Talk:Non-fungible token/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Additional banksy NFT project

I added a section about an additional Banksy NFT that received extensive coverage in the BBC, Bitcoinist, LA Weekly, etc, etc, but another editor reverted the changes as they said the page isn't supposed to be listing every NFT project. I agree with that sentiment, however still feel that the addition of the paragraph is warranted as the BBC reference gives NFTs some much needed support by a serious organization. Anyway, I paste my edit below for your reference and discussion. If you feel it should be included into the page proper, please feel free to include it.

In November 2021, Arts Media company Gloss created and listed for auction on Opensea a NFT "inspired by" Banksy's original work titled Warning Sign, 2006. Gloss said that the Banksy Warning Sign NFT was created to commemorate the lives lost in the September 11 attacks, and pledged to donate money from the sale to the New York City Fire Department Foundation, who represent the first responders on 9/11. The Banksy Warning Sign NFT also gave the owner a 5% equity share in the original artwork, which Gloss described as being a "world-first" offering in the NFT space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightingales (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, we don't inline-link to Instagram accounts. There are lots of NFTs in the news; we certainly don't need to exhaustively list every one here. I don't see how this one is particularly significant. The only decent source here is the small BBC piece; the LA Weekly reference is a press release. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with OhNoitsJamie: you would need to provide one or two additional high-quality source for inclusion to be warranted. JBchrch talk 17:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi @JBchrch:! Thanks for your feedback. Just saw that 2 more high quality source articles have been published since we last talked: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gloss-creates-controversial-banksy-nft-060000193.html https://nftevening.com/bansky-inspired-nft-warning-sign-raises-money-for-victims-of-9-11/ There are several others but as Onoitsjamie pointed out above, those are more press release type articles. Is this enough to have my short piece re-inserted into the page? Thanks in advance Knightingales (talk)

Hi again. I have re-inserted the section with 2 more high quality references as suggested above. Thanks for your input Knightingales (talk)

Those are more press releases. Please find another venue for promoting GLOSS. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Flagging up that User:Knightingales also created a largely hoax article for GLOSS that copied an impressive and entirely false history of awards and pedigree of media work from the LADbible article. At time of writing their Banksy-inspired auction has yet to meet its reserve price, so this doesn't sound like it's going to be a big part of the history of NFTs. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bidders apparently figured out that it had little to do with Banksy other than trying to attach itself to his name. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposing "Marketing and promotion" or similar subsection under "Uses", and NFTs that make no attempt at establishing ownership

Many high-profile NFTs that are listed in the article, including NFTs regarding musical or film works, make no attempt to transfer any ownership rights of the underlying work at all. They are instead collectables or tokens that only enjoy a tenuous association with the underlying works, most usually created for a promotional purpose, that are purchased because of a popular interest in the underlying work rather than an attempt at gaining ownership. A fair comparison is baseball cards, as a Lou Gehrig baseball card does not attempt to confer any kind of ownership over Lou Gehrig, but it derives value in having close association with the guy. NFTs popularly sell this "association," but it is only articulated in the article as a misleading "proof of ownership." This non-ownership use of NFTs is not yet adequately explained in the article, even though it is mentioned many times (very obviously seen in the "Film" subsection under "Uses").

This may be one missing component in deflating the puffery and cutting out the excess unimportant factoids. These "baseball card" NFTs may not be important to mention at all, as they usually don't have much significance to the underlying work. The articles on famous sportsball players never bother including what kind of collectable cards the players are in. Why should NFTs be any different? If there are no objections, I will pursue making edits to clarify this less impactful use of NFTs. Mewnst (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am right behind you. I think this whole page should be re-written. There are too many random facts concerning NFTs that should not be a part of this page. There are some very well-crafted advertisements that have been sprinkled throughout this page and it makes it hard to edit, but it can be done. I think this page should be redone by unbiased sources who have no stakes in the NFT sub-community. There are too many references to projects that are not needed to obtain a general understanding of NFTs. There really shouldn't be any references to any projects. If the projects themselves wouldn't be able to obtain their own page on Wikipedia, they shouldn't be mentioned on this page. The subject of NFTs is so vast that we could add things like Real Estate and go into great detail about how they relate to NFTs, when we really don't need to. We are defining what an NFT is right? Or are we advertising all the NFT projects? There are enough online resources already promoting these projects and I don't think it's in the general interest of most who have no involvement in NFTs to include content that promotes NFT projects. I have found four sources (three on UpWork and one of Fiverr) where freelancers specifically referenced this page and stated for upwards of $2500, they would promote their project through Wikipedia (also, that they already have successfully done this in the past). Who knows if they are lying about already posting on this page? All I know is that I came to this page completely unbiased and felt that is was extremely disorganized and that it had (in some places) been advertising projects that have no place in the explanation of what an NFT is.

It is 100% possible to create this page without referencing any projects. I have read many great sources explaining NFTs that do not mention a single project.

I have since reading this page, read eleven well-written NFT explanations on other websites that explained NFTs beautifully without having to mention or advertise a single project.

If this is possible, why can't we do it here? Do we want to reference some projects? If we have to, could they be completely non-profit projects only? Chris Giller (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Several recent attempts at advertising have been rejected, but I'm sure there's more pruning to be done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the general notion (now explicit consensus) that this article should not just be a list of NFT projects. However, there are some projects that have received significant coverage and should be included to illustrate what these things are to a general readership. Examples include Beeple, Cryptopunks and NBA Topshot. Those are definitely worthy of inclusion. JBchrch talk 17:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. We tried to cover this aspect in the #Copyright section but we should probably be more thorough in this point, yes. JBchrch talk 17:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

Add Loopring as a viable zkRollup Layer2 project. Source: https://loopring.org/#/ 92.236.234.119 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Declined, request must include a complete and specific description of the edit to be made, see WP:EDITXY. This also just looks like a promotional link. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Quotation marks in Issues and criticisms section

Why, in 'Plagiarism and fraud' part of 'Issues and criticisms' section, sentence "artists having their work copied without permission" is in the quotation marks? It's not a quote, it's a fact. It has been proven so later on in this exact article. It's not even a quote from [143] in that section.

I don't think that's what quotation marks are for. 83.28.228.113 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a quote from the source at https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/pay-millions-art-you-cant-touch-inside-nft-digital-art-940943, but does seem unnecessary. I've removed the quotemarks and rephrased it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

History

I see no mentions of early (pre-crypto days) NFTs. In particular, no mention of Tokenzone, funded in 2000 in NYC by Isaac, Ricardo and Eduardo Arias, which created the very first NFTs for gaming purposes. Disney, Harry Potter and other properties used Tokenzone technology from 2002 to 2009. Stevengarden (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

OpenSea, the first online marketplace for non-fungible tokens was founded by Devin Finzer and Alex Atallah in New York on December 20, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2455:465:9600:DC50:FB09:8611:872F (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

This article

Good encyclopedia articles lead with good, clear explanations answering the 6 W's: Who, What, Where, Why, How and When. Not only does this article not accomplish this task in the introduction, but it doesn't accomplish it in the body, either. I am familiar with the ERC-721 non-fungible token standard. I am familiar how blockchain works. I've been involved with networking and information security for 35 years. Reading through this article for the third time, however, I am still not seeing any sort of clear explanation suitable for the general populace of exactly what an NFT is and how it can and/or should be used by your average technically literate person. To quote Dozer from The Matrix, "He still needs a lot of work." Clepsydrae (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can help to improve it. Steepleman (t) 12:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to get a much better handle on it, first. I'm not a subject matter expert on NFT. Clepsydrae (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're "not seeing a clear explanation suitable for the general populace of exactly what an NFT is and how it can and/or should be used by your average technically literate person", then I think you have successfully grasped the concept of NFTs. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol, well, that's cryptic!  :) Clepsydrae (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Unique"

