Talk:Non-fungible token

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024
Please remove this sentence:

The trading of NFTs in 2021 increased to $17 billion over just $82 million in the previous year.

and replace it with this:

NFT trading increased from US$82 million in 2020 to US$17 billion in 2021.

Chronological order is generally better than the reverse. Also, there are many $ currencies. The source relies on another source that labels its $ figures as USD. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 00:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024
Update the article of the history of NFTs and in popular culture as there is still news coverage of this feature as of 2024. Take a look at this site:

https://www.google.com/search?q=nft&sca_esv=859d16dfe220efcd&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS793US793&tbm=nws&prmd=invshmbtz&ei=UrrgZf-VLdiv0PEP5seNwAI&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwj_hsSYhdGEAxXYFzQIHeZjAyg4HhDy0wN6BAgEEAQ&biw=1920&bih=953&dpr=1

Also, there is still updates about this: [1 ] [2 ]

Sincerely, 205.155.225.253 (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia is not the news; it's not necessary to include every instance of NFTs in the news into this article. If you think there is a particularly noteworthy news development, please follow the instructions in WP:ER as to how to propose that change. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2024 - Adoption of NFT by conventional artist
In examples for use cases in art it is worth mentioning that internationally renowned artist Erwin Wurm released a short looping video of a red Porsche 911 that transforms into a "Fat Car" (a signature piece of Wurm) as NFT. He was one of the first and few traditional artists to use NFTs as a means to distribute his art in collaboration with Gallerie König (Berlin). 2A01:599:107:2F41:B05D:AD74:9A12:B2E2 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Why, exactly is it worth mentioning? While Erwin Wurm is noteworthy as an artist, that doesn't mean this project is noteworthy. We need better sources to be able to explain to readers why this particular project is a noteworthy example of NFTs. Looking at Sleek Magazine's about page I do not accept that this is a reliable source, and that article seems very shallow. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Evolved Apes" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolved_Apes&redirect=no Evolved Apes] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2024
Change the 'Environmental Impact' section to be more up to date. Specifically: As of 2022, Ethereum cut its energy consumption by 99.99 percent. (source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2369304-cryptocurrency-ethereum-has-slashed-its-energy-use-by-99-99-per-cent/ . If that's not an acceptable source (idk what counts), the source given on other Wikipedia pages is this one https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/ethereum-cut-its-energy-use-99-but-climate-gains-may-be-curbed, but it only states 'estimated 99 percent')

I'm pretty sure no other proof-of-work blockchains were involved with NFTs and there is no carbon-intensive NFT activity. There are none in the references, at least. Frankly, I wonder if the whole section should just be deleted now?

It may be worth keeping some of the information in the form of the past tense. e.g. "NFT purchases and sales used to involve high energy usage [174], and consequent greenhouse gas emissions, associated with blockchain transactions on Ethereum, which used an energy-intensive proof-of-work method to validate transactions. [176][177] Since 2022, Ethereum cut its energy usage by 99.99 percent by switching to proof-of-stake. Corevibes (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry, I know you deleted this as you made these edits yourself, but restoring this talk section seemed like the best way to explain why I reverted your edit.
 * Regarding these edits and my adjustment: The environmental issues are still significant to this as a topic, as environmental concerns have negatively shaped public perception of these projects. Additionally, these issues have not been entirely resolved with Ethereum's switch to PoS. Bitcoin itself now has "ordinals" which use the proof-of-work chain. I will look for sources on this, but finding reliable sources for cryptocurrency is often challenging. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a brief mention of ordinals which hopefully helps contextualize the connection to bitcoin a bit better. There are probably more and better sources for this out there. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey,
 * I understand Bitcoin has ordinals, although to my understanding these aren't non-fungible tokens. I've seen them be compared to non-fungible tokens, and described as bitcoin's 'equivalent' of non-fungible tokens, but they aren't technically non-fungible tokens themselves. I'd also argue that if they are, the rest of the article should be adapted to include them - most other statements in this article do not apply to ordinals.
 * Furthermore, the fact stands that the environmental concerns section is, currently, wrong, because it talks about Ethereum's energy consumption, incorrectly states that Ethereum uses a proof-of-work protocol, and misleads people into thinking that NFTs currently have significant environmental concerns. Ordinals environmental concerns are entirely valid - but none of the sources state that any NFTs currently have environmental concerns. Corevibes (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt we can settle whether or not ordinals are true NFTs unless we resorting to WP:OR, but I'm open to suggested sources on this. Ordinals walk like NFTs and quack like NFTs, so it's reasonable that reliable sources will use NFTs as the baseline for comparison.
 * You're right that the environmental section is out-of-date. I have adjusted it to at least partially indicate this, but more work is needed. The difficulty is that this needs to be summarized according to reliable, independent sources about the current energy usage of NFTs, but up-to-date reliable sources are scant for various reasons. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)