Talk:Non-fungible token/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

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)

AMA

Hello, I'm the lead author of ERC-721, ask me anything. Full Decent (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please consider expanding the article (but always with legitimate sources/references, not personal knowledge/opinions) if you can. Wikipedia is really not the best place for an AMA. Btcgeek (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

More!

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)

Cryptomedia: discussion

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)

Hey, thanks for dropping by the talk page to discuss. Just to clarify the links (not including the citations) in your most recent addition weren't a problem in and of itself, they were internal links to other Wiki pages. Originally your edits linking to external URLs was an issue though.

Seems like your intentions are good and all, but it doesn't seem that cryptomedia is notable or relevant enough (yet) to warrant being included within the NFT article here on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, it wouldn't be useful or practical to include every single detail, instance, or example of a subject on its page. Otherwise, this NFT page would be overflowing with a hundreds (if not thousands) of obscure, random, and newly created NFT platforms and projects. See WP:What Wikipedia is not#Encyclopedic content for more info. The another thing is WP:Verifiability. Having a mainstream, reliable, and independent source citing whatever info you're adding is necessary. So the self-source citing cryptomedia's own website wouldn't be considered a WP:Reliable source, it's also a primary source which would be considered "original research" and Wikipedia's more about secondary sourcing to avoid original research.

Lastly, given just how new cryptomedia is very new (literally <24 hours ago and your first edit was several days prior), along with the fact that your first edit had put an external link to Zora at the front of the crypto art platforms list, it would appear that you are likely connected or involved with Zora/Cryptomedia in some way. If that's the case it would be considered a WP:Conflict of interest, which is highly discouraged here. A quick google search of your username shows up a bunch of foreign language links with Zora in the name and your account is brand new and editing here is the only history you have.

For all of those reasons, most other editors will see your inclusions (and persistent re-inclusions upon deletion) as promotional or for marketing purposes. Let me know if I'm mistaken about something or you've got other questions. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 21:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin's fungibility is questionable

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)

• Sorry, strongly disagree with that idea. We can go on all day about fungibility e.g. whether currency notes are really fungible when they have serial numbers, for example. For all intents and purposes, fungibility in the article is about intention of use. The topic isn't about whether Bitcoin is fungible or not, and that discussion will only serve to distract from the topic. --Btcgeek (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, these points are valid and yes they are immaterial to the intent of this article. However, I strongly promote literal accuracy and so I'll make a brief update here. Full Decent (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• This change ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&oldid=prev&diff=912851625 was reverted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard. I disagree with this reversion. But none of us are citing primary sources and I will not debate this further. Here is one primary source if anybody is interested: https://fulldecent.blogspot.com/2018/06/nontechnical-what-is-erc-721.html

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Art was an early use case for blockchain. NFTs prove authenticity and ownership of digital art. The launch of CryptoPunks In June 2017 paved the way for "rare" art on the Ethereum Blockchain. DADA.art built from the CryptoPunks model and launched the first marketplace for rare digital art in Oct 2017. In 2018, one of FRORIEP Legal firm’s partners, Catrina Luchsinger Gaehwiler, purchased what was claimed to be the first art-based asset NFTs in a blockchain governed Patron Protocol (created by artplus.io in 2016) of 8 fractional ownership shares. The work is called “The Absence of Presence” by Romanian artist Dragos Alexandrescu, who lives and works in Vaasa, Finland. Artfintech1 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Most of this paragraph uses non-WP:Reliable sources. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Notability of the various standards

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)

I agree that the subsections should be removed, as they are lacking reliable sources. This removes the wikilink to "smart contract", so the term will have to be wikilinked in the History section. —Jade Ten (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cover image/icon

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. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 03:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hidden Lemon: I agree. There is no one "logo" for non-fungible tokens. I'm removing it for now. HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This was the file. UserTwoSix (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

File:NFT Icon.png

Intro and answering 'what is an NFT'

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)

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is in plain English and should put the article in context for the nonspecialist. Cryptographic token is not a more elementary topic that provides context for the nonspecialist. (The cryptographic token link redirects the reader to cryptographic protocol, defined as an abstract or concrete protocol that performs a security-related function and applies cryptographic methods, often as sequences of cryptographic primitives.) The first sentence also should avoid a redundant form similar to: "Non-fungible tokens are a type of token that is non-fungible."

We need to make a clear Type–token distinction between the token standards and the tokens themselves. We also need to clarify the distinction between the digital file that is a unit of data entered into the blockchain and the digital file that the entry represents.

The first sentences could be,

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.

—Jade Ten (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a great start, I propose a couple of small changes. The copyright ownership is not always retained by the creators. For example, the image used on this page gives the copyright ownership to the NFT holder, and the owner licensed it to the public domain which is how we are able to use it on the page. There are also nuances around licenses e.g. CryptoKitties gives you licensing rights up to $100k but not beyond - things like that which don't belong in the lead.

Digital items are more accurate than files since not all NFTs are files or represent files.

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.

