flow, and Tezos have their own standards when it comes to supporting NFTs, but they all have the property that each NFT is represented as a single, indivisible digital token.
This would correct the following issues in the current lead:
I think all of these are sensible changes. My version is a proposal, feel free to change and adopt - I was not aware that there is so much controversy here so I was just WP:BOLD but am happy to discuss first. Please let me know to which of these you agree and how we can improve the lead @ JBchrch: and others. Best -- hroest 15:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
And in the case of the digital files typically being attached to NFTs today, anybody can watch the same basketball highlights anytime, or save a copy of the same digital image to their own hard drive. All an NFT does is authenticate and record the provenance of the NFT itself, as with a limited-edition reproduction of a photograph — but when the art object attached to the NFT is freely available, there’s no inherent reason why it would have any value at all.The Verge says
Buyers typically get limited rights to display the digital artwork they represent, but in many ways, they’re just buying bragging rights and an asset they may be able to resell later.Overall, I think the current version of the lead does a better job a summarizing the copyright issues.
While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtainis more accurate than the proposed version, since it looks like that is the case for most NFTs (per the reliable sources), and not only
In some cases.
Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs.?
The entry in the digital ledger is similar to a certificate of ownership which can be traded and sold on digital markets, some of them selling for millions of dollars. [5] [9]
solely for the following purposes..., including
for your own personal, non-commercial use. But that's already permitted by law in this jurisdiction! So this is classic case of legal jargon hiding in plain sight the fact that nothing material has been granted. In any case, exclusive licenses are a tricky thing, because in general (subject to local law and the specifics of the case blablabla), it's not very clear what happens to the other copyright rights that aren't subject to the license. So an exclusive license to display a work for personal and non-commercial purposes may presumably allow the creator to grant a license for commercial use of the copyright to someone else. Not saying this is the case all the time everywhere, and it will depend on the language of the license.
Because NFTs are so new, IP rights associated with a sale may be unclear unless carefully set by contract.[19];
Taking a look at some of the most recent high-profile NFT sales, the terms underpinning each smart contract have not typically assigned any IP rights.[20];
NFT transactions don’t purport to convey copyright or other intellectual-property interests regarding the work in question[21];
In one sense, the purchaser acquires whatever the art world thinks they have acquired. They definitely do not own the copyright to the underlying work unless it is explicitly transferred.[22].
Currently, when a person acquires an NFT, the underlying asset is owned, but not the copyright.[23];
Owning an NFT does not mean you own the copyright to a given asset, but it does grant you bragging rights.[24];
Owning an NFT doesn’t equate to owning the copyright to a given asset, music or otherwise, but scarcity has helped push up valuations.[25];
The buyer of an NFT will not necessarily acquire a copyright, or even sole access to a work[26];
NFT purchasers don’t really own anything at all, other than a URL and some bragging rights. Creators almost always reserve their copyright[27]. JBchrch talk 14:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
For example, this https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmQwyhubhyig5RyUgjz26fojndeeP4cWnc5xx4jQ1So7HH is IPFS hash (using cloudflare proxy) for that NFT for some code that Tim Berners-Lee sold. 2A00:1370:812D:E29E:F86A:4FE6:57CB:C983 ( talk) 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{Advert}} to the top of the article. The tone of the article is a far-cry from neutral and does not meet Wikpedia's encyclopedic standards. The Uses section, while not the only problematic one, for example, is incredibly egregious. A Medical sub-section where NFTs are claimed to cure cancer would fit right in with the others.
I am not disputing any of the sources or statements in themselves - it's the overall tone of the article that clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. 2804:431:C7CE:8F81:4A2B:64B9:32C:7325 ( talk) 01:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
puffery}}
that I had removed, reading this request as a form of
WP:BRD.
JBchrch
talk
10:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Film section include following trivia:
On July 4th, 2021 it was announced that drama series Crypto Keepers would become Asia's 1st NFT series.