The lead currently states: A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique and non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a blockchain. I don't think "unique" should be there - the piece of data can be uniquely associated with an address, but the metadata itself is not necessarily unique, nor the data the token may be pointing to (see EIP-721). BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I see merit in your reasons and have boldly removed the word from the lede. Mewnst (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

the piece of data can be uniquely associated with an address This is true of any crypto. What makes NFTs special is their "non-fungibility", and "unique" is the MOS:FIRST-compliant plain English way of expressing this characteristic. JBchrch talk 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that per MOS:FIRST "unique" can introduce confusion. Their "non-fungability" doesn't imply uniqueness, it implies that they are non-interchangeable, which is what we already have in the lead. BeŻet (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't introduce confusion at all. "Unique" is used by numerous sources to describe NFTs. [1] ("NFTs are designed to be unique") [2] ("Take nonfungible tokens, or NFTs, which are unique bits of code on a blockchain") [3] ("“Non-fungible” more or less means that it’s unique and can’t be replaced with something else") [4] ("Non-fungible digital assets are unique goods that don’t have interchangeable value") [5] ("The CryptoPunks were non-fungible tokens—unique digital assets") Besides, I don't see the conceptual distinction between unique and non-fungible: they're synonymous. JBchrch talk 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is an oft-repeated mantra for media about NFTs written for mass consumption, but those sources are wrong about a key detail. Sure, the token side of things happens to be its own unique cryptographic function, but there's no verification at all that the underlying file asset is unique. One could make thousands of NFTs of an identical picture of their favorite shirt. They'd all have an equal, non-unique interchangeable value. There is a dangerous implicit assumption that this "uniqueness" of NFTs is a guarantee, of some form or another, that an NFT is going to represent a unique underlying file. That popular misconception alone is good enough reason to avoid using the word in the article when broadly describing NFTs.

Since you brought up that "non-fungible" is synonymous with "unique", allow me to bring up a counterpoint: the United States dollar. Each physical dollar has its own serial number, each one is truly unique. But it's fungible as well. Every physical dollar is equal to any other physical dollar, but all are unique. "Non-fungibile" and "unique" are not synonymous. Mewnst (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

there's no verification at all that the underlying file asset is unique Which is irrelevant, because the first sentence refers to the unit of data recorded on the digital ledger, which, as you say, happens to be unique. The term "non-fungible token" refers to the token, i.e. the sign recorded in the ledger, and that's what we need to define in the first sentence. One could make thousands of NFTs of an identical picture of their favorite shirt: yes, but each of those NFT would be individuated on the blockchain as a non-fungible token, otherwise it would just be a regular fungible crypto. There is a dangerous implicit assumption that this "uniqueness" of NFTs is a guarantee, of some form or another, that an NFT is going to represent a unique underlying file We do not sell tokens ourselves, so we need not concern ourselves about potential liability. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS we don't need to save the world, either. We need to be honest and understandable about what non-fungible tokens are, and for this purpose there's no getting around the fact that non-fungible and unique are equivalent terms.

About your example on the dollar, there's no nice way of saying this, but you misunderstand the concept of fungibility/non-fungibility. Fungibility is always relative to someone or to a specific transaction. There's no absolute fungibility/non-fungibility. Lawyers and courts have been thinking about this for centuries. A stack of dollar bills is fungible in the context of me buying a beer. But a stack of dollars is not fungible in a context where the clean origin of the bills is important to the transaction. A classic example is a shirt: a white shirt of a certain size is fungible when it's at store (interchangeable with any similar shirt), but it's non-fungible when I bring it to the cleaners, because the cleaners needs to make sure that they return my specific shirt and not a similar one. However, we need not concern ourselves about all of this for the first sentence of this article, because NFTs are non-fungible by definition: it's in the name of the thing. If you dispute that NFTs are non-fungible, then not only are you contradicting the vast majority of the sources, you are also contradicting the concept that they are "non-interchangeable". Again, there's no getting around the fact that non-fungible = non-interchangeable = unique.

Finally, since I know this is going to come up, I'm acknowledging that in practice there are series of fungible NFTs and other bullshit of that nature. But we can expand on this in the body, and not in the first sentence, which is supposed to give a clear and understandable definition of the subject matter according to the most standard understanding. JBchrch talk 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede should unambiguously communicate what the subject matter is. NFTs are non-fungible cryptographic doohickeys. Adding the word "unique" adds a lot of needless ambiguity ("unique in what sense?"). "Unique" is something that could apply to any major cryptographic function, like with SHA-2. But, the SHA-2 page still manages to never mention the word "unique". Why do NFTs get this special treatment for having "unique" thrown in front of its cryptographic functions? It's not descriptive and too vague.

How would WP:RGW apply to this correction in language? NFTs are not an area of advocacy, and I'm simply an editor who thinks that NFTs are best explained without using a certain word. For all we know, "unique" is merely a lingual relic from old public relations work to push out a misleading but alluring description of a newfangled cryptothing. Mewnst (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your comparison to cryptographic functions, and your earlier mention of its own unique cryptographic function. NFTs are not functions, they are a form of data stored in a distributed ledger, which have the characteristic of being individualizable. I invoked RGW because I'm reading that this article needs to correct a popular misconception and a misleading but alluring description, when in fact what is being targeted is actually correct information. The bottom line is that conceptually and definitionally "non-fungible", "non-interchangeable" and "unique" are equivalent, and that "unique" is used in plenty of high-quality sources. I have seen no strong rebuttal to this. JBchrch talk 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitions could be argued all day, but the core issue that BeŻet brought up is how NFTs are not necessarily unique in their metadata or pointing links. They are not consistently unique in any worthwhile sense of the word.

Why do you feel the need to throw "you misunderstand" and "you dispute that NFTs are non-fungible" and "you are contradicting the concept" into this discussion? Stop misrepresenting my statements and being this hostile over a petty disagreement over definitions. Rude. Mewnst (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile. I think that you are wrong and I'm telling you what I think straight and without bullshiting you with superficial politeness like "have you considered..." or "in my humble view...". This is not a petty disagreement, and I'm honestly baffled to read this: the sentence that we are talking about gets thousands of views per day, so it's absolutely crucial that we get it right. To the point: NFTs are unique because contrary to bitcoins, you only get one of each as a technical matter. Again, as I've said below, I think that there may be some misunderstanding here about what NFTs are, and how they work. JBchrch talk 02:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't just get "one of each", there's nothing stopping you from getting two or more of the same NFTs if more are minted. Both will just have different IDs. I don't think NFTs are unique in any meaningful way. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If they get different IDs, they are unique. If it's the same NFT minted twice, then they are fungible with each other, so they aren't NFTs. In any case, I've provided high-quality sources saying that they are unique. JBchrch talk 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course they still are NFTs, a lot NFTs are sold this way, and we have the right to question sources if they regurgitate marketing material from NFT sellers if we can present compelling evidence that they are wrong. BeŻet (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case what you should argue for the removal of "non-interchangeable" as well, because there's no conceptual difference between the two words. And no, we don't have the right to question the (high-quality reliable) sources unless we are in WP:FRINGE territory, which we aren't. JBchrch talk 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rereading this conversation, I get the feeling that you read "unique" as in "this apartment is truly unique" or "this is a unique job opportunity". I hope that it's not the case, and that there's no misunderstanding about the fact that "uniqueness" is a characteristic of the "unit of data" mentioned later in the sentence, which derives from its non-fungibility. JBchrch talk 01:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I read "unique" as "one of a kind". NFTs achieve non-fungibility through cryptographic/technical means, but this uniqueness is superficial by itself. The underlying asset/file/pointer link/metadata of the NFT is not necessarily unique, and frequently duplicated (as forgeries or stolen works from DeviantArt or limited series collectables of a single file or whatever else).