--Molochmeditates (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this latest proposal. —Jade Ten (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Revised language for the carbon emissions section

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:

• There has recently been extensive media coverage and concern about the carbon footprint of NFTs.
• This is part of a broader issue involving the large amount of electricity use involved in the POW validation protocol currently deployed on the Ethereum network.
• Although the concerns about electricity usage and carbon footprints are well documented, the impacts of specific NFT transactions appear to be relatively minimal compared to the ongoing energy associated with mining/validation.
• The Ethereum network is moving to a less energy intensive validation process, POS, which will reduce electricity usage by more than 99%, and is expected to be in place by 2022.
• In the interim, sites involved in an NFT purchases and sales are taking measures to address these concerns, including carbon offsets and percent of revenue donations. Dtetta (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Small changes can be made later, e.g. converting links to citations and adding attribution to SuperRare and Ethereum for the statement, "These validation cycles, however, consume energy at a rate that’s largely independent of the level of NFT activity." —Jade Ten (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This definitely looks like an improvement—thanks for putting it together. It's good to contextualise the information as part of more general proof-of-work/cryptocurrency energy criticisms. I just made a tiny edit to remove a bad external link but I did see that the section needed many more citations and has a lot of scope for improvement. Only criticism I have of the suggestion: that's should be that is (more formal tone). — Bilorv (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. I will make those changes, incorporating your suggestions, tomorrow. Dtetta (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Jade Ten and Bilorv, just made the edit, and I think I got your suggestions correct. Feel free to edit further if you think I missed something. Thanks again for those quick and helpful responses! Dtetta (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Sad to see our informative/counter article removed but ultimately feel that this section should be removed. This section and debate about "the ecology of NFT" is more of a media grab and growth-hacking than anything actually relevant to NFT. These arguments have been made since the dawn of blockchain and are not related to or impacted by NFT in particular. Nonfungible (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

To better illustrate the point I am trying to make. Saying that NFTs are impacting the environment is like saying car stereos are impacting the environment. "We should remove car stereos because they are creating emissions" - from energy that would otherwise go to waste if not used. It's like saying if stereos didn't exists people would drive less. Nonfungible (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Better notability in history section

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)

What's the purpose?

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)

The Other Image

File:Hashmask 12501 of 16384 named Flux.png

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)

I removed this image. I see no reason for replacing the existing image with this one. In addition, the existing image has a message and a cryptographic proof of intent to release it in public domain. I have added more details of that proof in the Discussion section of the Wikimedia page of that image if anyone wants to verify. This image has none of those attributes and therefore should not be used in its current form. --Molochmeditates (talk) 21:44, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

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. 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)

Axie Infinity is probably not sufficiently notable for the red link. We are not using the decrypt source, that is not an WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. I suppose we could include the vice source, but is this WP:DUE? Do we need to include every example, or is this new enough to be sufficiently novel? Or shall we start to seperate by years, essentially a history section, and this gets included in history? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I think detail on that can be added into the "Games" section (seems noteworthy due to the sheer cost of it), though details on the game itself don't seem noteworthy, and I also doubt the game warrants a red link. If others think it's not noteworthy, feel free to revert. Volteer1 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Legal framework (by country)? What is actually owned?

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)

We're working on this. The article mostly specifies that, at a minimum level, the only thing that is effectively owned is the NFT and not the creative work that the NFT represents. (The only exception is the first sentence, currently under discussion, where the "digital file" that is owned can be interpreted either as the NFT or the creative work that the NFT represents.) About half of the Description section already explains how ownership/copyright works when it comes to NFTs. Nowhere does the article refer to NFTs representing physical objects. I don't expect at this early stage that there are any laws in any country that connect/harmonize NFTs/blockchain with copyright of a creative work. —Jade Ten (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as this concept isn't front-and-center, this isn't an encyclopedia article but a covert press release. There is absolutely no reason this article should feel loyalty to how NFT platforms describe themselves. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

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)

Thanks for removing those sources! Trying to clean up the content as we go along here as well. --Molochmeditates (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

@NeedAUsername44: do not re-add this. I have already explained in this section that forbes contributors are not RS. Be advised you may be banned from cryptocurrency articles if you re-add it per WP:GS/Crypto. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@NeedAUsername44: You added this unsourced content stating in your edit summary it was cited elsewhere in "flow". Please add the relevant source to the content. If it lacks an RS, it cant be re-added. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

See citation #20 "Standards in blockchains" opening paragraph. It is cited right there with FLOW together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedAUsername44 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems in the Early History section there are several unreliable sources but those haven't been removed. Why is one editor above targeting me for edits I've made *with* reliable sources which are then being removed?

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

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)

 Not done: we are not using youtube, twitter, and corporate blogs for this sort of claim. Please find a mainstream WP:RS such as wsj, nyt, bloomberg, ft.com, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of 'Whale Shark'

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)

I looked at this, and have to admit I dont fully understand your point. Is this Clash magazine an WP:RS or are they promoting their own artist? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021 for NFTs

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Here's one article about the practice: [13], though it doesn't seem to be very widespread at the moment. Welcome for others to disagree, but I think I'd like to see more coverage of this trend before it warrants its own section. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Actually, scratch that, here's another: [14]. I've written something about it, but e.g. TreatDAO is certainly not noteworthy. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

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)

Please provide reliable secondary sourcing for this, preferably in links as to not create more work for volunteers patrolling requested edits. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kuy4P1n0y: To expand on what ScottishFinnishRadish said, we can only include a mention of Tezos in this article if there are reliable sources that talk about Tezos. Are there articles about it in regular media websites? Has some media site (not someone's personal blog) written about how it is different? If so, write those URLs here and they can potentially be used as sources. - Dyork (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Found a new NewScientist article mentioning Tezos and added. —Jade Ten (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

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.

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.

