Blockchain Papers

Alexander Pfeiffer, Natalie Denk, Thomas Wernbacher, Stephen Bezzina · 6 authors

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTa) can either represent an original digital artwork, or act as a digital reference to the actual work. In both as digital references to the actual work. In both cases the record in the distributed ledger, mostly a blockchain-based database, intends to serve as a proof of ownership or transfer of rights. NFTs might also add a further purpose, which in blockchain terms is referred to as “a utility", such as access to special websites, chats or clubs in emerging metaverse platforms. This use-case paper presents a first introduction of two early stage demonstrators, set outside the common use of art images or images of historical events as NFTs. The first case shows how educational credentials can be created, in which different teachers contribute to assessment achievements. We elaborate how these partial achievements are verified separately within the actual credentials. In the second case study, we build on previous research in regard to NFTs in the music industry and show the combination of physical vinyl record special editions, in our case vinyls signed by the band, and the ownership certificate as NFT. For both demonstrators we used, in different settings, the crypto art platform NFTmagic and the blockchain-token wallet Sigbro. We developed and tested the results within the setting of a roleplay as a group and show how blockchain technologies and especially NFTs can be made useful in new ways, inspired by the ongoing process of discovering risks and opportunities in ‘crypto art’, thus initiating discussion on the topic and effectively bridging the cybersecurity and (digital) art communities.

Harshal Jaywant Chavan

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT's) is a form of digital certificate of authentication being created on the blockchain technology which is similar to other virtual crypto assets and currencies. The popularity of the blockchain technology along with dealing in crypto assets has seen to grow in the recent years. The NFT market is also rising exponentially as witnessed in the recent years. The very concept of NFT originates from a token standard of Ethereum, aiming to differentiate and distinguish each token with its unique signature being bound with digital properties. The impressive return on its rapidly increasing market worldwide has drawn massive attention, with India too having witnessed a heightened interest in this digital sector, especially from the upcoming new-age investors and digital creators. However, development of the NFT ecosystem being in an early stage has seen an absence of a regulatory legal framework to govern such pre-mature digital crypto assets in the country of India. The legal policies surrounding them are plentiful which has further lead to a lack of clarity in regards to its legal validity and sanctity. The upcoming artists may tend to get lost in this frenetic evolution with lack of systematic summaries. This paper intends to explore the concept of NFT in contrast to cryptocurrency and copyright along with its working and technical components. It aims to analyse the legal pitfalls which impact its functioning along with the opportunities and challenges faced by the Indian legal framework in terms of cryptographic assets.

Sarah Allen, Ari Juels, Mukti Khaire, Tyler Kell · 5 authors

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs)} are digital objects that reside on blockchains and are typically associated with unique digital media, such as images or music. A recent frenzy of popular interest has given rise seemingly overnight to a multi-billion NFT market. Individual NFTs can sell for millions or tens of millions of dollars, while creators ranging from traditional artists such as Damien Hirst and Grimes to mainstream consumer-goods companies such as Coca-Cola and Nike are producing their own NFT collections.This primer’s focus is on NFTs for art and collectables. Our aim is to give non-technical readers a basic familiarity with the technology behind NFTs, the history of their development, the current state of the NFT community and marketplace, and a notion of how NFTs might evolve in the future. We also offer a brief overview of the dynamics of traditional art markets and discuss the similarities, differences, and points of intersection in NFT markets. We hope that readers will come away from this primer with a basic understanding of how blockchains, smart contracts, and cryptographic keys work, an appreciation of some of the novel ways in which NFTs are empowering artists, a picture of the variety of dynamism of NFTs projects and communities, and possibly a hankering to own at least a fractional Bored Ape.

Cristian Bogdan Onete, Irina Albăstroiu, Mihai Felea, Răzvan Dina

Non-fungible token (NFT) is a distinctive, digitized, and encrypted token fabricated and stored using blockchain technology. Artists, filmmakers, photographers, game developers, and fashion designers sell their work on the NFT marketplace. Nevertheless, NFTs are no longer a concept associated with art and design and they are starting to be used in different sectors. Now, NFT is branching out to higher education, where students, tutors, and institutions can use NFTs for different purposes. Given these coordinates, in this article we have chosen to discuss the applicability of NFT related to higher education. Thus, our paper presents, in the introductory part, the conceptual delimitations regarding NFTs. Areas of application, and the main ways of use in education, are presented next, showing that adoption of NFTs in higher education has been too little addressed in the literature. Most of the work in the field insists on the technical aspects and only subsidiarily deals with the issues regarding the level of understanding of the NFT concept by potential or actual users and the degree of adoption and use of these as solutions to some problems of higher education. In order to cover these gaps identified in the literature, we presented, in the second part of the paper, the methodology and results of an exploratory research, conducted on a sample of 383 students from Faculty of Business and Tourism -Bucharest University of Economic Studies, which allowed us to identify the level of understanding the concept, the degree of openness to the adoption of NFTs as diplomas/certificates/attestations for the recognition of studies/knowledge/skills/competences acquired in the formal education system, and, also, the associated benefits and challenges, from the perspective of the Romanian students.

Yanto Chandra

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have taken the world by storm. Initially started as an art/game experiment, the NFT has given rise to a new form of entrepreneurship in the virtual world with massive opportunities and affordances. However, research into the entrepreneurial aspect of NFTs and the role of agency in the process is limited. In this article, I examine the concept of NFT-enabled Entrepreneurship (or NFTE). I first identify the main characteristics of NFTs, then define NFTE and discuss the related assumptions, and finally propose a conceptual framework for NFTE and investigate its enablers. I conclude by proposing NFTE as a novel domain of entrepreneurship theory and practice with extensive new research opportunities, and the plausibility of using NFT as an alternative mode of knowledge production in which scholars become “NFT creators.”

Annamma Joy, Ying Zhu, Camilo Peña, Myriam Brouard

Abstract Leading luxury brands have incorporated technologies to recreate brand images and reinvent consumer experience. The fashion industry is experiencing a historic transformation thanks to emerging technologies such as blockchain and non‐fungible tokens (NFTs) along with impactful technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and virtual reality (VR). With metaverse as a new social platform around the corner, academics and industry alike are querying how these new technologies might reshape luxury brands, reinvent consumer experience, and alter consumer behavior. This research charts new academic territory by investigating how newly evolved technologies affect the fashion industry. With practical examples of luxury brands, this article has theorized the irreversible trend of digital fashion: the attraction of NFT collectibles. It then proposes intriguing questions for scholars and practitioners to ponder, such as will young consumers, essentially living online, buy more fashion products in the digital world than in the real world? How can the fashion industry strategize for the coexistence of digital collections and physical goods?

