[Opinion] NFTs and How They Are Irrelevant Now 

I said it. NFTs are irrelevant. And you know just as well as me that they are - at least in their current state.

Despite its recent decline in popularity, the influence of NFTs continues to seep into popular culture. Perhaps embodying the idea that "there is no such thing as bad press", NFTs continue to draw praise (or ire), as they continue their quest to breach the public consciousness.

Who knew technology could be THIS divisive? Still, it's almost immediately evident that much of the scorn directed at NFTs comes from a place of misunderstanding. After all, it's fairly self-evident that people who joke about the notion "right-click, save as" demonstrate a misguided analysis of what NFTs fundamentally are.

Depicted: The evolution of artistic larceny

Wait, w-what are NFTs?
But let's cue the explainer - in case you've been living under a rock the last few years, NFTs, or non-fungible tokens, are digital assets that use blockchain technology to verify their authenticity and ownership. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, which are interchangeable and have the same value, NFTs are unique and can represent anything from a digital artwork to a tweet or a virtual real estate property. NFTs have gained popularity in recent years as a way for creators and collectors to monetize digital assets and establish their ownership in a decentralized and transparent manner.

NFTs are only non-fungible in the sense that they are set apart and unique from other tokens within that same contract. The artwork or media that the token points to, however, is something that can be changed and not immutable. In this regard then, NFTs are unique digital tokens that are used to represent ownership [emphasis added] of specific digital assets, such as artwork or music. While used in many instances for art - NFTs can be used for just about anything, from land deeds, to even as proof of authorship.

Representing ownership is dramatically different from recognising ownership, however, and there is a key nuance between what we would call technical recognition - where the nodes of the blockchain "agree" that you own the NFT, and social recognition - where people agree that you own, say, the Mona Lisa.

HuRr DuRr NFTs BaD
So why the big divide? Technology isn't really something people find inherently divisive, for one. We don't see society split up in arms regarding the use of Python over Javascript (not that they are fair comparisons, but you get the point). Tech is tech, and tech qua tech is as bland as it gets.

I reckon it's the same way why some folks are die-hard Apple fans - the brand speaks to them, and resonates with a core part of their humanity. And just like Apple, who some people believe have sold away their core philosophy for the almighty dollar, the commercialisation of art is something that pushes all the right buttons to get them fired up.

Caption: It used to be different. Now it's pretty much the same.

Somewhere along understanding NFTs and their unique proposition, people started to associate NFTs with art, and that's where the disconnect happened. The way I see it, too much hype has been built around NFTs as a medium for patronage and artistic appreciation; this intellectual baggage stops people from having an objective view of what the technology presents: a brand new paradigm of ownership.

Will this social perception ever change? Only time will tell. One thing is for certain - hate it or not, the idea of NFTs is already firmly embedded within the cultural framework of 2023.

NFTs are dead. Long live the NFTs.