Added Dorsey sale in History section. —Jade Ten (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It's important to get the terminology right. Dorsey didn't sell a tweet, he sold a non-fungible token referencing a tweet. The tweet in question is not legally owned by the buyer (and I don't think that's even possible, or makes sense for that matter). Silver hr (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point. I used the terminology of Dorsey selling a tweet as an NFT to be consistent with what is reported in news articles. However, for reference, as the Valuables platform explains in its FAQ, specifically he sold a “digital certificate of the tweet, unique because it has been signed and verified by the creator”. I am in agreement with the modification to the sentence that specified Dorsey sold an NFT representing the tweet. Adchia2099 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

SLP

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)

Yeah, I agree. I've gone ahead and removed it. --Volteer1 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This was re-added and I have removed it due to lack of reliable sources and the sources not supporting the assertions in the article.

@NeedAUsername44: do not re-add without a consensus on the talk page. --Molochmeditates (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here but this seems to be unfairly targeted for some odd reason. I'll just run down the quick history of the page as maybe something strange is happening. When the NFT page was made with the Standards in Blockchain section, Ethereum was added only with no sources. As you can see from the current page, Ethereum still isn't sourced, but yet it remains up. I added FLOW and Bitcoin Cash with proper sources with RS in the opening paragraph and also with their standards protocol pages citations in each section[15]. Someone came in and removed all the standards citations, not sure why, but those are gone (prob due to not being RS). That is where the text came from for those two blockchains. In addition, for FLOW blockchain there is no supporting text for it to be there currently as the citation originally added is gone now and the source there currently (Marketwatch) does not support that text either, yet FLOW is still there too. Given that neither Ethereum and FLOW are sourced correctly going off of your logic, both should be removed as well, or SLP NFT added back. -- NeedAUsername44 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Molochmeditates: is there any update on this? Please see my proposal above. Based on your logic, either we add back SLP NFT or remove Ethereum and FLOW. Thanks. NeedAUsername44 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If you find some sources are missing, tag that in the article. If you are able to find sources and add them, all the better. The solution to missing sources for Ethereum/Flow isn't to add all other blockchains that aren't sourced. If there is enough mainstream coverage of NFTs on Bitcoin Cash, it is worth including. If not, Wikipedia isn't a news site. We don't need to be up to date on all the things happening everywhere. This is especially true for crypto topics. See WP:NOTNEWS as well. Also, please remember that just because there is a source for something doesn't mean it automatically belongs in the article. Ultimately, think of what belongs in an encyclopedia article about the topic. --Molochmeditates (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

lede

@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)

Needs a more appropriate background image

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)

 Done UserTwoSix (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Political activism

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)

Bizarre language in Contemporary Art section

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)

Early History section is a mess

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)

There is now some RS for Etheria as the first pixel-on-chain NFT from 2015 via TechCrunch. --User5109nfsaln (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done a lot of research on the early history and it should end up like this, if we can find suitable RS:

1. Kevin McCoy & Anil Dash - A single-unit, non-divisible Namecoin marker with explicit metadata claim to an artwork. May 2014
2. OLGA - A single-unit, non-divisible Counterparty(on BTC) "coin" claimed to represent a gift. First on BTC, June 2014.
3. Etheria - First on Ethereum. First pixel-on-chain NFT. First UGC NFTs. First on-chain artworks. First exchange-tradable, even before exchanges. Launched Oct 2015 (via TechCrunch, though not all of these claims are covered in the article.)
4. Rare pepes - The beginning of the modern "cryptoart" surge. 2016
5. Curio Cards May 9 2017
6. Cryptopunks June 2017
7. Mooncats August 9 2017
8. Cryptokitties November 28, 2017 (Cryptokitties explosion marks the end of the early era, IMO.)
9. Notably EXcluded: Colored coins, trading cards: Cards in these series were minted in the hundreds of units, thus *fungible*, the opposite of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5109nfsaln (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Insert a scheme:

File:NFT scheme Digital Art and digital coins - Mario taddei Neoart3 ENG.jpg

NFT - Non Fungible Tokens - Scheme that visualize traditional art with real money system and digital art with blockchain Ethereum system of tokens to make items unique and not fungible

MarioTaddei (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Significant revision to the Environmental concerns section

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):

• NFTs are part of a controversy regarding the greenhouse gas emissions associated with blockchain. (Note: Aside from the basic issue of GHG emissions, the controversy itself is noteworthy)
• It’s part of a broader issue involving the large amount of electricity involved in the POW validation protocol currently deployed on public networks used for most NFT purchases.
• The impacts of NFT transactions appear to be relatively minor compared to the ongoing energy associated with mining/validation, but there are a variety of assumptions in these estimates that make this somewhat uncertain.
• There are technological efforts to address this concern, like moving to a less energy intensive validation processes (POS).
• Art sites involved in NFT purchases and sales are also taking measures to address this issue, including moving to more efficient technologies, and using carbon offsets.