Francis Russell

Depending on your perspective, Non-Fungible Token (NFT) artworks are inaugurating an exciting new chapter in the history of art, or a dangerous new chapter in the history of online market bubbles. NFTs index artworks, and are typically strings of characters stored on a blockchain such as Ethereum. NFTs are not exclusively used to index artworks, and have been used to index a range of collectibles, but it is the sale of NFTs associated with artworks that has launched the phenomenon into public consciousness. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the digital artist Beeple’s sale of an NFT for the equivalent of $69 million (Krastrenakes). For some, such staggering prices suggest NFTs are poised to become the next Beanie Babies—i.e., commodities without utility that sell at vastly inflated prices. Despite such cynicism, some argue that NFTs have revolutionary technical import, such that they could overturn many common and unequal practices within the contemporary art market (Rennie et al.). Chief among these is the supposed disposability of digital artworks, which are viewed as difficult to sell, resell, and protect from piracy. Such issues are thought to be ameliorated by NFTs, since they function as a token that is understood to stand as a “definitive indicator of ownership” of digital artworks (Mackenzie and Bērziņa 2). Or, as Rachel O’Dwyer has summarised, NFT art auctions like the Ethereal Summit held in New York in 2018 allow individuals to bid for the “ownership and provenance details of the works of art encrypted in the Ethereum blockchain and represented by a token” (O’Dwyer). Unlike a more conventional artwork, such as a painting, NFT artworks typically take the form of JPEGs or GIFs, and therefore circulate the Internet widely, regardless of who owns the token that designates ownership. While reproductions and printed documentations of traditional artworks are commonplace—e.g., art gallery giftshops will often sell relatively low-cost posters of masterpieces like Picasso’s Guernica, or coffee table books showcasing the masterworks of influential movements like post-impressionism—there are obvious material differences between the reproduction and the original. In the case of the typically digital NFT artworks, this distinction does not apply. Accordingly, the academic and popular discussions that surround NFT artworks have reignited theoretical questions around the ontological status of artworks, and the source of their economic value. For some, the NFT market is a financial bubble and the prices attracted by particular NFT-linked artworks have no underlying value (BBC News). For others, the value of NFTs can be explained through an appeal to the value subjectively attributed to the image or animation by the purchaser (Nguyen), while for others the value of NFTs should be understood in terms of digital scarcity and provenance (Rennie et al.; Joselit) or as a technological means for artists to maintain a greater share of their artwork’s value (Kugler). While the NFT market is novel, and is worthy of study in terms of its specific technological and economic forms, this article will argue that NFTs can be placed in a longer history of the emergence of what Luc Boltanski and Arnauld Esquerre have called the “enrichment economy”. In their Enrichment: A Critique of Commodities, Boltanski and Esquerre argue that, since at least the last quarter of the twentieth century, a new site of valorisation has emerged in post-industrial economies. According to Boltanski and Esquerre, globalisation and deindustrialisation provoked many economies to embrace tourism, luxury good production, and the commodification of heritage and culture as new sites of extraction. As the viability of the mass production of commodities has receded, the production of unique commodities and transient yet “unforgettable” experiences have become more economically significant. For Boltanski and Esquerre, enrichment refers both to the often-discursive refining and redefining of existing commodities—such that they fetch greater prices—and a greater emphasis on an economy for those with disposable income—such as tourists, art collectors, and the wealthy more generally (3-4). Often, Boltanski and Esquerre argue, the enrichment economies of art and luxury tend to mine and exploit the “underlying substratum that is purely and simply the past” (2). For this reason, the enrichment economy requires the production of new forms of authenticity, “aura”, and belief, such that the overlooked or taken-for-granted objects of the past can be reframed as unique and worthy of investment or consumption. The interesting question, then, is not necessarily that of why someone would pay a large sum of money to own a piece of code on a blockchain, but, instead, that of how a particular piece of contemporary art or an NFT comes to be “enriched” with authenticity and aura. While a thoroughgoing discussion of this topic would require a longer piece, this article will nevertheless attempt to open up connections between art history, debates around the production of artistic value during and after Modernism, and the newly emerging NFT art market. While many have declared that NFTs are “disrupting the art market” (Tripathi)—supposedly evinced by the staggering growth of the NFT market, and emerging institutional recognition, such as ArtReview’s decision to place an NFT at the top of their Power 100 List for 2021—this article seeks to locate the NFT explosion within a slightly longer timeframe, one in which NFTs would feature as a continuation—albeit a non-linear one—rather than a disruption of ongoing cultural and economic logics. Value and Void Despite the incredulity that commonly meets NFT artworks, the contemporary art market similarly flaunts conventional understandings of aesthetic and economic value. While many would surely agree with journalist Amy Castor’s claim that “it’s hard to justify that a Bored Ape NFT is worth $300,000 based on the art” (quoted in Artnet), almost identical criticisms have been raised around the contemporary artist Maurizio Cattelan’s 2019 work Comedian. Released in an edition of three, Comedian consisted of a banana duct-taped to a wall, with two of the three selling for $120,000 each. As Sara Callahan puts it, works like Comedian reignited debates around “what makes something a high-priced artwork when another, seemingly identical, object is not?” (Callahan). While NFTs are reawakening interest in the question of artistic value, the financialisation of cheaply made and mass-produced artworks has a much longer history. Indeed, by the 1960s, a booming secondary art market that traded in increasingly expensive, yet cheap-to-produce avant-garde works—often requiring relatively small amounts of time and inexpensive materials—raised suspicions that art was becoming indistinguishable from more traditional financial assets. In response, in 1968 the influential art critic Leo Steinberg argued that, “avant-garde art, lately Americanized, is for the first time associated with big money. … Another decade, and we shall have mutual funds based on securities in the form of pictures held in bank vaults” (quoted in Beech 300). As Dave Beech has shown, in the ensuing period, “art’s relationship to finance capital has outstripped Steinberg’s worst fears” (Beech 301). By the 1980s, banks allowed individuals to borrow large sums of money against the value of their art collections, and investment in artworks became a normal practice of portfolio diversification (Beech 299–300). When interest rates are low, investments in productive capital offer low levels of liquidity, and international markets appear vulnerable to shocks, artworks—whether physical or in the form of an NFT—offer a means of hedging against future losses. Furthermore, in both the contemporary art market and the NFT market, purchases of artworks at inflated prices often allow an individual to prevent “the bottom from falling out of a market they have already invested in” (O’Dwyer). The fact that artworks could hold a value well in excess of the cost of the materials or labour time required to produce them, was not solely recognised by art collectors and investors. Instead, this period saw a great number of artists explicitly playing with the aporia that had emerged around art’s economic value—insofar as ready-made artworks could now fetch prices typically reserved for laboriously produced and unique masterpieces. Take, for example, Yves Klein’s project Zones of Immaterial Pictorial Sensibility, which he developed over the late 1950s and early 1960s. In these works, Klein offered collectors the opportunity to purchase a void or “immaterial zone” for varying quantities of gold, with “20 grams (3/4 ounce) of pure gold for the Zones of series no. 1, the least expensive, to 1,280 grams (27/8 pounds) for those of series no. 7, the most expensive” (Cras 24). In exchange for the gold, the void-owner would receive a receipt as proof of purchase. However, for the work to be completed, Klein requested that the receipt be burned by the collector, and in response Klein would throw half of the received gold into the river Seine (Cras 24). By destroying the proof of purchase, and by releasing some of the gold into the river, the collector would receive “the full authentic immaterial value of the work” (Klein quoted in Cras 24). We see some resemblances here between Klein’s Zones and NFTs—and here Klein is no exception, since, as Cras has documented, the 1960s were replete with artists experimenting with the production of artworks as novel financial assets. For Cras, it was a time in which “the problem of attaching a price to works of art and offering them for sale, traditionally considered to be external to creation in this domain, was now incorporated in artistic practice” (Cras 3). If artists were increasingly embracing the artwork’s status as an asset, and if the price of artworks became divorced

