NFTs are interesting in the manner of which they violate certain predispositions we have about currency, such as the notion that NFTs are so unique they cannot be exchanged for something of equal value. The security NFTs provide too are what make them increasingly alluring to buyers and artists alike, the assurance that there exists an immutable record of ownership and authenticity, ‘[a] ledger maintained by thousands of computers around the world (BBC News 2021).’ What makes NFTs more accessible is that they can be created by anyone, theoretically, any individual can decide to mint their work as an NFT to be sold to the highest bidder. Granted, just because some artists turn NFTs into a hefty source of income does not mean any would-be artist can tokenize their work and expect to turn a six to seven figure profit; as David Gerard, author of Attack of the 50-foot Blockchain stated, ‘there are some artists absolutely making bank on this stuff... it’s just that you probably won’t (BBC News 2021).’ In fact, there is a possibility that in the near future that NFTs will not serve as a potential new medium for expressing digital art but rather as a means of doing business. For example, currently there exists a startup that allows people to put up their NFTs as collateral for loans. Now, while this is another use for NFTs, this avenue of collateral could not help but remind me of people putting up houses and possessions as collateral for bail. The idea that someone could put up a NFT in good faith as collateral, just for a company down the line to realize that the NFT is worth more to them than the loan and accordingly call in the loan to essentially force the individual to surrender the NFT since they know the borrower most likely cannot produce the remaining balance of the loan plus interest, is not outside the realm of possibility for business looking to expand into NFTs. After all, ‘Silicon Valley investors say the moneymaking possibilities in the NFT world are limitless (Allyn 2021),’ the question just becomes how far they will go for a stake in a new and rapidly expanding market.
Surprisingly, one of the byproducts behind NFTs are tremendous amounts of waste, the calculations required for blockchain draw massive amounts of power. Going forward, NFTs and by extension, cryptocurrencies, seem to only be becoming a larger and more intricate market, the need for the energy to complete these mining operations for cryptocurrency and maintain blockchains will only increase too. Already currently creating a sizable carbon footprint, ‘the majority of mining operations originate in China’s Sichuan province, where excess hydroelectric capacity is harnessed by mining facilities’, so much so that without the excess energy, the economy of cryptocurrency and NFTs could not be adequately supported (Connor 2020). If the demand for energy rises significantly while the supply dwindles due to a lack of accessible and renewable sources of energy, then the only ones likely able to afford mining operations towards the end of purchasing NFTs are the financially able. What is even more concerning regarding this conundrum is the fact that those minting works are not necessarily those who made created those works; Rosa Menkman has recounted the experience of finding that several examples of her glitch art had been minted as NFTs without her consent (Buskirk 2021). This presents a problem, the idea that someone, purely through their financial means, can take the artwork of others and use the minting process to essentially claim theirs as a bonafide original. Going forward with NFTs in a fair and sustainable way for all involved parties is going to require international frameworks that address everything from climate impact to copyright protections to accessibility and only time will tell whether we make these much-needed strides.