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)

@Dtetta: please only put one source in each ref tag, the coindesk source I removed today was merged with another source, we dont do that. We use separate sources unless we are doing a citemerge, but that is generally not done. Also coindesk is not a WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. Also all other types of WP:UGC and anything questionable is not as well. Also the sentence about bitcoin POW is probably WP:SYNTH as you cannot say that all NFTs are running on POW, at least you cant infer that. If you have a few sources like WSJ, NYT, etc saying that it might be a different story. Please clarify that bitcoin POW part, or we might remove that as well (anyone can click on the bitcoin article and see the environmental concerns there). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: - Thanks for that quick feedback! Some thoughts:

• When you say “we don’t do that”, I assume you mean it’s not done on this particular article, correct? I ask because the use of merged references within one ref tag is a common practice on the Climate change article, where I do most of my editing. That article has been a Featured article, and has recently been through a FAR process, and that issue was never raised during that process. But you’re correct in that this is an approach that’s not used on this particular article; I’ll change the footnotes so that they have only one source in each ref tag.
• Good point about the Coindesk article not being a reliable source. I’ll look for an alternative.
• Not sure what you mean in your statement that “the sentence about bitcoin POW is probably WP:SYNTH as you cannot say that all NFTs are running on POW, at least you cant infer that”. It seems like you are referring to the second sentence of the first paragraph (and not the third), correct? My read of the Nature Sustainability source is that it talks about networks that use the blockchain process, and I think the sentence I wrote characterizes this in the same way...it’s not saying that all NFTs are running on POW. So it think the text-source integrity is there in the way it’s currently worded, but I would be happy to revise if you could suggest some different language that gets at your concern. Dtetta (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the featured article process didnt look at the merged references. I honestly haven't seen merged references used, you doing it was the first time I have seen it (other than the citebundle I referred to). I think certainly for cryptocurrency I would avoid it, as we are being very strict on references. Normally here I like to use references that are named, such as this so we can see how many times a ref is used in an article, etc. If they are bundled I dont see how that would be workable. Yes, I think I was referring to the second sentence with that I felt was synth. I think we should not on this article summarize something we know to be incorrect, as we know that all blockchains are not POW, despite the fact that there might be a source or two that we could use (and we know it to be wrong as a generalized statement). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

So I’m still unclear about your concern - when I read that sentence it’s not saying that all blockchains are POW. Further, that sentence is one that I tried to keep from the text that was there earlier...the main thing I did was to reword it slightly and to add the Nature Sustainability reference, so the concern you have seems to be with the earlier text as well, correct?

Looked for another source to replace the Coindesk reference, but couldn’t find anything that didn’t seem like a promotional piece for aerial or Offsetra. I think the Hypoallergic source adequately supports the text in that second to last sentence of the second paragraph, so my thoughts are to just leave it like that.

Re: the merged references, if you look at the Climate change article, you can see it is used for roughly 1/4 of the 300+ footnotes. That article is also following a very strict citation procedure, in fact there is a specific Talk Page devoted to this. Re: naming references, the named ones I see on this article (and that convention seems to be only sometimes used) often start with name=":132" or name=(Title of the Source Article) rather than the convention you described of name="FT05152018". But I’m happy to do make whatever modifications you think best. I’m assuming you want that just for the references that are used more than once? Dtetta (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And while we are having this discussion, I’m hoping you can take a minute to give your thoughts on the overall outline for the section that I proposed...for me that’s probably the most important issue here in terms or creating prose that’s readable and comprehensible:) Dtetta (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Where's the concerns about stolen art and scamming?

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)

• I agree a section like that could be useful here. Do you or other editors have pointers to articles about what is going on for artists? - Dyork (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have a couple.

• https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7vxe7/people-are-stealing-art-and-turning-it-into-nfts /
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-16/nfts-artists-report-their-work-is-being-stolen-and-sold/13249408 /
• https://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/nfts-still-have-a-few-kinks-to-work-out-on-co2-fraud-and-theft/ (this last one talks about multiple problems with NFTs, including theft) CesarFelipe (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

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 . The assets are currently trading on Opensea.io NFThistory (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. These are not referred to as non-fungible tokens. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Better Upfront Description

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)

Nobody seems to know right now. NFTs are too strange and new. Although feel free to do the research. The article is being developed as we see if this will become a thing. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I plan to take a look. There's been a lot of recent media attention for this topic from reliable sources so I think bringing in some of that information will improve the article Kavigupta (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This is funny. Or ironic rather. Nobody really knows what it is but some people pay millions for it. And others write wiki articles about it. I mean, writing an encyclopedia article about something we don't know what is...

  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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

Can someone add the following to the end of the History section?:

In mid-April 2021, Bloomberg Businessweek wrote:

The frenzy has subsided some, with the average price of an NFT sinking since February from $4,000 to about $1,500, according to NonFungible, and the average daily sales volume of NFTs falling from $19.3 million in mid-March to $3.03 million by April. But the people who got in early — those who were lucky, true blockchain believers, or both — have still done supremely well. Collectors who bought hundreds or even thousands of NFTs are now, suddenly, multimillionaires, at least on paper (or rather, on-screen). Still others have begun selling, joining the growing ranks of the crypto rich.

Thank you. 24.90.229.114 (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The quote is, in my opinion too long, and could be better summarised by paraphrasing the core message, with sourcing. Melmann 10:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point, Melmann. The following summary can be added to the end of the last paragraph in the History section:

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.

--24.90.229.114 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Looks good to me. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

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)

 Not done It's explained in the article body, which the lead is a summary of. There are plenty of refs in the article already. Please review WP:LEDE - David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Revisions/Additions to Music Section

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

You can add:

• Figure 1.1
  Figure 1.1

if you want MarioTaddei (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

I want to add some information on NFT page Please allow me to edit this page SShussein (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No mention of financial advantages

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

change elminating to eliminating Benjamin Loison (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done JBchrch talk 15:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

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...
^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 10:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done JBchrch talk 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes to lead

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. 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. The NFT market value tripled in 2020, reaching more than $250 million.

