Non-fungible tokens (NFT) are Bullshit
This twitter thread by Jeff Jarvis nicely summarizes one line of criticism of the non-fungible token idea:
"Finally starting to understand NFTs--and what is wrong with them. The NFT doubles down on the worst of copyright, the property metaphor, & tries to impose old ideas of scarcity & exclusion on the digital realm, where both are obsolete.
Copyright, born w/1710's Statute of Anne, was supposed to support creators & learning. In truth, it made creation a tradable asset so creators could sell & publishers could own it. NFTs want to do that with digital: turn the ephemerality of digital into a market in permanence. BTW, news was not included in US or English copyright because it was ephemeral. Since then, from the AP's "hot news" doctrine to Murdoch's Oz law, news proprietors have tried to declare news as property. Doesn't work because news is knowledge.
NFTs & DAOs, like copyright, see creation as a product (which can be owned & kept from others & thus sold). Instead, look at creativity as an act, which may leave artifacts (stories, pictures) but can inspire more creation & collaboration, sharing & criticism -- if it's open.
If we shift from creativity as property (who owns it?) to activity (who joins in it?) then we see many acts to encourage: inspiring, creating, collaborating, performing, remixing, sharing/promoting.
In thinking how to replace copyright (and we should), let us start our thinking with benefit to the culture rather than with trying to recreate the worst of copyright. What the net enables is collaborative creativity. How do we support *that*?"
And Cryptocurrencies and NFTs are an absolute ecological disaster:
- Here is the article you can send to people when they say “but the environmental issues with cryptoart will be solved soon, right?”
- The Unreasonable Ecological Cost of CryptoArt
