Talk:Non-fungible token

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 (article contribs). 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 (article contribs).

Untitled

This is a fairly new idea right now, so doesn't have as many quality sources as I'd like. However, I've pieced together information from many sources, and general information included in specific related topics. I suspect in the future there will be better quality sources that will come online, and some additional references would need to be added in addition to expanding the article.Btcgeek (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

AMA

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

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

Bitcoin's fungibility is questionable

There was at one point an exchange called Mint Exchange which sold freshly minted Bitcoins at a 10% premium. We also know the BTC from Wannacry was carefully watched and few users would like to have it. Lastly, we can see that on non-regulated/non-KYC exchanges have Bitcoin trading at under the average value: Bisq / Average price. It may be worth adding this to the main article. Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

At this point in time I think the article could use a correction as it has become quite clear that Bitcoin is not fungible. Adil Gunaslan (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

More!

Does anybody have references for NFT on EOS and other platforms? Please no draft interfaces. Draft standards have no place on Wikipedia. Full Decent (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Cover image/icon

Why is the cover image for this article what it is? Seems like random logo that doesn’t actually represent NFTs in any way from what I know. The first, and only major use of the image I’ve seen is on this very article.

Further the caption, “NFT Icon” is misleading for the same reason. Perhaps a collage or something more representative of NFTs is appropriate. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 03:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

File:NFT Icon.png

Cryptomedia: discussion

Hi there, apologies for the apparent disruption on the Non Fungible Token page. I'd love to have a discussion about the appropriateness (or not) for the definitions inclusion in this page. The technological development is now live and operational on the Ethereum blockchain, and in my opinion is of significance given that it's an extension of the ERC-721 standard that features a built in, permissionless market into the NFT itself. The definition outlined on the cryptomedia.wtf is rather concise and specific, and bears resemblance to the original "What is Hypertext" website by W3. Admittedly, it's quite recent but I don't think it's unworthy of inclusion.

I've been slightly confused by the promotional flags given that there are companies and projects that are also explicitly linked in the page too. If it's about the links I'm happy to contribute an edit without any links.

Would love to hear everyone's perspective. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7a6f7261 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

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

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

References

Added Paragraph About NBA Top Shot

NFT has been experiencing a strong trend in the news starting in February, 2021. The app/product NBA Top Shot being a specific focus. There is no article yet for NBA Top Shot and it yet to be seen whether it will be noteworthy enough to have one. So, I think it is appropriate to mention it briefly and properly cited in this article for now.

In regards to the overall NFT market, if it grows enough it may rate its own article (to document its history and growth) separate to the technical description of NFT in this article. Again, it is always a discussion about when or if something this new has reached notability. StainlessSteelRat (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2021

Better Upfront Description

It would be great to have a very general description high up about what an NFT is and the why it would exist. Is it a way of positively identifying ownership? Provenance? Is it a currency? When would you use one, and when not? Jumping into applications does not necessarily illuminate the issue for those unfamiliar with the concept.Cellmaker (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Really it does seem it has no meaning. Everybody can get exactly the same file (and as they say below the file itself is not even part of the blockchain - but then what is?). Viewing the file will show no information

on ownership or authenticity. It's not like you can show off with a blockchain like you would with an original signed painting. This may become a biiig bubble. Hoemaco (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability of the various standards

I took a quick Google of some of the standards listed in the bottom section and couldn't really find much other than a few blog posts and the technical spec. I am not sure that is sufficient in total to count for notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Should these be removed? Kavigupta (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Revised language for the carbon emissions section

I am proposing the following text to replace the current text in the carbon emissions section.

NFT purchases and sales have become enmeshed in a growing controversy regarding the high energy use associated with blockchain transactions. In recent years, there have been a number of web articles [1] [2] and academic reports citing high electricity usage associated with the Proof of Work validation process used on the Bitcoin and Ethereum networks. [3], [4]  Annual greenhouse gas emission estimates from these studies vary, depending on the level of renewable energy used, but can reach in the hundreds of megatons, and are comparable to those of a country like Sweden [5] A principal cause of these high energy requirements is the Proof of Work process used to validate blockchain transactions, which can include NFT purchases and sales. These validation cycles, however, consume energy at a rate that’s largely independent of the level of NFT activity [6] [7], [8].  Some digital artists, such as Memo Atken, have voiced strong concerns and claims about large environmental impacts from NFT purchases and sales on the Ethereum network [9] In response to these types of concern, the Ethereum Foundation has been moving to a less energy intensive Proof of Stake type validation protocol, which it claims will use less than 1% of the energy used by POW [10]. This transition is expected to be completed by 2022 [11] Some NFT sites also now allow the option of buying carbon offsets when making NFT purchases, or contributing a percentage of revenue to offset programs [12].