I believe this disagreement between us arises from a far bigger issue with the article. This article is not limited in scope to NFTs themselves, but also covers what digital files NFTs are popularly associated with. If this article was more appropriately limited in scope to the technology itself, there wouldn't be any issue with mentioning that the uniqueness of each token makes it all non-fungible. But, this article makes the error of conflating this pure description with the files that are often tacked onto an NFT. So much emphasis is placed on the artwork and the projects and the vidya games and the noise. It fails to properly communicate that the underlying files that NFTs point to exist outside of the realm of NFTs. It's instead this chimeric wash of art auction info rather than an informative page on the subject matter, and editors are left bickering about whether or not "unique" is okay to use because of the unresolved metadata issues in the technology. Information on the associated metadata of NFTs makes up 80% of the page for no good reason, and it coloured my reasoning for avoiding the term. Sorry for being a hardass about this. I'm a fucking idiot for not taking a chainsaw to the art shit already. Mewnst (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you as a matter of WP:TRUTH, but as a matter of MOS:FIRST this is in contradiction with the vast majority of the sources on the topic, which explain that NFTs are used to individualize some sort of ownership over digital files. And you really don't have to apologize for being a hardass about it, not only because you weren't, but also because being a hardass is what this Wikipedia thing is all about 🙃. JBchrch talk 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rereading your comment I just want to say that I agree with everything from It fails to properly communicate to 80% of the page for no good reason. JBchrch talk 15:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Change Curio Cards, to Curio Cards (the first art project on the Ethereum blockchain), 2601:409:8500:3D00:9DE3:FF81:EB43:AE3F (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, that additional statement would need a source to confirm it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, can you lift the semi-protection so I can fix the Wikipuffery please? Gabi Salinas (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 20 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adamdinofa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dalecri.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joshn49.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiefany, Briannlongzhao, AliciaAdiwidjaja.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notkc01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Connormem. Peer reviewers: Trueedits1009.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

change Curio Cards to Curio Cards 2601:409:8500:3D00:C129:3D87:7A4D:8951 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, link added. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove wikipuffery maintenance template?

The maintenance template at the top of this article, noting that it “may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts” has been up since May 2 or so. Can this be taken down, or do people think the article still has these issues associated with it? Dtetta (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dtetta: I do think the article still has significant puffery issues. The article gives undue weight and frequent mention of the speculation of people who are inclined to promote the topic (such as NFT investors). It additionally hides the unsavory and unresolved contradictions around the attempt to create a legitimate proof of ownership within a completely unregulated (and often extralegal) market. Both of these issues, and many more, remain accurately recognized by the maintenance template. Mewnst (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it still has puffery issues.

-"Increased public awareness" as a subheading in history. This is leading the reader towards an understanding that NFTs are already a part of the public consciousness. I think "Rapid growth" is more accurate and more neutral.

-The same problem appears right below this in Uses, like the phrases "High-profile auctions" and "considerable public attention." Uses also lists far too many specific examples of NFTs which have been minted. The section should be trimmed before the puffery label can be removed. tellison11232 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I need to fix possible Wikipuffery on the Non-fungible token page.

Hello there, I'm Gabi. I need to fix possible Wikipuffery on this NFT article, but I can't edit. Can someone else do this for me? I currently have 4 edits and getting started editing on Wikipedia. Gabi Salinas (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Signed, IAmChaos 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article, made a few edits, and believe that the puffery warning can be removed. I have boldly done so. If anyone thinks specific statements include puffery, please point them out and I, or another editor, may be able to fix them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

NFT promotion methods

There is a large pool of self NFT promotion methods, one is to use automated bots to do the job, I think it would be a good idea to expand this Wiki entry by adding information about it a showcase of real-world example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bShLx11OhMA

Just a thought, because it's getting more and more popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hermès legal action against artist

There is a new article today in The Guardian newspaper about the French luxury house Hermès starting legal action against an artist named Mason Rothschild. It says that Mason created NFT tokens of Hermes' Birkin bags without Hermes' permission and that those tokens which were sold to make money for Mason violates the trademark rights of Hermes. Would I be able to or could and editor with permission include this blurb in the Fashion subsection of this page? source: Agence France-Presse (January 22, 2022). "Hermès suing American artist over NFTs inspired by its Birkin bags". www.theguardian.com. Retrieved January 22, 2022. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this is due inclusion in the article. It's just yet another example of IP rights violations through NFT use. Perhaps the article could be cited as part of a series of sources to support a statement similar to There have been cases of artists having their work sold by others as an NFT, without permission., a sentence currently in the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

NFT Scheme

I sugget to put also the NFT Scheme: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NFT_Non_Fungible_Token_-_Explained.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioTaddei (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, it's self-promotional to compare your own NFT art to the Mona Lisa, it's flagged as having insufficient permission for a derivative work, and ultimately it's not a very good or useful infographic (Ethereum is equivalent to the Louvre?). --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

NFT P2E Games

- Blockstars: Blockstars is a deeply social and immersive music management simulation game. Gameplay is based on the real-world passage of time, where each minted Blockstar has its own attributes (talent and personality based on Myers Briggs Framework) that can only be discovered through gameplay. It is being designed and built by a team of veteran game makers, who specialize in emerging technology to embrace the best of what the Solana blockchain enables for gaming: true Play-to-Earn, true ownership of in-game assets, and true ownership stake in the future Roadmap of Blockstar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlamencosOnline (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New source

Hi. My thread did not get any responses, so I'd like to bring it back to present a source I'd like to have used for the article. The thread in question can be found here, but is also copied below.

== 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

Thank you. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

NFT additional blockchain

Hi, under Standards in Blockchains > Other Blockchains, I would like to add the blockchain Proton because it also supports NFTs. The websites for Proton NFTs are: protonmint.com and www.protonmarket.com

It's a layer1 blockchain (protonchain.com) same as the others listed there in that section.