Irina Lyubchenko

Introduction This article is concerned with the recent rise in popularity of crypto art, the term given to digital artworks whose ownership and provenance are confirmed with a non-fungible token (NFT), making it possible to sell these works within decentralised cryptocurrency art markets. The goal of this analysis is to trace a genealogy of crypto art to Dada, an avant-garde movement that originated in the early twentieth century. My claim is that Dadaism in crypto art appears in its exhausted form that is a result of its revival in the 1950s and 1960s by the Neo Dada that reached the current age through Pop Art. Dada’s anti-art project of rejecting beauty and aesthetics has transformed into commercial success in the Neo Dada Pop Art movement. In turn, Pop Art produced its crypto version that explores not only the question of what art is and is not, but also when art becomes money. In what follows, I will provide a brief overview of NFT art and its three categories that could generally be found within crypto marketplaces: native crypto art, non-digital art, and digital distributed-creativity art. Throughout, I will foreground the presence of Dadaism in these artworks and provide art historical context. NFTs: Brief Overview A major technological component that made NFTs possible was developed in 1991, when cryptographers Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta proposed a method for time-stamping data contained in digital documents shared within a distributed network of users (99). This work laid the foundation for what became known as blockchain and was further implemented in the development of Bitcoin, a digital currency invented by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008. The original non-fungible tokens, Coloured Coins, were created in 2012. By “colouring” or differentiating bitcoins, Coloured Coins were assigned special properties and had a value independent of the underlying Bitcoin, allowing their use as commodity certificates, alternative currencies, and other financial instruments (Assia et al.). In 2014, fuelled by a motivation to protect digital artists from unsanctioned distribution of their work while also enabling digital art sales, media artist Kevin McCoy and tech entrepreneur Anil Dash saw the potential of blockchain to satisfy their goals and developed what became to be known as NFTs. This overnight invention was a result of McCoy and Dash’s participation in the Seven on Seven annual New York City event, a one-day creative collaboration that challenged seven pairs of artists and engineers to “make something” (Rhizome). McCoy and Dash did not patent their invention, nor were they able to popularise it, mentally archiving it as a “footnote in internet history”. Ironically, just a couple of years later NFTs exploded into a billion-dollar market, living up to an ironic name of “monetized graphics” that the pair gave to their invention. Crypto art became an international sensation in March 2021, when a digital artist Mike Winklemann, known as Beeple, sold his digital collage titled Everydays: The First 5000 Days for US$69.3 million, prompting Noah Davis, a curator who assisted with the sale at the Christie’s auction house, to proclaim: “he showed us this collage, and that was my eureka moment when I knew this was going to be extremely important. It was just so monumental and so indicative of what NFTs can do” (Kastrenakes). As a technology, a non-fungible token can create digital scarcity in an otherwise infinitely replicable digital space. Contrary to fungible tokens, which are easily interchangeable due to having an equal value, non-fungible tokens represent unique items for which one cannot find an equivalent. That is why we rely on the fungibility of money to exchange non-fungible unique goods, such as art. Employing non-fungible tokens allows owning and exchanging digital items outside of the context in which they originated. Now, one can prove one’s possession of a digital skin from a videogame, for example, and sell it on digital markets using crypto currency (“Bible”). Behind the technology of NFTs lies the use of a cryptographic hash function, which converts a digital artwork of any file size into a fixed-length hash, called message digest (Dooley 179). It is impossible to revert the process and arrive at the original image, a quality of non-reversibility that makes the hash function a perfect tool for creating a digital representation of an artwork proofed from data tampering. The issued or minted NFT enters a blockchain, a distributed database that too relies on cryptographic properties to guarantee fidelity and security of data stored. Once the NFT becomes a part of the blockchain, its transaction history is permanently recorded and publicly available. Thus, the NFT simultaneously serves as a unique representation of the artwork and a digital proof of ownership. NFTs are traded in digital marketplaces, such as SuperRare, KnownOrigin, OpenSea, and Rarible, which rely on a blockchain to