Justification for this Edit

I want to provide the reader a better understanding of the full context of this issue. Although I think a reference to Memo Atken’s work is important, I am less certain about the accuracy of his calculations, and whether inclusion of them conforms to Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, and I think the value of referencing his work is more in terms of the attention it has generated rather than the specifics of the claims made regarding electricity usage. Also, the latter sentences in the first paragraph cite sources that are, in turn, just citing Atken’s calculations, so it seems like much of the paragraph provides a fairly limited, somewhat circular, perspective that does not have any type of peer review or editorial control associated with it...and again those considerations are core requirements for a WP reliable source.

Although the edits in the past couple of days have included a wider range of perspectives, and thereby have dealt with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view concerns associated with last weeks version of this section, I wanted to propose this change as a way of providing some additional context. I think some of the recent revisions could be combined with the changes I am proposing above. Dtetta (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Jade Ten, Nonfungible, Axeman89, and Bilorv, it looks like you all have made recent edits to this section. Do you have any thoughts or concerns about these proposed edits?

As I mentioned earlier, the edits over the past few days have helped deal with NPOV concerns re: last week’s version of this section. But I think there are still some issues with the new text. While the intro sentence in the first paragraph now gives some needed background, the NY Times citation doesn’t seem to support the text. In addition, the text (and Atken’s articles) probably don’t satisfy WP criteria for a Reliable source, at least in terms of using them to describe specific carbon emission impacts. Although they have clearly generated media coverage, the way they are now juxtaposed with statements in the second paragraph that dismiss them seems to invite confusion for some readers. This is partly why I chose to eliminate the specific footprint claims, and just describe his work in general terms, with a citation available if the reader wanted to get into those details. I’m sure there are other ways of looking at this. Dtetta (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess I should also add that I am trying to convey the following ideas with this proposed edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intro and answering 'what is an NFT'

The article has expanded a lot since I first started it, which is great to see. However, we've lost some accuracy which is what we need to strive for especially in a hot market with lots of media attention.

For starters, the first sentence here is "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a digital file whose unique identity and ownership are verified on a blockchain" which is inaccurate. An NFT is token standard not a file. The token standard does not need to be correlated to any file. Same in the description section - "A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital file stored on a blockchain (a digital ledger)." This is inaccurate. Again, the NFT may correspond to a digital file but it is not a digital file itself. In fact for most NFTs the digital file is not stored on the blockchain at all. There are some exceptions to this rule but that is mostly the case with almost all of the NFTs from CryptoKitties to the Beeple NFTs.

My original description was "Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a special type of cryptographic tokens where each token represents something unique and are thus the tokens are not interchangeable"

I am proposing changing the introduction to something like

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) are a special type of cryptographic tokens where each token represents something unique and are thus the tokens are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent assets like digital files, digital art, digital audio/video and other forms of digital media. While the digital files themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFT representing them is tracked on the blockchain and provides a proof of ownership to the owner.

As a reminder, NFTs come under crypto and as such should comply with with Crypto GS. As editors, we should err on the side of conservative changes and not changing the article to reflect every news item and instead strengthening the article as an encyclopedia that explains correctly what NFTs are and why the reader should care.

--Molochmeditates (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The first sentences could be,

A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data on a digital ledger (a blockchain) where each unit can represent a unique digital file, and thus the units are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent digital files such as digital art, audio, video, and other forms of digital creative work. While the creative works themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFTs representing them are tracked on the blockchain and provide proof of ownership of the NFTs to the buyers, while copyright ownership of the works is retained by the creators. NFTs conform to different token standards on different blockchains such as Ethereum.