Thankyou I look forward to hearing back from you. Martian333 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether that list should be removed altogether, as the threshold for inclusion seems unclear. BeŻet (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks BeZet for the thoughtful reply. My assumption for inclusion was that they are all Layer1 blockchains, but yes there are certainly others missing from that list, such as RVN for example. Ethereum rightly dominates the section, being the blockchain which the original NFT standard was developed for, but I suppose if other blockchains used the Ethereum NFT standards and NFT standard was the criteria, however other blockchains use other NFT standards, for example Tezos FA2. So if the criteria is a layer1 blockchain which doesn't necessarily use Ethereum NFT standards, in other words a genuine alternative to what Ethereum offers, then it would make sense to keep the list. Martian333 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• VeKings.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

Remove "and structure of the NFT market to be a ponzi scheme.". No reliable source was provided. That is a personal belief, mostly coming from people with insufficient knowledge about the underlying technology. NFTs are simply data stored on the blockchain. Like every real or virtual object, NTFs value is based on supply and demand and is the price or amount that someone is willing to pay. The ponzi scheme definition simply does not fit either the NFTs market or its structure. Certainly, you can create a ponzi scheme using NFTs, as you can with literally anything; but that does not make the NFTs market a ponzi scheme in itself. The structure of the NFTs market is just like eBay, with the extra functionality of being able to send offers to an item not listed for sale since that is simply public data on the blockchain. GiacomoScudiero (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is sources in the article body, and they're is a section discussing the ponzi scheme label. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Etheria presentation Devcon1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022

Nicoroscio (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC) NFTs and the blockchain technology, even tho right now are considered electricity-intensive and therefore not good for the environment, are getting better every day. The blockchain technology is a technology for the people, and therefore requires mass adoption to be perfected. There are numerous studies and logical reasons to make us think that those energy-related problems will diminish until total disappearance.

 Not done You need a reliable source to support that material; otherwise, it's original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It's also not true. The Blockchain needs some instance that decides which tree is the correct chain everyone relies on. NFTs are part of that blockchains. To avoid a central instance like a bank or a government, blockchain uses mostly proof of work. A mathematical problem to solve. Which is designed to be hard to solve. It is designed to be resource intensive because that's what makes it safe. By requiring a lot of resources it avoids that someone can just buy a lot of servers and rewrite the whole blockchain. So with proof of work it will always need enormous amounts of energy by design. The alternative currently tried is proof of stake. Ethereum (which most NFTs are based on) tries to introduce that for years but haven't found a good way to implement it. With that method those with the most money decide what is in the blockchain. There are a lot of attack vectors and as there is no central institution, an attack that can get control over the blockchain can not be undone. That's the reason, that most transactions are still proofed by proof of work. "Mass adoption" will not help to make it work. Also if masses adopt it there will be much much more transactions. Block sizes can be increased, but it will still be hard to process them all. Also all the transactions have to be stored in the blockchain, which makes it very big. Let's calculate that for Bitcoin. In 2020 Bitcoin has around 300'000 Transactions per Day, so 109'500'000 in 2020. The Size has grown about 60 GB in 2020. So 2 transactions per kB. EU alone had 127'092'800'000 payment transactions. So it would grow every year by 70 TB just for the EU payments. And that Data has to be stored on the participants devices and has to be shared over the network. Even transmitting and storing that transactions with so many participants would produce a lot of emissions. So the blockchain technology is not for the masses. Not for crypto currencies and not for NFTs as NFTs are more like expensive status symbols for the rich. Nothing that is interesting for the masses. -- Nico Düsing (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Uses section

Is the style of the current "Uses" section detrimental to covering the topic in an encyclopedic manner?

Survey

• Yes, as starter — I believe that the current uses section reads like a list of news items/headlines rather than a comprehensive analysis of how NFTs are used. Additionally, as all criticism is left for the "Issues and criticisms" section at the bottom of the article rather than throughout the article, it means that readers that come across the section are not given a concise understanding of how NFTs are used.
  Additionally, having separate subsections for things like games and media does not make much sense to me as, from my understanding, there is not much difference in what the NFTs of these mediums are (a certificate of authenticity/ownership and not the work itself). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I believe that this RfC should be withdrawn, as (if I'm not mistaken) I don't see that we've had a previous non-consensual discussion about this. The first step should probably be to reduce the size of the "unwanted" content through bold editing, and then launch an RfC if a discussion about a contested edit leads to nowhere. JBchrch talk 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. I've just been avoiding bold edits.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022

I want to edit it to tell them it’s a scam and just screenshot it and repost it 50.207.170.22 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Clear vandalism. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Lead image

Shouldn't the lead section have an image of an NFT of some sort? Wretchskull (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

How about the Bored Ape image? 216.190.3.12 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Leading section image

Leading section definitely deserves an image that depicts a diagram of how NFTs operate. A reader wanting factual, "dramaless" information may want to know in a neutral perspective on how NFTs work, rather than getting the perception that NFTs are all about fancy artwork and all that internet dramatization. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

Addition to Increased public Awareness (2017-present)

In 2020, the U.S Patent and Trademark Office received just 3 trademark applications for NFTs. In 2021, the number of trademark applications jumped to over 1200. In January of 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received 450 NFT-related trademark applications. The growing list of brands being trademarked for NFTs includes the NYSE, Star Trek, Panera, Walmart, Elvis Presley, Sports Illustrated, Ticketmaster, and Yahoo. Lawtalker9898 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawtalker9898 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lawtalker9898: This was caught in an edit filter due to a glitch. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done Sources seem solid and sources back up what you want inserted. Thank you kindly! —Sirdog (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Other blockchains to add

Been so long since I've edited Wiki that I'm out of touch.

In section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-fungible_token#Others one of the biggest NFT blockchains is missing: WAX. Source material can be found at https://on.wax.io/wax-io/ and the most common marketplace is atomichub.io with neftyblocks.com being the more robust choice for NFT creator tools.

97.120.212.15 (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be notable. Non-primary sources would be needed. Mewnst (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A simple web search (https://www.google.com/search?q=biggest+NFT+blockchains) reveals: https://dappradar.com/nft, https://pixelplex.io/blog/top-ten-blockchains-for-nft-development/, https://beincrypto.com/nft-ecosystems-top-5-of-2021-according-to-beincrypto-staff/, https://www.creativebloq.com/features/nft-crypto-which-is-best, etc.

The article is also missing Matic, Binance Smart Chain and several others. Kinda reads like 2019. I guess you can't talk about WAX without mentioning it's parent chain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOS.IO (though WAX was on ETH in the early days). In fact, this was the chain that Garbage Pail Kids chose (also Streetfighter, Weezer, Robotech, Funko, Hot Wheels etc, etc) for their releases. I guess if you don't spend any time in the NFT space or you're happy paying ETH gas fees then it could seem irrelevant but those names seem pretty relevant to me. No skin off my back. Probably better to keep the gems hidden anyway :-D ETH may be the biggest NFT chain but only because it's been around so long. Compared to the others though, it quite frankly sucks for NFTs. Here's hoping that ETH 2.0 fixes that.

97.120.212.15 (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Crypto blogs are most usually unreliable, fly-by-night publications. Something greater is needed. Mewnst (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this is just about adding a couple lines to the article. I think I can still handle that. I guess I don't need to write the article on the WAX blockchain since there isn't one for Flow either. I just want to be sure that whoever feels they need to custodian this article aren't going to immediately revert my changes. That's what turned me off from contributing anything more so many years ago.

97.120.212.15 (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This page would be damn near unreadable if it became a coat rack for every "notable" NFT release. It still has some issues, but it was especially terrible 6 months ago with "first fried potato as a .SVG NFT" type nonsense flooding the page. No. Mewnst (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not talking about every NFT release, I'm talking about the backbone of NFTs, the blockchains that they exist on. The continents as it were. That list of projects I posted was to establish relevance of the WAX blockchain. I had no intention of listing all of those. So far there's just one fairly adamant vote against rounding out the list from someone with a pretty light revision history here. Anyone else with a little more exposure to blockchains and NFT have a little more constructive input? In the meantime "Forbes WAX NFT" pulled up this if you are interested in reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2022/01/26/everything-you-want-to-know-about-nfts-but-are-embarrassed-to-ask-from-the-king-of-nfts/?sh=754f66db7315

If not, here are a few choice quotes from the article that oughta solidify the case:

"WAX is also the leading entertainment NFT network."