sustain their operations. An analysis of these markets’ inventory can be summarised by the following list of roughly grouped types of artistic works available for purchase: native crypto art, non-digital art, distributed creativity art. Native Crypto Art In this category, I include projects that motivated the creation of NFT protocols. Among these projects are the aforementioned Colored Coins, created in 2012. These were followed by issuing other visual creations native to the crypto-world, such as LarvaLabs’s CryptoPunks, a series of 10,000 algorithmically generated 8-bit-style pixelated digital avatars originally available for free to anyone with an Ethereum blockchain account, gaining a cult status among the collectors when they became rare sought-after items. On 13 February 2022, CryptoPunk #5822 was sold for roughly $24 million in Ethereum, beating the previous record for such an NFT, CryptoPunk #3100, sold for $7.58 million. CryptoPunks laid the foundation for other collectible personal profile projects, such Bored Ape Yacht Club and Cool Cats. One of the ultimate collections of crypto art that demonstrates the exhaustion of original Dada motivations is titled Monas, an NFT project made up of 5,000 programmatically generated versions of a pixelated Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci (c. 1503-1506). Each Monas, according to the creators, is “a mix of Art, history, and references from iconic NFTs” (“Monas”). Monas are a potpourri of meme and pop culture, infused with inside jokes and utmost silliness. Monas invariably bring to mind the historic Dadaist gesture of challenging bourgeois tastes through defacing iconic art historical works, such as Marcel Duchamp’s treatment of Mona Lisa in L.H.O.O.Q. In 1919, Duchamp drew a moustache and a goatee on a reproduction of La Joconde, as the French called the painting, and inscribed “L.H.O.O.Q.” that when pronounced sounds like “Elle a chaud au cul”, a vulgar expression indicating sexual arousal of the subject. At the time of its creation, this Dada act was met with the utmost public contempt, as Mona Lisa was considered a sacred work of art and a patron of the arts, an almost religious symbol (Elger and Grosenick 82). Needless to say, the effect of Monas on public consciousness is far from causing disgust and, on the contrary, brings childish joy and giggles. As an NFT artist, Mankind, explains in his YouTube video on personal profile projects: “PFPs are built around what people enjoy. People enjoy memes, people enjoy status, people enjoy being a part of something bigger than themselves, the basic primary desire to mix digital with social and belong to a community”. Somehow, “being bigger than themselves” has come to involve collecting defaced images of Mona Lisa. Turning our attention to historical analysis will help trace this transformation of the Dada insult into a collectible NFT object. Dada and Its Legacy in Crypto Art Dada was founded in 1916 in Zurich, by Hugo Ball, Tristan Tzara, Hans Richter, and other artists who fled their homelands during the First World War (Hapgood and Rittner 63). One of Dada’s primary aspirations was to challenge the dominance of reason that brought about the tragedy of the First World War through attacking the postulates of culture this form of reason produced. Already in 1921, such artists as André Breton, Louis Aragon, and Max Ernst were becoming exhausted by Dada’s nihilist tendencies and rejection of all programmes for the arts, except for the one that called for the total freedom of expression. The movement was pronounced dead about May 1921, leaving no sense of regret since, in the words of Breton, “its omnipotence and its tyranny had made it intolerable” (205). An important event associated with Dada’s revival and the birth of the Neo Dada movement was the publication of The Dada Painters and Poets in 1951. This volume, the first collection of Dada writings in English and the most comprehensive anthology in any language, was introduced to the young artists at the New School by John Cage, who revived Tristan Tzara’s concept that “life is far more interesting” than art (Hapgood and Rittner 64). The 1950s were marked by a renewed interest in Dadaism that can also be evidenced in galleries and museums organising numerous exhibitions on the movement, such as Dada 1916 –1923 curated by Marcel Duchamp at the Sidney Janis Gallery in 1953. By the end of the decade, such artists as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg began exploring materials and techniques that can be attributed to Dadaism, which prompted the title of Neo Dada to describe this thematic return (Hapgood and Rittner 64). Among the artistic approaches that Neo Dada borrowed from Dada are Duchampian readymades that question the status of the art object, Kurt Schwitters’s collage technique of incorporating often banal scraps and pieces of the everyday, and the use of chance operations as a compositional device (Hapgood and Rittner 63–64). These approaches comprise the toolbox