Proof is evidenced in these articles: https://variety.com/2021/digital/asia/crypto-keepers-nft-drama-series-amm-global-1235010481/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/hk-production-company-plans-to-launch-crypto-themed-drama-series-on-nfts https://cryptonews.com/news/world-s-longest-running-manga-to-focus-on-crypto-in-new-seri-10953.htm Hollerme ( talk) 16:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token#NFT buying surge (2021–present) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change USD$5.4 to USD $5.4 million in section NFT buying surge (2021–present)
Incorrect summary of Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s web source code NFT sells for $5.4 million BI613en ( talk) 20:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change the hyperlink 'ETH' in the Academia subheading of the Uses section from ETH Zurich, a Swiss institute of technology to Ethereum, the cryptocurrency used for the transaction 2001:8004:2770:AB5B:59D:37E:484D:C56 ( talk) 08:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
and was sold for USD$5.4.
should be:
and was sold for USD$5.4 M. 188.60.188.49 ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "Memes" to "Uses" section
User:JBchrch would love to get your perspective on this proposed addition as a use case section. Meme NFTs have been an emergent category over the past 6 months and there is sufficient enough activity that I believe warrants a mention. I've matched the formatting of the "Academia" section in terms of source links and structure.
In June 2021, the original Doge meme was minted by Atsuko Sato, the meme's original creator. The NFT was sold on June 12, 2021 for 1696 ETH (USD $4,100,000) [1], making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date [2]. Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger [3] , Nyan Cat [4] and Disaster Girl. [5] Memenft ( talk) 02:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Memenft ( talk) 06:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
In June 2021, the original Doge meme was minted by Atsuko Sato, the meme's original creator. The NFT was sold on June 12, 2021 for 1696 ETH (USD $4,100,000) [1], making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date [2]. Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger [3] , Nyan Cat [4] and Disaster Girl. [5]
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose the addition of Dada.nyc to the section titled Public awareness (2017–2021). On 31 October 2017 [1] Dada.nyc released a collection of limited edition NFT's titled "Creeps and Weirdos" available on their online marketplace for collaborative digital art. [2] [3]
Louww22 ( talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Last year, Dada began selling images from its Creeps & Weirdos collection as a proof of concept.
"In a new list, Fortune ranks the most influential builders, creatives, and influencers on the scene. Meet the NFTy 50." https://fortune.com/nfty-50/2021/ 46.128.40.12 ( talk) 19:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Language on here seems to imply DRM. The ledger and contracts can control the rights of the token itself and any other rights afforded rely on traditional contracts and copyright outside of the chain. Additionally, however, there is something like a catch-22 in that if the chain cannot be forked due to systemic dependence, then the resiliency of the token itself is not from distributed consensus, but if the chain can be forked, then a owner will be able to sell the token in as many forks. Regardless, due to the infinite reproducibility of digital data, and fundamental bypass, nothing besides the actual token numbers themselves are cryptographically secure, and anything implied by or beyond that is a social or political construct only, is reliant upon traditional law, and not technologically enforceable with this technology. 65.60.159.46 ( talk) 07:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
A few days ago
[28], user
Hocus00 removed the {{
puffery}}
cleanup template that was sitting at the top of the page. I think this template should be left there, as the page still contains a decent amount of puffery and promotional material that would need to be reviewed and rewritten in-depth before it could be considered satisfactory. Such a template would serve as a warning to readers, drawing their attention to the fact that some of the passages in this article are not entirely neutral and encyclopedic, and that the community is aware of that and will try to fix it at some point.
JBchrch
talk
21:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure there will be a large number of "firsts" associated with NFTs; it's sufficient to briefly mention those that are well-sourced, as was already done here. It's not necessary (and WP:UNDUE) to advertisements about the software used to create the NFT. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. JBchrch talk 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
puffery}}
template on top of the article (see section just above), which I will no proceed to restore.
JBchrch
talk
04:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, add this line to the Early History.
In November, 2016, the first NFT that stored images directly on the blockchain, PixelMap, was launched. Inspired by the million dollar homepage, PixelMap was rediscovered in August of 2021, selling the first 3000 tiles for $3.3 million.