"Quigley points out that the power of his blockchain allows for this volume and is superior to other protocols, such as Ethereum, Solana and Polygon."

97.120.212.15 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That source is also unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. So, no. Mewnst (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, let's remove reference 61 and 118 then. And obviously I'm being met with an unconstructive 'no' instead of positive collaboration. Nice to see wikipedia is still guarded by stodges. I'm sorry your own couple of edits got reversed or denied but please don't re-project that to the rest of the site. 97.120.131.149 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Those two other Forbes sources are not Forbes "contributors," but are instead Forbes staff working under editorial oversight. Forbes does a terrible job of visually differentiating unreliable contributors and the better work hosted on their website, so the confusion is understandable. No harm in being laconic. Keep in mind competence is required to edit Wikipedia, and having standards isn't being an annoying stodge. I have no idea what reverts you're referring to, but talk pages are not a platform for interpersonal drama or whatever else you're trying to invent here. Mewnst (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mewnst is correct here. IP, you would have to provide sources of a much higher quality (think New York Times, Wall Street Journal) if you want to achieve consensus that the mention of this blockchain is warranted. JBchrch talk 04:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir for some guidance instead of blockades. 97.120.131.149 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the reference to competence which is why I'm reaching out for conversation and help. In doing so, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers 97.120.131.149 (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Things have changed quite a bit since I was editing over 10 years ago. NYT acknowledged a while ago that WAX exists and uses it in the same breath as ETH/OpenSea. Assuming Steven Kurutz is not a persona non grata on Wikipedia. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/14/style/teens-nft-art.html 97.120.131.149 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tell ya what, I have better things to do. So, I'll drop these 2 links here and anyone else can feel free to add or not add WAX as one of the top blockchains in the world. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00053-8 https://www.yahoo.com/now/wax-rises-2-nft-sales-190800934.html. If Wikipedia is truly subjective then there should be little problem adding it. However a Google search of "is wikipedia subjective" is rather eye opening and confirms what I felt coming back. Comment if you feel the need to justify an argument but for your good riddance I'm closing this tab and won't see any witty rebuttal. Save your writing skills for making Wikipedia a better place. 97.120.131.149 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources you brought up are interesting, and I'll give them consideration. However, we are all volunteers here and not paid to be your personal customer service. I invite you to ponder this when you'll inevitably see this as you load this page "one last time" to check whether anyone has responded to you. JBchrch talk 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Other uses section

The text now includes at the end the following:

In February 2022 a woman bought at auction a five-bedroom, three-and-half-bath house near Tampa Bay, Florida for 210 Ether, the equivalent of US$653,000 at the time of the sale. The sale transferred ownership of the house from the seller to a limited liability company; ownership of the LLC was then automatically transferred to the auction winner and the seller received the crypto payment in her digital wallet.[clarification needed][94]

It is totally unclear from either this text, or the 'Fortune' article cited, how this transaction amounted to trade in an NFT: all that apparently happened was that a person paid in cryptocurrency for a house that was owned by a company at the time of the transaction. What was the token in this instance? Sbishop (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I cut it out. My guess is that whoever put that in confused the purchase of digital real estate in virtual worlds as NFTs with the practice of using cryptocurrencies to purchase physical real estate. Mewnst (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Buying real estate as an NFT is not yet a widely accepted ofr common practice, first step; you would have to find a seller willing to accept crypto as a method of payment, Second step; keep in mind that it is common in some states to use a third party, like an escrow company to facilitate the transaction between Buyer and Seller, and a Title company to insure the title against any defects that can lead to loses or liabilities to the new owner, therefore the use of NFTs to purchase real estate is not yet a common practice. The technology used for NFTs known as blockchain is an excellent tool for the transfer of title between Buyers and Sellers, but the real estate industry is not quite ready to start mass addoption of this new technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Level23Media (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove useless ve image here

Remove the ve image "pixel art" crap: this is hidden advertising, what is this image and why is it put into this entry on Wikipedia? Read above the paragraphs which NFT projects are relevant, this is useless here. Before, there was a Hashmask for example which is much more relevant to understand this content

Request for removal:

Some digital art NFTs, like these pixel art characters, are examples of generative art.

Change to: make a reference to a mentioned NFT project, e.g. Cryptokitties or the work form Beeple, etc.

Aethyx (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it does a good job at educating our readers on the type of art that is popular for NFTs. However, it would be nice perhaps for someone to make some art that doesn't reference an actual NFT project due to the well-founded promotional concerns. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps someone (with better art skills then me) could pull a Catgirl and make a Wikipe-tan image? casualdejekyll 14:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request while discussion takes place, per template instructions. Seems that multiple people involved in the conversation can make an edit when they see fit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to replace with CryptoPunks

File:Cryptopunks general.jpg I agree with Aethyx that we can probably find a more illustrative picture than this. How about the image used in the infobox at CryptoPunks? JBchrch talk 16:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

Change "were being used to mine[clarification needed] user IP addresses" to "were being used to unknowingly gather users IP addresses."

Thanks! Article in the citations suggests malicious code can be inserted in to NFT marketplaces. Such as secret IP gathering. Peterrwerner (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Howdy! I changed the text to the following:

• In January 2022, it was reported that some NFTs were being exploited by sellers to unknowingly gather user IP addresses.

Is that good? Mewnst (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This request seems to have been  Partly done without issue, so ill close it for now. If the original request opener has an issue with this phrasing, they can simply re-open the request. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading mention of unique identifiers, or lack thereof

The final sentence of the opening paragraph says - "Because each token is uniquely identifiable, NFTs differ from most cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, which are fungible". That first phrase is misleading, suggesting that it is the lack of unique identifiers that makes cryptocurrencies fungible, when it is actually the interchangeability of cryptocurrencies that makes them fungible. It would be best if the first phrase was simply dropped for now and the sentence changed to - "NFTs differ from most cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, which are fungible". I know this article needs a lot more work but I think that misleading statement in the opening paragraph shoud be corrected as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylornk (talk • contribs) 09:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Ancient Courses of Fictional Rivers, Robert Hodgin.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

to be added under the Music section

- In April 2022, The Crystal Method auctioned their new lead single’s music video “Watch Me Now” as an NFT.

https://blog.cryptoflies.com/the-crystal-method-auctions-new-music-video-as-an-nft-on-makersplace/

to be added under the Film section

- In April, 2022 American filmmaker, actor, and author Kevin Smith released his new horror film KillRoy Was Here as an NFT that features behind-the-scenes material, exclusive content from the film, and a commentary track (per Deadline).

source: https://blog.cryptoflies.com/kevin-smith-announces-new-horror-film-killroy-was-here-to-be-released-as-an-nft/ Nft359 (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Declined as promotional WP:EXAMPLEFARM, with crypto blog sources. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The first known NFT was not Quantum and the inventors are likely not Kevin McCoy and Anil Dash

I recommend to adjust the text under Source [19] as follows.

Although Sothebys claims to have sold the first "known" NFT called Quantum [19], which was created by Kevin McCoy and Anil Dash in 2014, there is cryptographic proof that digital art has been tokenized much earlier in 2013.