James Hall, Laura Glitsos, Jess Taylor

At its core the quality of being fungible is the quality of being interchangeable, more specifically interchangeable with its likeness. Our currencies, ergo our financial systems, ergo our ways of life have been underpinned by the stability that a $5 note is worth the same as every other $5 note. This is perhaps why the word fungible has never really spilled over into everyday usage: it has traditionally been a word for legal documents and economics texts. However, in the last couple of years the word fungible has made its way out of the lecture theatres of law classes and into the headlines of mainstream news services. On the back of a crypto currency boom it seemed only logical that markets that utilised this new form of wealth would emerge, the most prominent of these being the, at times lucrative, NFT (non-fungible token) market. Defining an NFT is problematic, because it is more about what it isn’t than what it is. People who have searched online looking for a definition will probably find an article or video that starts off with a semantic definition, e.g. it is a digital token with a unique signature making it unlike other tokens that are similar, which is then followed up by a spuriously comprehensible but ultimately ephemeral analogy. These definitions perhaps suffer by their ulterior motive of making NFTs sound more ground-breaking and more revolutionary than they are. If you were to say NFTs are like digital snowflakes, in that no two are the same, that might help, but it doesn’t add anything to their significance because whilst we may notionally find the idea interesting that no two snowflakes are the same, we ultimately don’t really care, and this doesn’t make any snowflake more important or valuable than any other. However, imagine a scenario in late capitalism where a certain configuration of snowflake has an exchange value greater than other configurations, or a scenario where a snowflake is worth more because Elon Musk once owned it. In practice, NFTs are comparable to digital receipts that give the owner exclusive access to a piece of data. This data maybe a small digital image, it might be a gif, it might be a high resolution digital artwork, it might be anything that can be stored digitally. The allure or uniqueness of these pieces of data lies in their non-fungibility. They are acquired through a crypto currency exchange (more often than not Ethereum, but not necessarily so) and as such are verified and secure, though it is worth noting that in 2021 crypto currency theft totalled A$4.5b and money lost to crypto scams totalled A$11b (Lane). There is an irony that emerges here in that the digital culture that has allowed the proliferation of fungible content has given rise to its own non-fungible counter-culture. It is as if the digital annihilation of Benjamin’s aura has been replaced by an 8-bit digital aura. Every $5 note may still have exactly the same value as another $5 note, and the actual Mona Lisa may be less beguiling now you can own it on a tote bag, but not every Bored Ape (an avatar comprised of a cartoon ape, generated by an algorithm) has the same value as another Bored Ape (see Bored Ape Yacht Club statistics). For example, less than 0.5% of generated Bored Apes have gold fur, making them more desirable, and all of a sudden it begins to feel like a familiar market with familiar characteristics of supply and demand. 2020 was a turbulent year, so it’s understandable that the seeds of some culturally significant trends were overlooked. Amongst these was the boom in the trading card market. This saw trading cards – those things kids buy in packs with their pocket money – become an investor industry. Sale prices skyrocketed during global pandemic lockdowns: for example, a LeBron James 2003-4 Upper Deck Exquisite Rookie Patch Autograph card (numbered 14/23) sold at Golden Auctions for US$1.84m; another version of the same card sold in April of 2021 for US$5.2m. This boom in the trading card market rolled over into the early adoption of NFT technology within the sports trading card market, a development that has been generally glossed over. Well before Beeple’s sale of Everydays: The First 5,000 Days (a collage of 5,000 digital artworks sold as an NFT) at Christie’s for slightly under US$70m (see Guardian), NFTs were breaking new ground in the sports card market in the form of NBA Top Shots (an official NBA product produced by Dapper Labs). When a person opens a digital pack of Top Shots they reveal “moments”, uniquely serial numbered highlight videos lasting a few seconds. Sales of NBA Top Shots totalled US$230m in 2020 (Young). There is perhaps little surprise in this early adoption of the investor/trading aspects of NFTs, given the crossover between pandemic-era sports card collectors and crypto currency speculators (Yahoo! Finance). Beyond these developments in NFT hobby collectibles, there has also been the development and gamification of NFT gambling in the form of horse-racing platforms like Zed Run. Zed Run allows users to race NFT horses in their virtual stable at the cost of a fee (payable in crypto currency), which is ostensibly a wager. Users can breed NFT horses with other NFT horses to create new NFT horses with unique characteristics, and then race them against other horses with comparable attributes. This platform, and ones like it, are playing a role in creating an unregulated gambling platform that operates on a global scale, at a time where many states in the USA are only years into a relaxed sports betting environment (in 2018 a Supreme Court ruling opened the door for all states to legalise sports betting; until that point sports betting was only legal in 4 states). It remains to be seen if the continued gamification of gambling will entrench itself further through means such as Zed Run, or if the practice will remain niche without the existence of a widely populated metasphere. It is clear that we are currently in the midst of a wave, potentially a flood, of NFT content, and a majority of this content exists as a variation of the theme “how to make money through NFTs”. NFTs are currently considered more for their potential profitability rather than their utility. The residue of this is that non-fungible markets seem to be replicating the traditional markets that they are notionally trying to subvert, and the practical uses of NFTs, e.g. as a solution to issues of digital ownership, are being overlooked. Perhaps this is the new manifestation of the neoliberal ideology, or perhaps it is the case in point that future generations will look back upon. Of course, there is an as yet generally unstated and significant point here, that what is being discussed is fungibility in terms of its non-ness. The mention of the term fungibility in a popular culture context immediately gives way to the consideration of the non-fungible, and the non-fungible is seemingly resolving itself, or at least can be understood, in the context of traditional wealth, with all of its fungible interchangeability. This issue of M/C Journal presents a range of insights and perspectives on this word that is increasingly flowing through discourses and practices. NFTs have a range of implications and a spectrum of potential uses depending on their context. But additionally, the usefulness of fungibility as a concept also comes into play here, as terminology traditionally shackled to other disciplines but increasingly pliable in the arts and humanities. This issue’s feature by Russell, “NFTs and Value”, meets some of the above issues head-on by immediately addressing the dichotomy of NFTs as the start of a new art format or NFTs as Western society’s most recent bubble market. Irrespective of these two positions there is an undeniable reality that these digital artefacts can potentially have real world wealth. Russell explores the potential underlying factors of this wealth and in turn what creates artistic wealth. Here a combination of factors such as the discourse around the work itself, or the place that work has in the context of Western art history are all considered as potential drivers of this new wave/bubble. Mason takes up the financial gains associated with some NFTs by examining the commodification of memes through the NFT format. In particular Mason considers the broader implications of this phenomenon outside of NFTs themselves by discussing the potential cultural and racial legacies at play. Mason’s work also notes the dominance of non-Black memes in the non-fungible market and the subsequent development of non-Black wealth that follows. Through this case study Mason touches upon an as of yet widely overlooked cultural implication of the non-fungible market, that of racial inequality and exploitation. In a different wing of the art world, Binns focusses on film, noting, after highlighting the significant ecological price and damage that comes with making transactions on prominent block chains, that the implications of NFTs on the film industry are still emerging. Despite the presence of some emerging marketplaces and vendors, the full utility of NFTs within the film industry remains untapped and unclear. Perhaps NFTs will supplement crowdfunding by offering exclusive memberships or perks (similar to the Bored Apes Yacht Club), or perhaps the fad will fade into the background without ever leaving an impression. In contrast, Robinson embraces the notion of fungibility as fungibility, stepping away from the contemporary discussion of “fungible” as being inherently “non-fungible” and looking at the interchangeability of identity and experience in online spaces. Through interviews Robinson considers how traditional notions of national and political identity are rendered fungible by digital spaces and how this aspect of fungibility manifests itself in invisibility, efficacy, and antagonism. This work is an important reminder of the suitability of fungible as a term in academic scholar