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

NFTs are often implemented using blockchain technology that are suited as a digital ledger. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; 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.

Extra Refs:

This would correct the following issues in the current lead:

1. the NFT may represent any object, not just digital objects (see the Nike shoe)
2. explain the concept better by comparing to a public land registry
3. remove the explanation that "digital items are available for anyone to obtain" since this may be true in some cases, there is no requirement for it at all. Some people may choose to sell an NFT associated with a digital asset that is not publicly available.
4. add that NFTs can be sold and traded (and add an example that they can be sold for millions of dollars)
5. explain the ownership model better: sometimes a commercial license is granted, sometimes only a non-commercial license
6. explain the ownership model better: sometimes a an exclusive license is granted, sometimes a non-exclusive license (as in Hashmask)
7. remove Weasel words like In 2021, there has been increased interest in using NFTs.

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)

@Hannes Röst: Happy to work this out with you. Please give me about 24 hours to respond. Also, if you could fill out refs 5 and refs 7 it would be great. JBchrch talk 15:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, I have done that and also removed the reference to coindesk (I did not check whether it was reliable before, my mistake). The other sources seem fine with Reuters and Mondaq, LA Times and Verge, but not sure about Morning Brew -- we should find something better. Also, I am not sure if we need a reference to compare digital ledgers to physical ledgers, I thought it was a nice analogy to actually explain what is going on but it is not strictly necessary.It seems like a common sense comparison so we may not need a reference, WP:V only requires a reference if the material is likely to be challenged, I dont think that would be the case here with an analogy. Or maybe we can find a better analogy with a source: one way they are explained in this Nature article is that they are "certificates" for something, but it seems it may also have / or is accompanied with a contract and transfer of legal rights. --hroest 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I do not really understand the rationale for the second and third sentence. The land registration comparison is not used in the body; also it may be misleading, since it would imply that NFT allow third parties to identify the "legal owner" (emphasis on legal) of a piece of digital art, which is not the case. The current sentence in the lead about separation from copyright summarizes correctly the body and the sources. In the reliable sources cited [16][17], I do not see support for the market value of the copyright licenses attached to NFTs, as implied by the proposed third sentence. The LA Times says specifically that 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.
• Mondaq is not a reliable source: it reprints self-published material written by law firms and consulting firms. Here, a memo by Norton Rose Fullbright.
• I do not see the lithography comparison used in the body or in the sources. I agree that the "series" issue could be mentioned in the body and in the lead, though. I will look for a source for that.
• Regarding the public availability of the underlying digital asset, I think the current language While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtain is 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.
• Why do you want to remove Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs.?
• I agree that the promotional language regarding the market value is problematic, and also poorly sourced. But I think market value estimates are generally important and should be in the lead of finance articles. I will try to find a better source. JBchrch talk 18:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Thank you for your detailed response and thoughtful reply. I will follow up point by point:

• a1) The motivation is to give an explanation what these NFTs represent to the lay reader, after all this is an encyclopedic article and not a technical reference manual. What about replacing the second and third sentence with 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.
• a2) I think there may be some confusion here, simply because (as per LA times) " anybody can watch the same basketball highlights anytime, or save a copy of the same digital image to their own hard drive" does not necessarily mean that they have the right to use and distribute those images. Simply because you can download a movie from pirate bay does not give you any legal rights to view or distribute that movie. As this guardian article describes, the copyright holder of an image is often not getting compensated and most use of these images is not legal. The legal situation depends on the exact conditions associated with the NFT and this should be reflected in the lead. In some cases, as explained in the Verge, this makes the owner of the NFT legally speaking slightly better off than all the other people, as the owner of the NFT does get limited rights to display and use the underlying asset that the general public does not have. This is not properly represented in the current version of the lead, the current lead implies the owner of the NFT has no rights whatsoever since the owner does not own the copyright. That is false. In other cases, as for example specified in the hashmask terms and conditions, the holder of the NFT is the legal owner of the artwork ("When you purchase a NFT, you own the underlying Hashmask, the Art, completely.") and it comes with a relatively clear licence: "The Company grants you a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art,". Important here for example is the "exclusive" part, so if anybody else is selling or displaying the artwork, the owner of the NFT would have legal standing to sue that person. Also since it is an exclusive licence, the owner of the artwork cannot create another licence (or another NFT) and sell that to another person, even if they still hold the copyright to their artwork. This is similar to some publisher agreements where the author does not transfer copyright to the publisher but an exclusive licence to publish the article. So in a legal sense, the owner of the NFT is getting more than "just the NFT".
• b) I see, I will try to find a better source for the legal situation of NFTs, which is currently not discussed in the article at great length. Would the Norten Rose article qualify as RS?
• c) I agree we need better sources for this, but it should be explained. One example is this RollingStone article which explains the process with "Kings of Leon". I think this pretty much covers it "YellowHeart is minting 18 unique-looking “golden tickets” as part of the Kings of Leon NFT release. Out of the 18, the band will auction six and vault the other 12 like a painter would do with a rare piece from a series of art. " -> this is exactly what it says, its a "series of art" is what the proposed lead explains. Similar to numbered series of artworks, each ticket is numbered (unique) but presumable have the same metadata, so its identical except the series number
• d) public availability is not always a feature, we could say "often". The current languages implies that it is always the case that the asset is publicly available, this is not true. For example the 2nd most expensive NFT "Harmony" (see List of most expensive non-fungible tokens) is not publicly available and the is only available to the buyer of the NFT and comes with DRM (see [18]).
• e) I agree we should add that sentence again. I have changed the proposal.
• f) I am happy to include a market value estimate if its properly sourced.

