NFTs have caused quite a bit of controversy on the Internet, but are they really that bad?
Recently, it was announced through Twitter that Lionsgate, Twisted Pictures and Autograph were all collaborating to make a series of NFTs featuring traps, schematics and keys from the “Saw” franchise.
NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token. Fungible means able to be replaced by another duplicable item. It is basically a piece of art with a very long receipt that verifies that the image, .gif or 3D model is one of a kind.
The Twitter announcement piqued my interest, as previously I had not heard much about NFTs other than the fact that some of my friends disliked them because of their impact on the environment.
Companies such as Autograph collaborate with artists and sometimes other companies to create and sell NFTs. Some popular artists made NFTs including CryptoPunks, Lazy Lions and NBA Top Shot.
In the case of “Saw,” they released three variations. You could get a 3D model of a trap, a page of schematics for a trap or a key. If you collected a matching trap, schematic and key you would be rewarded with a fourth NFT that featured Jigsaws workshop.
The trading NFTs is pretty similar to how stocks or other cryptocurrencies are traded. Their value changes overtime, based on how the market changes. They are, however, unique in that each token is one of a kind, so trading them is more akin to trading entities like Pokémon cards.
Now, this brings me to my issue with them: their impact on the environment. Memo Akten analized over 1,800 NFTs and concluded that the amount of power used to generate your average NFT is enough to power your laptop for three years.
The issue here is that because NFTs and cryptocurrencies in general are a new technology, it is going to be a long and difficult process to make regulations for mining them.
The process involves a lot of math that uses certain computer parts to do calculations. The calculations are so hefty that it generates heat and creates a demand for power, which is where the carbon footprint issues arise.
Some companies have addressed this by offering to pay for the carbon emissions. Some are going to different blockchains that are less energy heavy and some really are not doing much about it. Autograph claims to be on the path to “Zero Impact.”
Personally, I do not really think that it is selfish for artists to want to monetize their work. Artists have a hard time making a living anyways so I don’t blame them for wanting to do that.
It still seems that we have a ways to go with NFT. Until we heavily alter the impact that they have on the environment, I won’t feel confident recommending them as a product to collect.