The award-winning visual artist Jonathan Monaghan worked with Trent and Masha McConaghy and Yanislav Malahov to tokenize and timestamp his artwork on the Bitcoin network [Source 1: https://rare.makersplace.com/2022/02/16/exclusive-interview-with-nft-artist-jonathan-monaghan/] [Source 2: https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ascribe-for-nft-archaeologists-17ca5481d206].

One transaction [Source: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/13b5828c281bb2c8a9448bd3cbebdae9a592ba4a6b55ec4aad79b4625cb85e4c ] dates back to November 2013, which referred to the project called 'Keidom' that was also timestamped later in an official U.S. patent filing [Source: https://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(%22mcconaghy%22.IN.)&OS=IN/%22mcconaghy%22&RS=IN/%22mcconaghy%22].

Later in 2014, Trent McConaghy and his business partner Bruce Pon established ascribe, the world's first NFT Marketplace built on the Bitcoin blockchain. Both worked with art galleries, museums and creators directly, registering 31,900 artworks and 118'690 editions on the Bitcoin network [Source: https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ascribe-for-nft-archaeologists-17ca5481d206]. Both have discontinued the project and ascribe has since been dormant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1A3F:198F:99DA:1A18:2491:E48F (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Change "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a financial security consisting of digital data stored in a blockchain, a form of distributed ledger." to "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital contract stored in a blockchain, a form of distributed ledger."

Rationale - The Howey test determines if an asset can be called a security. And the SEC has not labeled NFTs Securities. https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2021/petn4-771.pdf To apply the term "Security" to NFTs generally is wrong and misleading. Marcusfranklin123456789 (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The definition and tests thereof change by jurisdiction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed NFT's have not been deemed a security so it is misleading to say NFT's are a "financial security" Serpunk (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree The "digital contract" description is much more accurate and sums up what an NFT is nicely, and "financial security" is both misleading and discounts NFTs' theoretical non-financial applications. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (he/him | talk) 21:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Disagree While I agree that describing it as a financial security is misleading and unbacked, to improve the quality of this article it should be replaced by a definition that is veriafiable. I propose instead we proceed with the edit described below.

Also, It's a misconception to state that a NFT is a digital contract, as in fact the term refers to a non-fungible token, that is, one of the records in a smart contract. It's more correct to state that a NFT is a record in a smart contract, instead of the contract itself.

Volkye (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Update definition and back it up with sources

The headline definition is missing sources (WP:SOURCES):

"A non-fungible token (NFT) is a financial security consisting of digital data stored in a blockchain, a form of distributed ledger. The ownership of an NFT is recorded in the blockchain, and can be transferred by the owner, allowing NFTs to be sold and traded."

I couldn't find reliable sources to back up that definition, so I propose changing it to:

"A non-fungible token (NFT) is a record on a blockchain representing ownership over digital media. The ownership of an NFT can be transferred by the owner, allowing NFTs to be sold and traded."

Volkye (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree the introduction could be improved but saying that an NFT represents ownership over digital media isn't right and the existing introduction goes on to explain this. Something like "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a record on a blockchain which is associated with a particular digital or physical asset." would be in line with the wording under Characteristics. JaggedHamster (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"associated with a particular digital or physical asset" is vague about the kind of association. It does, by definition, imply a relation of ownership.

See the canonical source, https://ethereum.org/en/nft/:

"NFTs are tokens that we can use to represent ownership of unique items"

Also, https://www.newscientist.com/definition/nft-non-fungible-tokens/:

"An NFT is a cryptographic record of ownership for a unique item that is encoded into a blockchain"

So, what about:

"A non-fungible token (NFT) is a record on a blockchain representing ownership over a unique item. The ownership of an NFT can be transferred by the owner, allowing NFTs to be sold and traded." Volkye (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunely ethereum.org is not a good source for this claim, we should be using reliable secondary sources as much as possible and not a primary source, particularly one with an incentive to promote NFTs. The New Scientist is a better source but many other reliable sources disagree that NFTs convey ownership, the introduction does a good job summarising the situation: "Proponents of NFTs claim that NFTs provide a public certificate of authenticity or proof of ownership, but the legal rights conveyed by an NFT can be uncertain. The ownership of an NFT as defined by the blockchain has no inherent legal meaning, and does not necessarily grant copyright, intellectual property rights, or other legal rights over its associated digital file". JaggedHamster (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with:

"A non-fungible token (NFT) is a record on a blockchain which is associated with a particular digital or physical asset.", but we should include some inline sources

Do we need to wait up on more editors to establish WP:CONSENSUS or can I use Template:Edit_semi-protected already as we are the only ones participating? Volkye (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Section on destroying physical objects as NFTs

the article already mentions a Banksy print being burned and turned into an NFT,[6] there are some other noteworthy examples, which as a whole probably deserve their own section.

Examples:

overview articles on destroying art for NFTs, including the SpiceDAO story that tried to buy a Dune screenplay (and possibly burn it). [7][8]

a Frida Kahlo painting being burned, including a police investigation [9] [10] [11]

Damien Hirst offering buyers to either get the physical artwork or NFT, the other one gets destroyed [12] [13] [14]

a Basquiat drawing being auctioned with a similar proposition [15] and his estate backing down after controversy [16]

blowing up a Lamborghini and turning the video of the explosion into NFTs [17] [18]

NFT of a destroyed diamond sells for more than its original value [19]

--jonas (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Proof of stake etherium

This article still states etherium uses proof-of-work. However, they now use proof-of-state, which results in a huge energy reduction 2A02:A477:3266:1:31B7:F527:BE86:332C (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

Recommend the following changes: -Dete Shirley included as the author of the NFT and ERC 721 -Cryptokitties included as one of the NFT projects launched in conjunction with ERC-721

The changes would be in this paragraph: The term "NFT" only achieved wider usage with the ERC-721 standard, first proposed by Dapper Labs CTO Dieter "Dete" Shirley in 2017 along with the phrase "non-fungible token" via the Ethereum GitHub, following the launch of various NFT projects that year.[28][29] The standard coincided with the launch of several NFT projects, including Curio Cards, CryptoPunks (a project to trade unique cartoon characters, released by the American studio Larva Labs on the Ethereum blockchain),[30][31] rare Pepe trading cards and Cryptokitties.[28]

Sources for Dete Shirley as author: https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cryptocurrency/22/09/28923395/nft-day-is-september-20-heres-what-to-know-about-the-first-annual-holiday https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/cryptocurrency/international-nft-day-why-is-it-celebrated-and-whats-the-road-ahead/articleshow/94322480.cms

Source for Cryptokitties as one of the first 2017 NFT projects https://fortune.com/2017/12/04/blockchain-cryptokitties-ethereum/ 107.219.194.231 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see why these are notable, and we'll need a better source than "international nft day trivia" to verify the author part Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove or update the description of The NFT Bay

Under "Unenforceability of copyright", I see a mention to "The NFT Bay":

"This criticism was promoted by Australian programmer Geoffrey Huntley who created "The NFT Bay", modeled after The Pirate Bay. The NFT Bay advertised a torrent file purported to contain 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images."