Thanks a lot! --hroest 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: thanks for your answer. I will just answer regarding copyright for the moment and will come back on the points:

• Regarding the Hashmasks T&C: These terms grant an exclusive licence, but 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.
• If I take a look at the what lawyers have written (in sources that are problematic for Wikipedia purposes), I'm not seeing that it is typical of NFTs to be associated with copyright. 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].
• If I take a look at reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, I see that it is typical for NFTs to not be associated with a material copyright license. 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)

I agree that the NFT alone does not grant anything really, but it seems at least in some cases (hashmasks) it comes associated with some sort of legal document/contract, whether particularly meaningful or not at least the intent is there. Eg for hashmasks there is commercial use: iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, The Company grants you an unlimited, worldwide, exclusive, license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”). Examples of such Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying copies of the Art. Commercial use sounds pretty much like it would be limited to the buyer and nobody else has those rights (Eg putting the art on a T-shirt and selling it). On the other hand, Foundation explicitly disallows commercial use by the buyer. But maybe its just too early to really speculate about the legal side of things, but it seems pretty clear that each NFT comes with somewhat of a "licence" depending on the platform you buy it from and the rules what you can and cannot do are specified (whether that is will hold up in a court of law of course is unclear but at least the attempt is there). Also, having a RS discussing this would be valuable. However, in the context of granting a licence it becomes actually somewhat strange to highlight especially as a superficial reading of the rights in buying traditional physical art assets seem to come with somewhat similar limitations. Right now the article reads like the non-transfer of copyright is a very meaningful and unique aspect of NFT but from this reading, it actually does not necessarily seem to be the case, see also this quote: While many collectors assume that a work’s copyright is transferred when they purchase a painting or a sculpture, that is not the case. (not saying this is necessarily a RS but pointing out the direction here). --hroest 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add a source for ever sentence your are proposing. If you dont have an RS for it, no need to propose to add it. Also if all the text above is proposed for the lede (including the numbered list), it is too long and not correct per WP:MOS (we dont add numbered lists to ledes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf the proposed lead would only be the three paragraphs shown above, the bullet points represent changes that I would like to make and motivation why. I guess we have to compromise between explaining the concept for laypeople and strict verifiability. --hroest 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE summarizes the article and would not have anything complex in it. We dont add WP:JARGON to articles in general, and certainly not in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Add IPFS example

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

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)

 Done. I readded the {{puffery}} that I had removed, reading this request as a form of WP:BRD. JBchrch talk 10:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

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)

 Not done. Crypto-centric news outlets are not considered reliable and the Variety article is not sufficient to establish the notability of that particular information. JBchrch talk 00:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

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)

 Done thank you BI613en. JBchrch talk 00:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

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)

 Done thank you. JBchrch talk 00:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

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)

 Already done thank you. JBchrch talk 00:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

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.

Memes

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) , making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date . Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger , Nyan Cat and Disaster Girl. Memenft (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@Memenft: Sorry for the late answer: I had not received (or had missed) your ping. Thank you very much for the relevant suggestion. I have incorporated it with a reworked language and sourcing at Non-fungible token § Memes. Does this work for you? JBchrch talk 00:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Add "Memes" to "Uses" section

Memenft (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Memes

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) , making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date . Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger , Nyan Cat and Disaster Girl.

References

 Already done See below. JBchrch talk 00:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Dada.nyc to Public awareness (2017–2021) section

I propose the addition of Dada.nyc to the section titled Public awareness (2017–2021). On 31 October 2017 Dada.nyc released a collection of limited edition NFT's titled "Creeps and Weirdos" available on their online marketplace for collaborative digital art.

Louww22 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done Lots of NFTs have been issued but we can't include them all. I don't see anything particularly notable about this one. JBchrch talk 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Forbes NFTy50

"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)

 Not done. Promotional language. JBchrch talk 20:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Implied Digital Rights Management

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)

Puffery template

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)

Film soundtrack

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)

Agree. Most often, the "first X" factor is simply a marketing ploy anyway. JBchrch talk 20:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

AmirahBreen you should self-revert per WP:ONUS : The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. JBchrch talk 20:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved by discussion, not by ordering other editors about. Amirah talk 21:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@AmirahBreen: I have now removed the disputed content per WP:ONUS. Please be aware of the 1RR restriction applicable to this page before reverting back. JBchrch talk 22:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If what you are saying is correct then there are many other examples on the page which not be allowed for the same reason, but my edit is the only one you are objecting to. Amirah talk 21:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:OTHER (an essay), that's not a strong reason for inclusion. There was recent work to cleanup promotional fluff on this page, but I'm sure more could be done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what in the essay you are directing my attention to, but the essay does say 'it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged.' Amirah talk 23:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want to delete people's work because they are adding material to the page in the same style and manner as much existing material already on it, then you should have some notice on the page which warns editors that the existing material on the page is unacceptable, otherwise you are misleading editors to think the current material on the page is acceptable to the page subject and therefore they will think that when they add material they should use a similar style. This is time wasting for editors, and when you add to it your curt and abrupt manner of simply deleting people's edits without explanation, it is really an unacceptable way of carrying on. Amirah talk 23:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a good argument for keeping the {{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)