Source: https://editorial.superrare.com/2021/08/27/uncovering-abandoned-multi-million-dollar-ethereum-projects-the-life-of-an-nft-archeologist/ Biomed3000 ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact(emphasis added). JBchrch talk 18:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
In June 2018, the EverDragons, the First Cross-Chain NFTs went online. [1] 2A02:2455:465:9600:F04D:9B24:4C4A:9A85 ( talk) 13:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello the sentence "suum cuique" (to each their own) translates in german to Jedem das Seine which has nazi connotations. GmBH stresses the german meaning here, I'm going to take the liberty to expunge every "suum cuique gmbh" mention and/or files from the page. SenseiSam ( talk) 11:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
ERC-721 was finalized in June 2018, not January. Source: https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/commit/b015a86658cfc12917507c067fff06f5fbec47fd
I have also collected many notes about the history of ERC-721, including contemporaneous interviews, articles and more, at https://phor.net
The first project to use the complete ERC-721 standard is Su Squares and a detailed history of the beginning of Su Squares is at https://tenthousandsu.com/articles/2021-09-17-project-history
I am the lead author of ERC-721, and the founder of Su Squares (it was made as a demo of what is possible with ERC-721), so it might be best if somebody else can take these notes and move them into the main article.
Full Decent ( talk) 02:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, @ Full Decent:! Thanks for contributing to the talk page (and for authoring ERC-721!). I appreciate your insight here. I've amended the statement regarding the dates. I'll also consider adding Su Squares to this section. Please could you point me toward reliable sources, aside from the standard itself, identifying Su Squares was created to serve as a demo of the standard. Thanks. DecentrallyConnected ( talk) 21:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
All of the use cases enumerated, at the time of this posting, are those belonging to IP licenses or copyright, and not the "NFT" itself. For instance, the "Games" sub-heading mentions "NFTs allow assets to be traded on third-party marketplaces without permission from the game developer." which is a falsehood, this could only be accomplished inside programs running on a developer's servers through the developer's continuing permission, and could easily be denied or regulated at any time.
The heading should only include the uses owed to the NFT itself; uses that can be accomplished without the NFT should be excluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.89.69 ( talk) 00:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
NFT has been experiencing a strong trend in the news starting in February, 2021. The app/product NBA Top Shot being a specific focus. There is no article yet for NBA Top Shot and it yet to be seen whether it will be noteworthy enough to have one. So, I think it is appropriate to mention it briefly and properly cited in this article for now.
In regards to the overall NFT market, if it grows enough it may rate its own article (to document its history and growth) separate to the technical description of NFT in this article. Again, it is always a discussion about when or if something this new has reached notability. StainlessSteelRat ( talk) 03:46, 4 March 2021
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The crypto art article covers two distinct subjects: crypto-themed artworks and "the second, and more popularized definition" of NFT art. The second aspect could and should be merged into the main NFT article, the remaining sentence about how sometimes people make artwork that's about cryptocurrency doesn't look like it would support a full article. Lord Belbury ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
References
This article mentions (in the Storage off-chain section) how NFTs are often subject to link rot. However, with the popularity of the InterPlanetary_File_System (which effectively eliminates the link rot issue) in the use of NFTs, it may be pertinent to add a sentence or two about the system- either in or around the Storage off-chain section, or somewhere else. -- 172.89.191.151 ( talk) 23:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
There are so many random NFT projects that are mentioned in the article, that it may actually be most of the article's content. They are often laden with promotional language and "first" this and that. The "first NFTs of gum wrappers" or similar projects can all reside in a page about "notable NFT projects" if they are worth being somewhere on Wikipedia, this page should stay on the topic of the general technology around non-fungible tokens. I will be editing (culling) this nonsense accordingly, insights would be appreciated. Mewnst ( talk) 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section 2 "Uses" subsection "Other Uses"
The last line that reads: "In March 2021, Injective Protocol (through the name BurntBanksy) destroyed a $95,000 original screen print entitled "Morons" from the famous English graffiti artist Banksy as an act of performance art which they minted and sold as a video NFT.[59] According to the performance artist, the act was a way to transfer a physical work of art to the NFT space.[60]"
Burnt Banksy is his own entity that burned the Banksy. It should read:
"In March 2021, Burnt Banksy, along with investors Injective Protocol, destroyed a $95,000 original screen print entitled "Morons" from the famous English graffiti artist Banksy as an act of performance art which they minted and sold as a video NFT.[59] According to the performance artist, the act was a way to transfer a physical work of art to the NFT space.[60]"
Can use this as a reliable source as well: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/burnt-banksys-inflammatory-nft-not-art Chromegirlx3 ( talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I found an article by one of the creators of NFTs explaining how they ended up being, for lack of a better word, a disaster. The article in question will be included via reference. [1] Consider adding this article to the main article? 172.112.210.32 ( talk) 01:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Quentin Tarantino is spelled as Quenton. I believe this is a typo. Judawag ( talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The term "NFT" has 3 layers of meaning, the undeniable technical/literal definition and then two additional meanings growing further away from it.