Shaun Wilson

Introduction The proliferation of non-fungible tokens has transformed cryptocurrency artefacts into a legitimised art form now considered in mainstream art collecting as an emerging high-yield commodity based on scarcity. As photography was debated “of being art” in the late 19th century, video art in the 1960s, virtual reality in the 1990s, and augmented reality in the 2010s, NFT art is the next medium of artwork tied to emergent cultural forms. From the concept of “introducing scarcity from born-digital assets for the first time ever, NFTs or crypto or digital collectibles, as they are also referred to, have already shown glimpses of their potential'” (Valeonti et al. 1). Yet for NFT art, “numerous misconceptions still exist that are partly caused by the complexity of the technology and partly by the existence of many blockchain variants” (Treiblmaier 2). As the discussion of NFT art is still centred on questions of justifying the legitimacy of the medium and its financial trading, critical analysis outside of these key points is still limited to blogs and online articles as the mainstay of debate. To distance NFTs from a common assumption that they are in some form or another a populous digital fad, cryptocurrencies are intended primarily as currencies, even if they maintain some asset-like properties (Baur et al.). In a broader sense, NFTs have positioned digital art as a collectable staple as “the most common types are collectibles and artworks, objects in virtual worlds, and digitalised characters from sports and other games” (Dowling). As a point of origin "NFTs were originally developed using the Ethereum blockchain, [while] many other blockchain networks now facilitate trade and exchange of NFTs” (Wilson et al.). “Given NFTs link to underlying assets that are unique in some way and cannot be exchanged like for like” (Bowden and Jones), this article will consider how artists respond to this uniqueness, which separates the art as simply trading an artefact on a crypto platform, to instead consider a different approach that attests to legitimising the medium as a conceptual space. The concept of NFTs was first introduced in 2012 with Bitcoin’s “Colored Coins”, which referred to tokens that represent any type of physical asset “such as real estate properties, cars and bonds” (Rosenfeld). To that end, the origins of NFTs, as we know, attach themselves to rarities, much the same as any other luxury trading artefact. But where NFTs differ is, as a system, in the non-fungibility of their agency and, as an artefact, the singularity of their rarity and uniqueness. As an example in art, consider a Van Gogh painting where its rarity sustains its value, as there are only a certain number of Van Gogh paintings in circulation. Thus, the value of a Van Gogh painting in the domain of rarity is determined by its metadata with attention to the verification of the authenticity of the artefact and, among others, its subsequent details of the year it was painted. NFTs work along with the same premise: both the Van Gogh painting’s data and an NFT are non-fungible because they cannot be forged, but the painting is fungible because it can be forged. From here, there are two components to associate with NFT art. The first is the NFT, which is the data of a digital token registered on a blockchain. The second is the artefact associated with the NFT, which we know as NFT art. But the system by which NFTs exists as a blockchain is different from, say, buying shares listed in a stock market. Therefore, to find a conceptuality in NFT art, the idea of an NFT artwork as a singular tradable commodity needs to be rethought as not the artefact per se, but the effect of the condition brought about by a combination of the artefact, the currency, and nature of its transaction system. To think of these key points as an independent singularity dismantles any sense of a conceptual framework by which NFT art can exist beyond its form. As McLoughlin argues, “unlike the commercial gallery business model, NFTs are designed to cut out the need for art dealers, enabling artists to trade directly online, typically via specialist auction sites” (McLoughlin). With regards to the GLAM sector, the conceptuality of this disruption positions both the born-digital artefact and the system of trading of the artefact as inextricably linked together. Yet the way this link is considered, even by galleries and curators alike, invites further attention to see NFT art not as a fad, but as a beginning of an entirely new system of the digital genre. Background From an aesthetics perspective, recent hostility surrounding the acceptance of NFT art within the establishment has predictably taken issue with the low-brow nature of mainstream avatar-oriented NFT art; for example, Bored Ape Yacht Club and Cryptopunks not surprisingly have been at odds with “proper” art. More so, other artists who have used blockchain in their practice, including Kevin McCoy, Mitchel F. Chan, and Rhea Myers, contributed to early crypto art especially in the 2010s to be inclusive of the proliferation of NFT art as a fine arts medium. Yet despite these contributions, the polarising of NFT art within the art world, as Widdington asserts, has accounted for assumptions that NFT art is identified as being of populous kitsch, lowbrow images, where contemporary art is in opposition to the critique it subjectifies itself against. The art establishment’s disdain towards the aesthetics of NFTs is historically predictable. Early NFT art focussed on pop culture references that have significance within the crypto community (Pepe memes, collectible CryptoKitties), and similarly, in the 1980s, Jeff Koons forced the world of “high art” to confront and accept his works rejoicing in pop culture (Michael Jackson, Pink Panther; Widdington). A key point from Widdington’s claim can be attested for other art that came before Postmodernism, linked firmly to artists using identifiers as part of their studio practice. Moreover, the tying of artwork to a non-fungible identifier is not new. Sol LeWitt's Wall Drawing #793B Certificate (LeWitt) compounded his manifesto that “the idea becomes a machine that makes the art” (LeWitt). By adopting the practice that each of his artworks was accompanied by an authenticity certificate, where the identification code forced a fungible asset to be associated with a unique non-fungible asset, it is the ownership of a certificate of authenticity, or a smart contract on the blockchain in the case of an NFT, that makes the artist’s work unique and therein valuable (Widdington). The scarcity of born-digital assets drives demand for collecting NFT art and joins a financial aspect tied to the process of buying and selling crypto assets. This is obviously different from a crypto conceptuality which exists outside the process and thereby manifests in the idea of what intersects the process, and, in the case of NFT artworks, the subject of the image being traded. Just as LeWitt’s certificate of ownership was thought to raise questions about authenticity and uniqueness through abstract thinking, the concept of art derived from NFT art is fundamentally no different. Both use non-fungibility as a condition of their agency to first address what can be copied and what remains as unique. Second, the mechanism of a ledger that, for NFTs, is blockchain and, for a certificate of authenticity, is the assigned number of the unique identifier, regulates scarcity by using a system to define uniqueness. Adopting this manifesto invites a different way to consider NFT art when the main conversation about NFT art in popular journalism or blogging is a narrow discussion either about the legitimacy of NFTs as an authentic financial stock or about the amount of money they transact in collecting the artefacts. One such conceptuality is in the recent NFT artwork of Damien Hirst. NFT Art Damien Hirst’s The Currency “is composed of 10,000 NFTs linked to 10,000 individual spot paintings on paper” (Hawkins) which are inclusive of added security devices within the paper itself to make the physical asset unique. The purchaser can decide if they would like to own the NFT “or ... keep the physical work and relinquish rights to the blockchain-based artwork” (Goldstein). Perspectives of the project, despite the fact that “Hirst has become a renewed critical target in the left and left-liberal media” (White 197) for his NFT project, not to mention being lamented as “Thatcher’s Warhol” (Lemmey), range from indicating “greater fool theory” (Hawkins) to the questioning of a “responsibility to other NFT artists in the market” (Meyohas). However, discussion on the conceptuality created by The Currency, especially its ontology, is muted if not ignored altogether, which this article considers a fundamental oversight in any credible critical assessment of NFT art. Given that Hirst’s artwork has consistently been moulded around conceptual art, whereby the idea of art becomes the artwork not necessarily found in the hand-made aspect of the artefact itself, the idea of The Currency is to question the role and relationship of art and money through an allegory. One might argue that its conceptuality then affords the idea of the artwork being a currency in itself. It speaks to divisibility, just as the cryptocurrency used to purchase the artworks is divisible of its own tender. The disjuncture in this accord is that “NFTs are not currencies themselves, but rather more like records of ownership” (Cornelius 2). The dot paintings on paper are created as unique artefacts where their uniqueness makes them rare, and this uniqueness makes the rarity an increase in financial value. However, subverting this are Hirst’s physical creations, where the legal tender’s conceptuality is manufactured with watermarks, security embeds, and financial markings the same as traded bills. If this perspective is considered a concept, not a digital selli