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

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

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

A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data on a digital ledger (a blockchain) where each unit can represent a unique digital item, and thus the units are not interchangeable. NFTs can represent digital files such as digital art, audio, video, and other forms of digital creative work. While the creative works themselves are infinitely copyable, the NFTs representing them are tracked on the blockchain and provide proof of ownership of the NFTs to the buyers. NFTs conform to different token standards on different blockchains such as Ethereum.

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

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

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

We need a section that clarifies what "ownership" actually means in the NFT context. In the end, an NFT is just a ledger entry on a blockchain that is interpreted to mean "referenced object/data XYZ belongs to whoever controls the wallet I'm in". That's not necessarily the same as actually "owning" the referenced object XYZ.

E.g., if XYZ is a physical object, then we still need the legal system (which varies by country) to honor this NFT ledger entry as a proof of ownership. And if the referenced object is virtual (e.g., a song or an image file), we need recognition and support from the legal system so we can enforce copyrights / the right of the NFT holder to collect royalties. Or is there no connection to copyright at all? Does it vary by country? How does that harmonize with blockchain, which doesn't know country borders?

I fear there's lots of confusion and I hope that Wikipedia can help the world get this clarified.

Authoritarian Contributor (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Better notability in history section

We should only list things in the history section that are meaningful. This might be a technological first (e.g. cryptokitties) or a large media attention event that is otherwise notable (e.g. Beeple auction), or large sales to show the market.

Take this for example -

On March 6, rapper Azealia Banks, sold her audio sex tape titled "I F----D RYDER RIPPS" said to be a 24-minute long recording of Banks and her fiancé Ryder Ripps having sex, published on the NFT marketplace Foundation, and listed for 10 Ethereum and valued at over $17,000, 12 hours later, a artist who goes by the pseudonym Rulton Fyder, purchased the tape, it was re-listed at over $260 million.

Not sure why this would be notable to include in this section. There are and will be a bunch of celebrities doing this and listing them all doesn't make sense. The sum of $17,000 appears to be on the lower side compared to notable NFT sales. The idea of re-listing an NFT at an outrageous price is meaningless since anyone can list their NFT at any price on a marketplace. --Molochmeditates (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's just self-promotional spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8500:18FC:D8AD:57FB:611B:D34C (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The Other Image

File:Hashmask 12501 of 16384 named Flux.png

Somebody wanted to change the image. Not sure this one has any merits over the other, but it is open to discussion. This image may not be rightly licensed (it was taken off this article). UserTwoSix (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed this image. I see no reason for replacing the existing image with this one. In addition, the existing image has a message and a cryptographic proof of intent to release it in public domain. I have added more details of that proof in the Discussion section of the Wikimedia page of that image if anyone wants to verify. This image has none of those attributes and therefore should not be used in its current form. --Molochmeditates (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks like an 11-year-old kid's first digital drawing on phone.

LeticiaLL (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

In February 2021, Axie Infinity game featured the biggest sale of NFT in the gaming world with 9 assets being sold for more than $1,500,000 as part of a new game mode. The game has been in development since the end of 2018 and will be available for mobile devices in late 2021. Estus1 (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

References

What's the purpose?

I can download a PNG or JPEG of a drawing or screenshot for free. Then Why do people pay thousands of dollars for a digital file? Is that another money laundering method for rich people? You can pay an artist for a custom drawing (nfts aren't custom at all) without harming environment, it's called "commissions".

Why aren't we talking more about its harmful effects on environment? Why aren't we talking about how crypto currencies are harmful to environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeticiaLL (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

Please, I just simply want Tezos to be added to the list that provide NFT's. This is very credible. In fact, Tezos offers a cleaner alternative to the Ethereum NFT's with much much less carbon footprint. Kalamint and hicetnunc are my credible sources! Kuy4P1n0y (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sourcing

Be advised this article is the subject of WP:GS/Crypto. Additionally for all crypto articles we are only using mainstream sources, such as wsj, nyt, wired, bloomberg, FT, etc. We are not using coindesk, coinmarketcap, bitcoinmagazine, etc. Also no blogs, WP:UGC, WP:PRIMARY, etc. You can look at WP:RSP and if a source is not considered high quality there, you can pretty much assume it is not ok to use on crypto articles. Note that all articles written by contributors (very often such as Forbes) are considered UGC and not ok to use on cyrpto articles. None of those lower-quality sources are acceptable on cryptocurrency articles. If some NFT doesn't have high-quality sources then it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion on this article. I removed a lot of sources today (leaving the content for now here. Do not re-add these types of sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