Side note: Whether an expiring token (Namecoin names, especially Quantum/Monegraph) can qualify as an "NFT" is hotly debated. These fit the literal definition of NFT, but can they be truly "owned"? Christie's, McCoy and the Quantum auction curator may have succeeded, at least for the time being, in including expiring tokens in general use of the term "NFT", but this isn't entirely settled, especially since they "re-minted" Quantum in non-expiring form (on Ethereum) for the auction.
In any case, I propose this (significant) change to the first sentence, accounting for definitions 1 and 2 above (floating here first due to outsized impact and desire not to start an edit war):
Re: all of this... crypto has this weird property where people buy X and then go out and propagate X because they are financially incentivized to do so. The whole space has a bizarre evangelical aspect to it. So while "NFT" may have started life with the literal definition only, it seems to have expanded under the steady, loud, and widespread drumbeat of SFT holders (curio cards, spells of genesis and especially rare pepes). This shift helped, no doubt, by the fact that SFT projects have tens of thousands of units and holder-shills while "true" NFT projects tend to be much smaller (Etheria, Fidenza, Quantum, etc).
In any case, it's hard to find anyone who would deny that Rare Pepes are an NFT now, whether correct or not and whether we like it or not.
Is this right? Is this fair? Does it matter? To the victors go the spoils, I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5109nfsaln ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. JBchrch talk 23:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
In the popular culture section, most of the info was dedicated to the popularity of NFTs themselves rather than the more relevant topic of how NFTs are represented in popular culture. The irrelevant info has thus been removed, as the topic of NFT popularity is already discussed many times elsewhere in the article. Mewnst ( talk) 08:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1. Add an additional section in history. Relationship between crypto art and off-chain digital art 2. Add a sub-section under "Uses" regarding 'Physical art' to describe Fewocious sales at Sotheby's, tethered NFTs (Augmented reality activated NFTs) etc.
I can provide sources for these changes. I am a digital art curator. Apotrophia ( talk) 02:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
to omit the 'd' in created because it is written as infinitive.
Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded as many digital art NFT images as he could to create "The NFT Bay", modelled after The Pirate Bay, replacing Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded as many digital art NFT images as he could to created "The NFT Bay", modelled after The Pirate Bay, 95.182.232.227 ( talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Already done
PianoDan (
talk)
18:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Virtual worlds such as Decentraland, Sandbox, Star Atlas, CryptoVoxels, and Somnium Space" to "Virtual worlds such as Decentraland, Sandbox, and Somnium Space" as two of the games are not listed in the supporting source. This article already has too much trivia as it is even ignoring unsupported claims like this.
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-fungible token has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In subsection Non-fungible token#Storage off-chain, it is stated that Huntley downloaded 19 terabytes of media. This claim has since been challenged by several parties, including one who’d provided computably verifiable proof of the archive only spanning 20-or-so gigabytes of actual data, padded with trillions of zeroes to inflate the apparent size of the torrent. Furthermore, a firsthand source cited in the above article claims that even the actual .tar file is either full of duplicate images or not a valid archive to begin with.
Given the amount of incredulous FUD surrounding the claim, I suggest that it be reworded into something weaker, like: “Huntley, […], published The NFT Bay, a mimicry of The Pirate Bay, advertising a torrent file purported to contain 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images.”
I'm not sure how exactly to adorn this with citations (so that it makes sense to the reader), nor am I a Wikipedia editor, so feedback is appreciated. Uakci ( talk) 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
“grown to be a significant sector of the Western art industry”. Forgive me if I am not convinced. Several high-profile auctions and a cottage industry online don't seem like a significant sector of the art industry. Steepleman ( t) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)