Yes, it is. @JBchrch: I would like to point out that you have reverted my edit to the article several times over the last couple of days and replaced it with information which is factually incorrect. The film score has not 'been sold', it is still in the hands of the composer, as I had originally said. Also, please see, 'What is the difference between a film score and a film soundtrack?', it is not a soundtrack, it is a film score. In order to correct your errors I am proposing a change to read, 'In 2021, an NFT associated with the score of the movie Triumph, composed by Gregg Leonard, was minted as the first NFT for a feature film score'. Amirah talk 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@AmirahBreen::

• The use of the term "soundtrack" originates from an edit by you, and no one else: [29].
• I have not been in breach of the 1RR restriction, which, as you know, applies within each 24-hour period (WP:3RR).

I strongly suggest that you WP:DISENGAGE from this dispute for a short while before coming back. JBchrch talk 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it now from 'soundtrack' to 'filmscore', and I did not say that you were in breach of 1RR, I said that you had 'reverted my edit to the article several times over the last couple of days' and the amendments you made were factually inaccurate. Amirah talk 15:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@AmirahBreen: Since you insist with your accusations, can you please point out specifically (i) which edit you are referring to and (ii) why they were incorrect? JBchrch talk 21:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You are being extremely defensive, this is not an 'accusation' it is merely a correction. I have assumed good faith. Amirah talk 09:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I already explained that the filmscore has not been sold, it remains the property of the composer. In your original edit to my work you wrote that it had been 'sold', then when I reverted it you reverted it back to your inaccurate wording.Amirah talk 09:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already done so. Amirah talk 08:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

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)

 Not done This does not seem to be a reliable source (crypto-centric, no editor-in-chief, no editorial policy). Even if it were, this specific article is an editorial and, according to WP:RSEDITORIAL, 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)

history 2018

In June 2018, the EverDragons, the First Cross-Chain NFTs went online. 2A02:2455:465:9600:F04D:9B24:4C4A:9A85 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done Hackernoon publishes editorials and guest-written content, and as such can be assimilated to a WP:BLOG. JBchrch talk 15:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hashmask 15753.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Mention of "suum cuique gmbh"

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 notes

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)

"Uses" heading contains false information

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)

Added Paragraph About NBA Top Shot

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

Proposed merge of Crypto art into Non-fungible token

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)

• Merge all. No notability or coverage that is independent from NFTs. I don't see that crypto-themed art is notable enough to have a dedicated article anyways, so I support turning Crypto art into a redirect to here. JBchrch talk 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I think this field has stand-alone notability. I see no problem leaving it as a stand-alone article, as the NFT article gets too large, stuff like this is ideal to split off. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree, there is no separate coverage, and also no clear distinction between digital art as NFTs and "crypto art." However, I am concerned this page may become bloated with crypto art-related stuff. I think we've made a good start at covering what's relevant (and cutting what isn't), but there is the possibility of this use case growing in significance, which would make it difficult to avoid splitting the article again, I imagine. Also, art about cryptocurrency may become a notable field – artists like Cryptopop and Cryptograffiti come to mind, whose work has been sold at auction houses. There's also the Doge artwork. But these are probably still too niche to warrant a separate article for now. I support a redirect to this page. DecentrallyConnected (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. I agree with JBchrch; I hardly see any independent coverage on "crypto art" that is decoupled with NFTs. WikiLinuz (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merge There isn't any "crypto art" scene outside of NFTs, I don't see a reason to have a separate article for a type of NFT. 51.37.71.67 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merge Pretty obvious case here imo. Ottoshade (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Merge Crypto art refers directly to NFTs at the moment. Should there be a significant enough sub-category of art that is about crypto itself, a page can be added to cover it. Gün (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above 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.

IPFS in the Storage off-chain section

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)

Page is overloaded with trivia, "firsts", and the promotion of obscure projects

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)

It's arguable that it could use some pruning, but I've reverted your last edit, which removed a large amount of well-sourced material. Please try a less aggressive approach to pruning first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone back and removed a few entries. The "Performance art" one is questionable. I agree that this article shouldn't turn into a coatrack for every single NFT story that hits the news. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

On that promotion note, there's definitely something very strange about some of the accounts editing this article who do nothing edit but crypto and NFT related pages. Somebody in particular who caught my eye was making hundreds of dummy edits to get their account autoconfirmed. There have been definite attempts at manipulating this page. 51.37.71.67 (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@51.37.71.67: That was specifically to gain access to Crypto art, after, in my opinion, I was unfairly denied access from editing the article (these rules exist for a reason isn't always a valid argument, in my opinion). That said, please have a close look at all of my contributions prior and since. And please don't group me into the same category as those attempting to manipulate this page, or crypto-related articles in general. Thanks – DecentrallyConnected (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2021

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)

 Done with some copyediting and clariying that "According to the performance artist" is not quoting Banksy. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Creator of NFTs owns up to shortcomings

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. Consider adding this article to the main article? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Typo In the film section

Quentin Tarantino is spelled as Quenton. I believe this is a typo. Judawag (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed :) Mewnst (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph needs adjustment to include semi-fungible tokens

The term "NFT" has 3 layers of meaning, the undeniable technical/literal definition and then two additional meanings growing further away from it.