SLP

The claim that this Simple Ledger Protocol (SLP) seems to be UNDUE and cant find any source. google search. Thanks! Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing Pepes

The very first art movement on the bitcoin blockchain, the Rarepepe trading card phenomenon is totally admitted and must be included. The 'Homerpepe' which recently has sold for above $250,000 has just switched hands from its previous owner who is also featured on the Rarepepe documentary 'Feels Good man' has not been included. This is a very important if not THE most important saga that helped spur the NFT to begin with. There are plenty of articles throughout the past 6 years detailing the events including the Rare AF fest that had the first auction of Homerpepe at $40k around the 2017 timeline.

Trashart Controversy

An artist by the name of Robness was infamously removed from Superrare.co by making a trash .gif entitled '64 Gallon Toter' which now has reference writeups on cointelegraph, artnet etc. The piece itself has started the first true cryptoart movement entitled #trashart and has had over 1000 pieces made in homage from artists around the globe to the original piece. The piece is now considered a beacon for freedom of expression and a push against copyright idioms of the old art world.

Removal of 'Whale Shark'

I find it odd the inclusion of an individual who is anonymous and has no place in the NFT cannon. He merely is a collector and not much of historical importance, I feel only the artistic contributions are of matter in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishamon06 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

Change "The first known true NFTs were released as part of Etheria" to "The first known NFT on Ethereum"

Change "Such a single-unit coin could be loosely classified as a pointer NFT to an off-chain asset and would have theoretically been exchange-tradable as well, but no evidence that this minting occurred in this timeframe has yet surfaced." to "A single-unit coin was minted with the name OLGA and the description "One & Only". It was minted at the following time 2014-06-12T19:02:10Z GMT. This is the first true NFT that was ever minted.

Source for OLGA: https://xchain.io/tx/16822 https://xchain.io/asset/OLGA Source from the creator of the first NFT: https://twitter.com/jp_janssen/status/1373650790783537162 The creator explaining the details of the OLGA asset: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gboNULna0o Theogoodman (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Early History section is a mess

Is there any RS on Etheria at all that is salvageable? Seems like we can cut down the claims to a sentence or two. There is some other early history probably that we are missing especially pre-Ethereum if anyone has RS they can point to. --Molochmeditates (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021 for NFTs

I think it would be good to also add a section in Use Cases called Pornography, since that has been banned on many NFT marketplaces and has been a very debatable and controversial topic and that there are a few players in the space such as TreatDAO that are trying to promote pornography by giving the models most of the benefits by making limited-edition collections of their work. It is possible we might soon see celebrities and others join in on this aspect of the NFT world. Randomperson4893485934 (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Here's one article about the practice: [14], though it doesn't seem to be very widespread at the moment. Welcome for others to disagree, but I think I'd like to see more coverage of this trend before it warrants its own section. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Actually, scratch that, here's another: [15]. I've written something about it, but e.g. TreatDAO is certainly not noteworthy. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

Social Media Posts

Social media posts such as tweets can also be sold as NFTs. On March 22, 2021, Jack Dorsey sold his first tweet as an NFT on the platform Valuables by Cent for $2.9 million.

Reason for Change: I think it would be a good idea to add a section in Uses called Social Media Posts. Jack Dorsey selling his first tweet was the most notable example of a social media post being sold as an NFT. There are also numerous tweets on sale on the Valuables platform. We could see more celebrities in the future also start selling their tweets or other social media posts. For example, Elon Musk offered to sell one of his tweets as an NFT before backing down.

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

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

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

Needs a more appropriate background image

While one (questionable) function of NFT has been crypto art, it certainly isn't expected to be the primary use case in the years ahead. Instead of applying the feline artwork on this article, it should be featured in the “Crypto art” article instead. People are already confused about the entire NFT and it is so much more than art. ToniTurunen (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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

lede

@Briannlongzhao: please read WP:LEDE which states that the lede is only used to summarize content in the body of the article and weight for the lede is determined by what is in the article. It is not a place to introduce new concepts or highlights things not in the article. I have removed some of your edits, that seemed most controversial. Also avoid WP:PROMO and understand that at wikipedia we are only using very high-quality sources for cryptocurrency articles. If you have to ask if a source is high quality, you can pretty much be sure it isnt. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Political activism