Amin Mekacher, Alberto Bracci, Matthieu Nadini, Mauro Martino · 7 authors

We quantify Non Fungible Token (NFT) rarity and investigate how it impacts market behaviour by analysing a dataset of 3.7M transactions collected between January 2018 and June 2022, involving 1.4M NFTs distributed across 410 collections. First, we consider the rarity of an NFT based on the set of human-readable attributes it possesses and show that most collections present heterogeneous rarity patterns, with few rare NFTs and a large number of more common ones. Then, we analyze market performance and show that, on average, rarer NFTs: (i) sell for higher prices, (ii) are traded less frequently, (iii) guarantee higher returns on investment (ROIs), and (iv) are less risky, i.e., less prone to yield negative returns. We anticipate that these findings will be of interest to researchers as well as NFT creators, collectors, and traders.

Y. V. Brisov, Alexandr Pobedkin

The year 2021 was a turning point in the development of digital art. The widespread use of a non-fungible tokens (NFT) in the art industry has revolutionized the modern understanding of intellectual property rights (hereinafter — IPR) and the transfer of IPR. The role of agents as intermediaries between artists and art connoisseurs lost its importance, and so did the role of streaming services. Blockchain technology rewards creators for the sales of works on the secondary market and their subsequent use. Today everyone heard of NFT. Nevertheless, what we know about NFT now is just the tip of the iceberg. The potential market for NFT is enormous: it goes far beyond the visual arts. It will only be a few years before we realize all the possibilities that NFT brings to the table. The importance of an excellent legal framework for NFT is apparent. However, as it may seem, Russian legislation bypasses this aspect. Hence, is it possible to work with NFT in Russia? The answer to this question is significant for many who wish to be part of the international NFT market, such as museums, galleries, artists, musicians, entrepreneurs. The purpose of the work is to substantiate the possibility of working with NFT in Russia in the absence of special legal regulation. The authors, using systematic, deductive and comparative research methods, designate the place of NFT in the system of legislative regulation of digital assets. Using an empirical method, the authors demonstrate the feasibility of overcoming the legal hardships of NFT transactions in Russia on the examples of successful projects of tokenization of masterpieces of the State Hermitage Museum, works of other museums, private collections, and creations by young Russian artists. The result of the work is the justification of the feasibility of working with NFT in Russia in the absence of special legal regulation and the formation of such a model for structuring transactions with NFT, which fully complies with the requirements of Russian legislation. The materials of the research used domestic and foreign experience of tokenization of digital art objects, as well as domestic and foreign literature on legal problems of NFT.

Trevor Zaucha, Colin Agur

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) exist today as a component of a broader, ever-evolving financial environment in which questions of value, ownership, and intention are characterized by their ambiguity. This article considers Dapper Labs “NBA Top Shot,” a blockchain-backed website inviting NBA fans to join in “a new era in fandom” wherein they may acquire NFTs of NBA highlights by opening “packs,” which are functionally similar to trading cards. NFTs reflect the pressures of market forces, as well as increased cultural and economic emphasis on marketization, financialization, commodification, and the ubiquity of gambling-like designs and interactions. Furthermore, this study explores tensions present in differing intentions for the NBA Top Shot platform and Discord server, the diffuse nature of user conversations (a nature that disregards topical boundaries), and audience attention toward marketization and investment interests. The commodification of the NBA fan experience illustrates a shared social pressure to more readily think of one’s life, interactions, and consumptive behaviors through the lens of the investor, fostering financial attitudes that normalize instability and encourage risk-taking beyond the scope of a platform where purchase-dependent interactions serve as a source of joy and social experience in a venue representing a perceived electronic gold rush.

L. Machulin

As digital art topped the list of other arts in post-industrial society, the theoretical and methodological fields of art history it is necessary to clarify a range of definitions of digital art, systematize them and bring them into compliance with international classification.
 The subject of the study is the phenomenon of NFT (non-fungible token), which in 2021 took first place in the annual ranking of the most influential people in the field of art Power 100. NFT — a phenomenon of not only virtual but also modern culture in general.
 The object of research is digital art, in the space of which there is a phenomenon that we study. The purpose of the article is to find out the place and role of NFT in the development of digital art and its significance for art in general. The author considers such aspects of the topic as: the place of virtual art in contemporary art; the importance of NFT for digital art and culture in general; prospects and risks of including the field of art into the experiments with NFT.
 The scientific novelty of the work is the consideration and analysis of those aspects of digital art that have become particularly relevant in the last five years.
 As a result of the study, the author concludes the following.
 
 Since NFT has recently been associated with art, it is natural to study this phenomenon in terms of its place in art. NFT is a new tool that meets some of the needs of creators, users, and collectors of high-end digital and non-digital objects.
 The presence in the NFT phenomenon of such attributes as authenticity of the object, competitiveness, market value, demand and supply, indicate that a new segment of the art market has begun to appear. The autonomous and independent NFT market can be interpreted as the beginning of the separation of digital art from the underlying art. And while it is hard to call it art in the traditional sense today, it is more likely to be digital property.
 The main difference between the NFT market and the usual basic art market is that the artist is valued as a person at the former, and the work itself is valued at the traditional one.
 The formation of the third field of art (after the first field — “old masters”, the second field — modern art, created by traditional means) requires the development of a complex of definitions for its full-fledged comprehension.

Mrs. Vidya, Gottipati Jayanth, Kathik Kulkarni, Kuruba Kavya · 5 authors

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are a new sort of blockchain-based token that is unique and indivisible. They were first introduced in late 2017. While fungible tokens have opened up new use cases such as Initial Coin Offerings, the value of NFTs as a component is still unknown. This research fills in the theoretical and practical knowledge gaps by demonstrating the efficacy of NFTs in the event ticketing area. We design, create, and comprehensively evaluate a prototype of an event ticketing system based on NFTs using a rigorous design science research approach. As a result, we show how NFTs may be used to tokenize digital products, reduce fraud, and strengthen control over secondary market transactions. We also provide generalizable information of the benefits and challenges of NFTs, as well as consequences for both researchers and practitioners.