1. Obviously the literal/technical definition means each token must be fully unique.

2. In common and (seemingly widely) accepted usage, "NFT" also includes semi-fungible tokens; cohesive sets of cards/artworks with multiple copies of each. Prominent examples of this usage include (in chronological order) Spells of Genesis, Rare Pepes, Curio Cards and multi-issuance artworks/collectibles (e.g. an artist might release 5 artworks in a set with 10 copies of each).

(anecdotal: I recently attended a major football/soccer game where they advertised an "NFT" on the scoreboard; a gazillion copies of a single digital card commemorating attendance at the game. https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2021/08/us-soccer-launches-only-forward-art-series-for-upcoming-usmnt-fifa-world-cup-qualifiers )

3. In even looser interpretation (one that is not clearly accepted), "NFT" is simply any non-divisible blockchain collectible that refers to "something" (as opposed to normal coins which are (a) divisible and (b) refer to nothing), whether part of a larger set or not.

(4. There are even kookier definitions after #3 (e.g. including divisible tokens, etc), but let's not get carried away.)

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):

"In the literal and technical sense, a 'non-fungible token' or 'NFT' is a unique, non-divisible, non-interchangeable and transferable unit of data stored on a digital ledger maintained by cryptoeconomic consensus (blockchain). In common use, 'NFT' is interpreted more broadly to include semi-fungible tokens within a combined set (e.g. a set of 'cards' with multiple copies of each)."

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)

• You raise some interesting points regarding the nuanced nature of NFTs, including "semi-fungibility." As I'm sure you're aware, this was accounted for in the ERC-1155 standard (which is covered in the article, but probably needs some work), and should, I think, be emphasized upfront. Somehow, classifying something that has the characteristics of semi-fungibility a "Non-fungible token" seems contradictory. And yet, I think you've hit the nail on the head by differentiating between literal/technical and common use definitions.
• I would be wary of saying "cryptoeconomic consensus," as this sounds like editorializing, i.e. interpreting the facts. There is no such term as "cryptoeconomic" (as yet) – I think what you mean is that the nature of the blockchain (being, in and of itself, a digital ledger linked by cryptography) offers an undeniable proof of the history of transactions. The use of blockchain guarantees consensus. So I would change the sentence to: "In the literal and technical sense, a 'non-fungible token' or 'NFT' is a unique, non-divisible, non-interchangeable and transferable unit of data stored on a digital cryptographic ledger (blockchain)." DecentrallyConnected (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

While I am sensible to the points you are raising and think they generally make sense, I do not agree with the specific proposal you put forward, for the following reasons:

• The term "semi-fungible" seems contradictory. Something is either fungible (i.e. interchangeable, non-unique) or non-fungible (i.e. unique, non-interchangeable). "Semi-fungible" does not seem to be a widespread term or concept outside of crypto-publications, and this is the kind where I would prefer to wait and see if it makes its way into the common parlance. In other words, let's avoid crypto-jargon for as long as it remains crypto-jargon.
• The lead should summarize the body, and I am generally skeptical of any proposed amendments of any lead that does not reflect a substantial change in the body. In my view, the proper course of action would be for you (or anyone else) to draft a section or a bunch of paragraphs that we could incorporate in the body, and then amend the lead.
• I think the current first sentence works better than the one you propose, in general but also per MOS:FIRST: 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)
• As others have noted, the lede should be a short and concise summary; beginning the article with "in a literal and technical sense" does not advance that goal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the opening sentence based on DecentrallyConnected's feedback of my suggestion.

FWIW, "cryptoeconomic" is a well-known and useful term. Cryptography alone doesn't keep a blockchain in consensus... it's the cryptography plus the economic incentive for miners to hash (make random guesses) based on the true past ledger. Miners hashing on the wrong chain won't get rewards. This is what keeps all the participants agreeing with each other and prevents any single actor from altering the ledger to their own benefit. User5109nfsaln (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agreed with your sentiment, but, as you can see, there is no consensus on the change. And I think the reasons outlined above are sensible, which is why I do not oppose them.

Regarding "cryptoeconomic" – that's interesting, though the term doesn't appear to be "common parlance" yet, as JBchrch put it (outside of crypto or academic circles, perhaps). "Cryptoeconomic consensus" much less so. DecentrallyConnected (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@User5109nfsaln: The first sentence should geneally be in plain English. JBchrch talk 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant info on "popularity" from Popular culture section

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 (2)

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)

Howdy! Thanks for pointing the poor wording out. How it stands now:

Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images to create "The NFT Bay", modeled after The Pirate Bay, offering the whole collection of images as a free torrent.

I made a few more changes than what were directly suggested, I hope it's fine. Mewnst (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done PianoDan (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

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.

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

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)

Howdy! I think the reword is appropriate since no major outlet has verified that data claim either way. I went ahead and made that change. The forum posts that you linked don't qualify as credible sources by Wiki standards, but the major outlets that are currently cited make no claim of verifying that data. Have a nice day. Mewnst (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Significance

“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)

I removed the line. I wrote that while attempting to condense and cut down a problematic paragraph in the lede. I should have cut it all out, it was entirely dubious. Even the claim about Ethereum having the first NFT is disproved in the history section. Thanks for agitating on this point, I will try to be bolder in excising nonsense in the future. Mewnst (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)