I would add a new subsection "Political activism" under "Uses". Investing dot com announced about the first political performance in a form of an NFT /news/cryptocurrency-news/first-political-performance-nft-launched-on-opensea-marketplace-2460926 Investing is the 3rd largest financial news agency in the World, why is it blocked here? Since Investing dot com is blocked, read it here https://btcpeers.com/first-political-performance-nft-launched/ The same at Jerusalem Post https://www.jpost.com/omg/activist-turns-anti-nazi-act-into-commodified-digital-art-663771 BeInCrypto.com: https://de.beincrypto.com/nft-zerstoerung-des-nazi-denkmals-als-symbol-fuer-das-zeitgenoessische-litauen/ DeFi Expectations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO4Ewsplk_E

~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnamedcrypto (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre language in Contemporary Art section

What in the WORLD is the "contemporary art" section? It reads like a press release from a big company. I don't care how many sources it cites, someone's slanting that section HARD. 192.161.116.7 (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Insert a scheme:

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

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

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

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

Significant revision to the Environmental concerns section

I edited the environmental concerns section today. It’s a fairly major edit, although I did retain some of the changes made since April 1 that seem like an improvement. There’s a few reasons for this edit.

On a basic level it’s hard to figure out how the various edits done since April 1 really improve the earlier text, and I could not figure that out from the edit comments. More specifically, I don’t understand the logical construction of these new paragraphs, some of which are just single sentences. There are also basic prose and grammar issues with some of this new text.

In addition, there are now issues with some WP policies and standards. In the later part of March, the NFT article was flagged for the following: “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the article has been edited with too much promotional content and not enough reliable and secondary sources.”

I think the recent edits have reintroduced some of those problems. For instance, references to Nyan Cat and Art Station raise promotional content concerns, and seem at odds with the basic NPOV standard as described at Wikipedia:Five pillars, IMO.

I propose that this section focus on the following ideas (and constructed the edit today with these in mind):

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

In an earlier edit I had included the additional idea that studies and web sites indicate the annual GHG emissions for the largest blockchain networks, Bitcoin and Ethereum, is in the hundreds of megatons, comparable to those of a small country. But that text is probably better suited to the blockchain article itself, so eliminating it here does improve the brevity of this section. I will try to add this info into the WP blockchain article instead.

In terms of reliable sources, particularly for a science oriented issue that has some controversy associated with it, I think it would be good to follow the WP Scientific Journal guidance where possible. That article does acknowledge that Popular press stories can be used to supplement scientific journals, but the priority seems to be on journals. This emphasis is a little hard to do here, but I did reinsert the Nature Sustainability journal article that had been deleted as part of the citation in the first paragraph, second sentence. It would be nice to also have a science journal source for the third sentence, dealing with specific footprint estimates for NFTs, but I have not been able to find anything yet.

I also essentially deleted the last paragraph, as it seemed like it was overly detailed, and summarized it in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Would appreciate knowing if anyone thinks that particular edit was too “bold”.

Briannlongzhao, Jtbobwaysf, Dalecri, and Jade Ten - You all have been involved in recents edits to this section of the article, so I would appreciate any thoughts or response to this issues I’m raising here, as well as to the basic outline for the edit that I’ve done. Apologies for any work you’ve done that I may have negated with this edit. Dtetta (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Where's the concerns about stolen art and scamming?

I was expecting a section talking about how many artists including high-profile artists in many fields are reporting their art is being tokenized without their permission and scammers are making money from it, and there's no way to stop them. Where is that discussion? The article as it is makes it seem like NFTs are fully benevolent and have zero issues with copyright or usage since "it's about ownership"... CesarFelipe (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

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

• I have a couple.

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Under the "Film" section the film industry change the first line 'has been slow" to:

The first NFT featured by a major film release was in May, 2018 with the Fox Filmed Entertainment and Marvel Studios launch of a series Deadpool 2 NFTs . The assets are currently trading on Opensea.io NFThistory (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2021

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

In mid-April 2021, Bloomberg Businessweek wrote:

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

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

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

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

By mid April 2021, the buying frenzy had substantially subsided, and buyers who had gotten in early had "done supremely well" according to Bloomberg Businessweek.

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