This is unfortunately not true, as the 19-terabyte torrent file is just full of zeroes, you can verify it yourself here: https://gist.github.com/zhuowei/ebd5601f7dd8e5ee186bf302874e0a4c 2A0E:1C80:12:0:0:0:0:50 (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BL33701 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by BL33701 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Non-fungible token

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Non-fungible token's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

• From Tom Brady: Princiotti, Nora (February 1, 2021). "Tom Brady Took a Road Less Traveled for His Super Bowl Return". The Ringer. Archived from the original on September 10, 2021. Retrieved November 12, 2021.
• From Bitcoin: "This Billionaire Just Called Bitcoin a 'Pyramid Scheme'". Fortune. Archived from the original on 24 September 2017. Retrieved 23 September 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

other uses

On October 2022, AirBaltic launched a NFT collection with benefits for the airBaltic Club loyalty programme. [20]2A02:2455:460:DA00:5D18:5ED2:E725:7553 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source explaining why it matters. Few crypto outlets are reliable. Grayfell (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The usages of NFT have also generally increased since then. This page indirectily misinforms people by only focusing on the asset and picture side. It much more reflects the publics understanding of the technology and bias towards the technology then giving a neutral approach towards the technology. Consider how to properly discuss modern NFT relationship with smart contracts for example. While you can discuss if it is a reliable source here is how for example different ecosystems discuss NFTs to understand how they are claimed to be used https://docs.stacks.co/docs/write-smart-contracts/tokens or https://messari.io/report/explain-it-like-i-am-5-nfts Other companies in healthcare have also started using NFTs in relation to their automation of data. Some aspects of even the default NFTs are naturally interlinked with smart contracts, but smart contracts get very little mention on this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runefar (talk • contribs) 07:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I'm currently working on expanding the article in accordance with my latest edits on the German page. It includes a large section on use cases in science and especially medicine. If you know about more use cases or have any other suggestions please feel free to share them, so we can all work on getting the info in the article.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've had to revert the recent changes you made, which I think were largely adding https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JasonKryptonite/sandbox&oldid=1132121064 to the article. Unfortunately almost all this content is your synthesis of primary sources. I'd encourage you to read WP:OR and WP:RS. It's also not clear how notable any of it is. I'd suggest reworking it to be based mainly on reliable secondary sources covering the topics. Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) should be of use there with regards to what are good sources. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources covering the claim that "Other companies in healthcare have also started using NFTs in relation to their automation of data"? I've seen various NFT related companies and crypto blogs claim it's a potential use for them but I've not seen any reliable sources claim they're in actual use. In case you've not seen it, WP:CRYPTO is a useful essay about the current consensus on sourcing for blockchain related articles like this. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi JaggedHamster, the entire section was based on secondary sources, most of which were papers published in peer-reviewed journals of different fields and to the best of my knowledge depict the current academic consensus on the matters discussed. I've conducted no original research whatsoever nor have I made any statements in the section that were not made in the sources mentioned. I'd kindly ask you to read the circa dozen papers mentioned to verify every single sentence. If you have any reason to believe that the section does in fact not represent the current state of research on the respective issues I'd ask you to please base that claim on references to any studies or papers I might have missed during my research for this article or show me how I've misrepresented the papers cited in the section.

Furthermore, there were exactly two primary sources mentioned in the entire section solely to enable readers to directly look up the official websites of two projects mentioned and not in order to base any claims through original research: ref 130 and 131. I'm surprised to hear that a section depicting findings made in papers published in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals including the Journal of Medical Ethics and Science would ever be considered to be a synthesis of primary sources.

The fact that the topic is part of the academic discourse provides more than enough notability in accordance with WP:Notability (cryptocurrencies)#Notability criteria as far as I can tell ― especially when considering that the recent additions have thus far been the only ones in the entire article to actually reference academic literature and not merely journalistic sources.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

One of the core problems is that you've cited a lot of papers (mostly primary sources, as they're mostly new proposals and research, not literature reviews/review articles etc) but not established via secondary sources that the papers are actually notable. It feels like you've done a lot of research into recent papers making proposals about uses for NFTs and then interpreted and summarised them. To quote from WP:OR "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." and "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.".

The "Patient data as NFTs" is largely about a single primary source which proposes a specific way to do this. How do we know this paper is notable? Similarly the "Minting patents as NFTs" is a summary of a single primary source's proposal for an approach to how to mint patents as NFTs. There's no secondary source establishing that this paper is notable. A good secondary source would let us know what is actually important to mention in each of those sections, if anything.

The "Tracking supply chains using NFTs" section is a summary of one paper proposing a particular approach and one paper which responds to that. You say "In this context one paper in particular dealing with the tracking of pharmaceutical supply chains has gained attention among academic circles" but what is the source for this claim? Similarly, what establishes that the paper by Gebreab et al is notable?

You say "The paper written by Chiacchio et al. has resonated mostly well within academic circles" but this claim seems to be WP:OR which you support by linking to various other primary sources which cite Chiacchio et al, not a secondary source which actually says that the paper "resonated mostly well".

We should be basing the article on what reliable secondary sources say regarding NFTs, not on us selecting primary sources making proposals about use cases for NFTs and summarising those. JaggedHamster (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your objections. There seems to have been a misunderstanding on my part vis-à-vis the term "primary/secondary source" due to my native's "Primärquelle/Sekundärliteratur".

This, however, could in my opinion have easily been amended by e.g. pointing it out to me on the talk page & adding an appropriate template instead of reverting every single byte of the changes I had made. An easy solution to this problem would have consisted in me making changes to the text based on your reservations by referring to and relying more on articles and books writing about the papers mentioned, despite already referencing some of those in the sections added. The sections could just as well have been shortened accordingly while almost solely referencing secondary sources despite that leaving readers with more questions than answers. Another viable alternative would be to specifically phrase the sections in a way that would make it clear that the suggestions are merely suggestions presented in academia and are furthermore fairly recent.

I must also point out that there are no scientific works that couldn't be referred to as recent on this topic. The subject has only fairly recently gained public attention with peer-reviewed journals publishing papers on the topic mostly within the past one to two years. A summary of relevant studies that are often cited by other authors based directly on the wording of the studies themselves is unavoidable if one wants to describe the proposals in question without cutting them down to a single sentence. This goes hand in hand with WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD & WP:PRIMARYCARE. The only alternative is to wait several years until even more papers and books have been published referencing the proposals in question. This seems to be a tad more strict with regard to relevancy criteria than necessary in order to improve the article and keep it up to date.

But all of that can very well be debated with everybody involved finding a viable solution that extends and thus improves the article. What really cannot be debated in my opinion is wiping out every single letter of the changes with reference to the well founded points you have made, none of which had any bearing on the following changes: [21][22][23][24][25][26] One must also mention that your reservations are only applicable to parts of the sections reverted. E.g. the first sentence here and last sentence here, which in one form or another could have remained in the article even if one were to fully agree with the points you've made.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be useful to get an outside opinion, because I suspect we're not going to agree on whether the information should be included based on the sources used. Wikipedia talk:Notability (cryptocurrencies) seems to have primarily been written by @JBchrch and @David Gerard, one of them might have useful insights? JaggedHamster (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please link the precise sources being discussed here? It's not clear from the above discussion or the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in reference to these additions and this revert.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit murky, but it looks very like using papers outside a journal's usual remit to post WP:CRYSTAL claims - ones that clearly failed - in wiki voice. I also see a crypto conference proceeding and a marketing "journal" - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's merely an attempt to showcase current discussions in academia about potential applications of the technology (i.e. state of research), not an effort to predict the future or promote something. The changes also included descriptions of how NFTs have so far been used to fund research as well as additions to other sections (money laundering etc.) with no bearing on the objections mentioned above. The objections were in reference to WP:N & WP:OR.