Dominic Chalmers, Christian Fisch, Russell Matthews, William Quinn · 5 authors

Non-fungible Tokens (NFTs) are blockchain-enabled cryptographic assets that represent proof-of-ownership for digital objects. The use of NFTs has been pioneered by creative industry entrepreneurs who have sought to generate new revenue streams and modes of stakeholder engagement. Despite rapid growth in popularity, concerns have been raised around the legal ownership of NFT assets and the prevalence of speculation and fraud associated with NFT trading. In this rapid response article, we explore the value of NFTs for creative industry entrepreneurs. First, we examine the novel digital affordances of the technology; second, we analyse NFTs through the prism of the recent Initial Coin Offering (ICO) boom and bust; and finally, we take a longer-term historical perspective to consider how past speculative waves inform the present NFT economy. While we identify some potentially valuable artistic and financial opportunities for creative industry entrepreneurs, we conclude that NFTs should be approached with caution.

David Vidal-Tomás

No abstract is available for this record.

Mark Conrad

Non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) are a recent addition to the cryptocurrency universe and have attracted the attention of different stakeholders in the sports world over the last two years. Because they can identify and authenticate particular content, NFTs have become a hot commodity among collectors and investors, in some cases selling for millions of dollars. The sports industry has been a major contributor to NFTs, with athletes, teams, colleges, and leagues issuing or planning to issue NFTs. Because of their recent vintage, NFTs are creating novel and significant intellectual property law issues. This article will explore some of the key issues by utilizing a case study of a hypothetical NFT production of an image found in a painting, which is based on a copyrighted news photo. The article will analyze the copyright issues—whether the NFT can be copyrighted, whether it constitutes a “transformative work,” and whether there are grounds to consider it a derivative or secondary work. This article will also discuss traditional concepts and dilution issues by trademark holders and publicity rights claims against the issuer of the NFTs by the estates of the athletes portrayed based on various state laws. It will then examine the balancing between the rights of estates to protect and profit from their images, and the free expression rights of the creator of the NFT. It will compare two principal standards for making this determination—the “transformative use” test adopted by the majority of federal circuits and the “predominant use” test utilized in Missouri. Recent case law will be cited, in addition to key statutes.

Erica Del Vacchio, Francesco Bifulco

Cultural and creative products play an important role in helping local cultural prosperity and economic development. Today, the cultural sector presents itself as an elective field of application for the development of new investments in technologies. These investments are also facilitated by recent development programs promoted nationally with the aim of digitizing the sector using the integration between technology and artistic and cultural heritage. A review of the impact of blockchain technology in this industry is provided in this study. From this analysis, we identified three use cases of blockchain application: provenance and authenticity, tokenization and fractional equity, and rights management and digital protection. In addition, a future research agenda is developed, and new research questions are offered within three research areas: (1) expanding empirical research on the topic, (2) developing a guideline for cultural managers, and (3) analyzing the customer point of view.

Thach Vu Hong Nguyen, Thach Vu Hong Nguyen, Thai Vu Hong Nguyen, Thai Vu Hong Nguyen · 8 authors

No abstract is available for this record.

Arsalan Parham, Corinna Breitinger

Non-fungible tokens or NFTs are the digital assets on a blockchain. NFTs are unique and they cannot be divided like cryptocurrencies. NFTs could store digital ownership of an artwork or collections or can be fan tokens or tickets for clubs. NFTs are based on a smart contract on a blockchain network which supports them, such as Ethereum, Cardano or Polkadot. Most of the NFTs are now minted on Ethereum (ERC-20) network, but it has some main issues like high transaction fees and low speed. There are lots of domains which can be benefited from NFT technology such as art, music, gaming, sport and wildlife conservation. NFTs could be also bought or sold on lots of NFT marketplaces such as OpenSea and Chiliz. The trend is in a huge hype because the market cap and popularity of NFTs are growing significantly.

Hugo Schnoering, Hugo Inzirillo

We are witnessing the emergence of a new digital art market, the art market 3.0. Blockchain technology has taken on a new sector which is still not well known, Non-Fungible tokens (NFT). In this paper we propose a new methodology to build a NFT Price Index that represents this new market on the whole. In addition, this index will allow us to have a look on the dynamics and performances of NFT markets, and to diagnose them.

Konstantinos Pelechrinis, Xin Liu, Prashant Krishnamurthy, Amy Babay

Non-Fungible Token (NFT) markets are one of the fastest growing digital markets today, with the sales during the third quarter of 2021 exceeding $10 billions! Nevertheless, these emerging markets - similar to traditional emerging marketplaces - can be seen as a great opportunity for illegal activities (e.g., money laundering, sale of illegal goods etc.). In this study we focus on a specific marketplace, namely NBA TopShot, that facilitates the purchase and (peer-to-peer) trading of sports collectibles. Our objective is to build a framework that is able to label peer-to-peer transactions on the platform as anomalous or not. To achieve our objective we begin by building a model for the profit to be made by selling a specific collectible on the platform. We then use RFCDE - a random forest model for the conditional density of the dependent variable - to model the errors from the profit models. This step allows us to estimate the probability of a transaction being anomalous. We finally label as anomalous any transaction whose aforementioned probability is less than 1%. Given the absence of ground truth for evaluating the model in terms of its classification of transactions, we analyze the trade networks formed from these anomalous transactions and compare it with the full trade network of the platform. Our results indicate that these two networks are statistically different when it comes to network metrics such as, edge density, closure, node centrality and node degree distribution. This network analysis provides additional evidence that these transactions do not follow the same patterns that the rest of the trades on the platform follow. However, we would like to emphasize here that this does not mean that these transactions are also illegal. These transactions will need to be further audited from the appropriate entities to verify whether or not they are illicit.

Cristian Pinto‐Gutiérrez, Sandra Gaitán, Diego Jaramillo, Simón Velasquez

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) can be used to represent ownership of digital art or any other unique digital item where ownership is recorded in smart contracts on a blockchain. NFTs have recently received enormous attention from both cryptocurrency investors and the media. We examine why NFTs have gotten so much attention. Using vector autoregressive models, we show that Bitcoin returns significantly predict next week’s NFT growth in popularity, measured by Google search queries. Moreover, wavelet coherence analysis suggests that Bitcoin and Ether returns are significant drivers of next week’s attention to NFTs. These results indicate that the remarkable increases in prices of major cryptocurrencies can explain the hype around NFTs.