I still maintain that making changes to the additions based on those objections rather than simply deleting everything would be the most viable solution with regard to benefiting this encyclopedia. That will only be possible by reaching a consensus here. I have no interest in pushing any narrative here but would rather like to use my abilities & knowledge to help improve Wikipedia.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with @JaggedHamster. I've read Kostick-Quenet et al. and Fairfield and they are mostly pitching their PRIMARY ideas about NFTs. I don't think that a detailed description is relevant for an encyclopedia. I for one see no problem in waiting several years until even more papers and books have been published referencing the proposals in question. If a piece of information is liable to go out-of-date within 5-10 years, we should think really hard about including it. I should note that there are papers out there that present critically pre-existing knowledge in a sort of SECONDARY fashion, such as this one. But, again, they should be used with care. JBchrch talk 11:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you JBchrch for your input and sorry for my late reply. It seems that the majority is against including the above mentioned changes in that form & I'll refrain from including them in the article. May I suggest mentioning them in a drastically shortened version, e.g. "There have been suggestions about the usage of NFTs in ..."?

I'd also like to once again ask to reinclude those edits that were removed in the process despite not having any relation to the objections put forth.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

JBchrch & JaggedHamster: Would you agree with the last two points made?--JasonKryptonite (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I've not got any objection to including information about proposed uses as long as it's from reliable secondary sources and is WP:DUE. Similarly for any changes unrelated to what we were discussing here. JaggedHamster (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Etheria was not the first NFT project

Etheria was not the first NFT project. Different NFT projects already existed early 2015 in Counterparty (XCP) -> tokens on the Bitcoin blockchain. See https://rarepepes.com/ and https://counterparty.io/feature/ for reference Nitrodo (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Rare Pepe says that their associated NFTs were first created in 2016 and seems reliably sourced. The term was first used to refer to memes in 2015, I think that's mixed you up. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I have reverted multiple recent changes to the article based on unreliable and obscure sources which appear to have been added to promotional effect. The reasoning is similar to my comments at Talk:Axie_Infinity#Recent_edits. It is not enough for an obscure or unreliable source to mention a factoid, it must be summarized in context based on reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

As just one example of the problem with these edits on this page, I dispute that this puff piece from 2021 is a reliable source at all, much less that it is sufficient for the attached, extremely dubious, extremely promotional statement In the music-industry artists are able to gain more control over their artwork without interference by third-parties by using NFTs. At best, this is WP:SYNTH but that's being generous. Every source needs to be evaluated in context and summarize from a neutral point of view. These edits appear to be digging in the paper mines to find marketing cruft of churnalism to support specific statements. That appears to be cherry picking. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the claim that artists "gain more control" over their work via NFTs:

• Jordan, Harrison (16 June 2021). "No, NFTs aren't copyrights". TechCrunch. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
• Kwan, Jacklin (20 July 2021). "An artist died. Then thieves made NFTs of her work". Wired UK. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
• Beckett, Lois (29 January 2022). "'Huge mess of theft and fraud:' artists sound alarm as NFT crime proliferates". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
• James, Benjamin (16 December 2022). "Is Web3's Promise of Creator Royalties Broken?". Billboard. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
• Brady, Dale (3 November 2022). "Market royalties for NFT creators are on the way out". Axios. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
• Castor, Amy (7 June 2021). "NFTs Are Perfectly Designed to Turbo-Charge Concerns About Money Laundering and Art—and Regulators Are Already Taking Notice". Artnet News. Retrieved 11 May 2023.
• McKenzie, Ben; Silverman, Jacob (14 January 2022). "Which Celebrity Has the Saddest NFT?". Slate. Retrieved 11 May 2023.

Etc. Vague claims of nebulous benefit are not sufficient here. Do not use out-of-date sources to imply how NFTs might work in the future. Look at what reliable sources are saying now, and summarize them neutrally. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m not trying to promote any benefits of NFTs. I’m merely trying to depict to current state of research on the topic at hand. The very introduction into the subsection as I’d originally written it made the exact point you’re making, explicitally stating how NFTs in and of themselves do not provide a sufficient legal basis for artistic copyrights almost half a year ago.

The article in musictech is being quoted in peer-reviewed technical literature that I'd explicitly referenced (Sestino et al., p. 32) in the same footnote. The only reason to include it was to enable readers without access to content of the Springer Verlag to read more about the statement made. I’d happily agree to its removal based on WP:RS. But that alone is not sufficiant for your mass-removal of content.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, it is but one example.

For another example, the removed content included these sentences:

NFTs play a role both in traditional as well as blockchainbased videogames. While in the former they usually represent cosmetic additions that can be ascribed to an individual player they are often at the very core of a blockchain game.

This is factually incorrect, unacceptably ambiguous, and fails WP:TONE. What is a "traditional video game", here? I assume "traditional" means non-blockchain. NFTs do not play a role in all traditional video games, nor in most traditional video games, nor could they even theoretically play a role in most traditional video games. This is why I say your choice of wording promotes the legitimacy of NFTs. This wording is falsely implying that NFTs have a much, much larger significance than they do based on a misrepresentation of very flimsy sources. By definition, any video game which uses NFTs is at least partly a blockchain-based game and therefor non-traditional.

Likewise, what, precisely, is "the core" of these games? Adding direct quotes from the source (while good practice in general) doesn't solve this problem. I dispute that Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & Institutions is reliable at all, but they are specifically unreliable for coverage of video game mechanics or ludology. If you attributed this to "Gonserkewitz et. al. in the journal Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & Institutions..." it would be apparent to readers that this content is inane filler and says nothing of note. Rhetorically, readers would as "Who are these people? What is this journal? Who cares?" We don't want them to ask that.

To borrow from what I said at Talk:Blockchain game#Play-to-earn, if you tried to add NFTs to a 'traditional' video game like Tetris, it either wouldn't matter in the slightest, or it would no longer be Tetris. Gonserkewitz et. al. are not saying anything about video games here, this is just bland filler-language to pad-out an obscure paper. Saying that NFTs play "a role" in these games is so fundamentally empty of meaning that it's not worth preserving in this article.

That's the deeper issue with these sentences. They don't really tell readers useful information. Just because you have done research doesn't mean that this research needs to be summarized in this article. As I said, your wording is not appropriate, and your sources are either completely unreliable, or unreliable in context. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"As I said, it is but one example." - You can't justify reverts of extensively sourced content on any single examples. If you were to name specific examples I'd be able to improve upon the content and avoid it simply being wiped out.

Sentences like "factually incorrect" in your personal POV are null and void on a platform that aims at depicting established facts as portrayed in peer-reviewed technical literature and thus academic consensus.

So far you've yet to go into specific and appropriately advanced details in order to actually justify your actions on this and other articles. I'd welcome any suggestions on how to improve the edits in question in your opinion, as I've already mentioned on your user talk here.--JasonKryptonite (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The burden is on you to gain consensus for these edits. I explained why that content isn't appropriate in detail, and you apparently just glossed-over what I said and got stuck on "factually incorrect". This isn't just my personal opinion, this is a logical contradiction in the article based on a flimsy source, which I have tried to explain. I have provided two examples and in my opinion you have not addressed either of them. Therefor, you do not have WP:CONSENSUS for this content.

Again, you cited a bad source for an extremely broad claim that is entirely outside of its area of expertise. The content you added is non-neutral filler language which will not improve a reader's understanding of the topic. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)