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). 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 (article contribs).

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 (article contribs).

Proposal: Add "Memes" to "Uses" section

Memenft (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Memes

In June 2021, the original Doge meme was minted by Atsuko Sato, the meme's original creator. The NFT was sold on June 12, 2021 for 1696 ETH (USD $4,100,000) , making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date . Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger , Nyan Cat and Disaster Girl.

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

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.

No mention of financial advantages

It's hard to believe that the article doesn't describe the tax evasion and money laundering utility of NFTs, which are the sole factors behind the multi-million dollar auction prices.74.194.157.22 (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

change elminating to eliminating Benjamin Loison (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done JBchrch talk 15:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I propose the following changes from the current lead, which is missing a lot of critical information and is partially wrong:

A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. NFTs can be used to represent items such as photos, videos, audio, and other types of digital files. Access to any copy of the original file, however, is not restricted to the buyer of the NFT. While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtain, NFTs are tracked on blockchains to provide the owner with a proof of ownership that is separate from copyright.

In 2021, there has been increased interest in using NFTs. Blockchains like Ethereum, Flow, and Tezos have their own standards when it comes to supporting NFTs, but each works to ensure that the digital item represented is authentically one-of-a-kind. NFTs are now being used to commodify digital assets in art, music, sports, and other popular entertainment. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs. The NFT market value tripled in 2020, reaching more than $250 million.

to this

A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unit of data stored on a digital ledger, called a blockchain, that certifies a digital asset to be unique and therefore not interchangeable. The entry in the digital ledger is similar to traditional physical public ledgers, such as those used to ascertain ownership over land in many countries. NFTs (and the associated license to use, copy or display the underlying asset) can be traded and sold on digital markets, some of them selling for millions of dollars.

Ownership of the NFT is often associated with a license to use the underlying digital asset, but generally does not confer copyright to the buyer: some agreements only grant a license for personal, non-commercial use, while other licenses also allow commercial use of the underlying digital asset. If the license to use the asset is non-exclusive, multiple NFTs can be created for the same artwork and sold individually, similarly to limited editions in lithography. Access to a copy of the original file may or may not be restricted only to the buyer of the NFT. In some cases, the underlying digital items are available for anyone to obtain or watch for free.

NFTs are often implemented using blockchain technology that are suited as a digital ledger. Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains like Ethereum, Flow, and Tezos have their own standards when it comes to supporting NFTs, but they all have the property that each NFT is represented as a single, indivisible digital token.

Extra Refs:

References

This would correct the following issues in the current lead:

1. the NFT may represent any object, not just digital objects (see the Nike shoe)
2. explain the concept better by comparing to a public land registry
3. remove the explanation that "digital items are available for anyone to obtain" since this may be true in some cases, there is no requirement for it at all. Some people may choose to sell an NFT associated with a digital asset that is not publicly available.
4. add that NFTs can be sold and traded (and add an example that they can be sold for millions of dollars)
5. explain the ownership model better: sometimes a commercial license is granted, sometimes only a non-commercial license
6. explain the ownership model better: sometimes a an exclusive license is granted, sometimes a non-exclusive license (as in Hashmask)
7. remove Weasel words like In 2021, there has been increased interest in using NFTs.

I think all of these are sensible changes. My version is a proposal, feel free to change and adopt - I was not aware that there is so much controversy here so I was just WP:BOLD but am happy to discuss first. Please let me know to which of these you agree and how we can improve the lead @JBchrch: and others. Best --hroest 15:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: Happy to work this out with you. Please give me about 24 hours to respond. Also, if you could fill out refs 5 and refs 7 it would be great. JBchrch talk 15:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, I have done that and also removed the reference to coindesk (I did not check whether it was reliable before, my mistake). The other sources seem fine with Reuters and Mondaq, LA Times and Verge, but not sure about Morning Brew -- we should find something better. Also, I am not sure if we need a reference to compare digital ledgers to physical ledgers, I thought it was a nice analogy to actually explain what is going on but it is not strictly necessary.It seems like a common sense comparison so we may not need a reference, WP:V only requires a reference if the material is likely to be challenged, I dont think that would be the case here with an analogy. Or maybe we can find a better analogy with a source: one way they are explained in this Nature article is that they are "certificates" for something, but it seems it may also have / or is accompanied with a contract and transfer of legal rights. --hroest 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I do not really understand the rationale for the second and third sentence. The land registration comparison is not used in the body; also it may be misleading, since it would imply that NFT allow third parties to identify the "legal owner" (emphasis on legal) of a piece of digital art, which is not the case. The current sentence in the lead about separation from copyright summarizes correctly the body and the sources. In the reliable sources cited [1][2], I do not see support for the market value of the copyright licenses attached to NFTs, as implied by the proposed third sentence. The LA Times says specifically that And in the case of the digital files typically being attached to NFTs today, anybody can watch the same basketball highlights anytime, or save a copy of the same digital image to their own hard drive. All an NFT does is authenticate and record the provenance of the NFT itself, as with a limited-edition reproduction of a photograph — but when the art object attached to the NFT is freely available, there’s no inherent reason why it would have any value at all. The Verge says Buyers typically get limited rights to display the digital artwork they represent, but in many ways, they’re just buying bragging rights and an asset they may be able to resell later. Overall, I think the current version of the lead does a better job a summarizing the copyright issues.
• Mondaq is not a reliable source: it reprints self-published material written by law firms and consulting firms. Here, a memo by Norton Rose Fullbright.
• I do not see the lithography comparison used in the body or in the sources. I agree that the "series" issue could be mentioned in the body and in the lead, though. I will look for a source for that.
• Regarding the public availability of the underlying digital asset, I think the current language While copies of these digital items are available for anyone to obtain is more accurate than the proposed version, since it looks like that is the case for most NFTs (per the reliable sources), and not only In some cases.
• Why do you want to remove Most NFTs are part of the Ethereum blockchain; however, other blockchains can implement their own versions of NFTs.?
• I agree that the promotional language regarding the market value is problematic, and also poorly sourced. But I think market value estimates are generally important and should be in the lead of finance articles. I will try to find a better source. JBchrch talk 18:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Thank you for your detailed response and thoughtful reply. I will follow up point by point:

• a1) The motivation is to give an explanation what these NFTs represent to the lay reader, after all this is an encyclopedic article and not a technical reference manual. What about replacing the second and third sentence with The entry in the digital ledger is similar to a certificate of ownership which can be traded and sold on digital markets, some of them selling for millions of dollars.
• a2) I think there may be some confusion here, simply because (as per LA times) " anybody can watch the same basketball highlights anytime, or save a copy of the same digital image to their own hard drive" does not necessarily mean that they have the right to use and distribute those images. Simply because you can download a movie from pirate bay does not give you any legal rights to view or distribute that movie. As this guardian article describes, the copyright holder of an image is often not getting compensated and most use of these images is not legal. The legal situation depends on the exact conditions associated with the NFT and this should be reflected in the lead. In some cases, as explained in the Verge, this makes the owner of the NFT legally speaking slightly better off than all the other people, as the owner of the NFT does get limited rights to display and use the underlying asset that the general public does not have. This is not properly represented in the current version of the lead, the current lead implies the owner of the NFT has no rights whatsoever since the owner does not own the copyright. That is false. In other cases, as for example specified in the hashmask terms and conditions, the holder of the NFT is the legal owner of the artwork ("When you purchase a NFT, you own the underlying Hashmask, the Art, completely.") and it comes with a relatively clear licence: "The Company grants you a worldwide, exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art,". Important here for example is the "exclusive" part, so if anybody else is selling or displaying the artwork, the owner of the NFT would have legal standing to sue that person. Also since it is an exclusive licence, the owner of the artwork cannot create another licence (or another NFT) and sell that to another person, even if they still hold the copyright to their artwork. This is similar to some publisher agreements where the author does not transfer copyright to the publisher but an exclusive licence to publish the article. So in a legal sense, the owner of the NFT is getting more than "just the NFT".
• b) I see, I will try to find a better source for the legal situation of NFTs, which is currently not discussed in the article at great length. Would the Norten Rose article qualify as RS?
• c) I agree we need better sources for this, but it should be explained. One example is this RollingStone article which explains the process with "Kings of Leon". I think this pretty much covers it "YellowHeart is minting 18 unique-looking “golden tickets” as part of the Kings of Leon NFT release. Out of the 18, the band will auction six and vault the other 12 like a painter would do with a rare piece from a series of art. " -> this is exactly what it says, its a "series of art" is what the proposed lead explains. Similar to numbered series of artworks, each ticket is numbered (unique) but presumable have the same metadata, so its identical except the series number
• d) public availability is not always a feature, we could say "often". The current languages implies that it is always the case that the asset is publicly available, this is not true. For example the 2nd most expensive NFT "Harmony" (see List of most expensive non-fungible tokens) is not publicly available and the is only available to the buyer of the NFT and comes with DRM (see [3]).
• e) I agree we should add that sentence again. I have changed the proposal.
• f) I am happy to include a market value estimate if its properly sourced.

Thanks a lot! --hroest 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: thanks for your answer. I will just answer regarding copyright for the moment and will come back on the points:

• Regarding the Hashmasks T&C: These terms grant an exclusive licence, but solely for the following purposes..., including for your own personal, non-commercial use. But that's already permitted by law in this jurisdiction! So this is classic case of legal jargon hiding in plain sight the fact that nothing material has been granted. In any case, exclusive licenses are a tricky thing, because in general (subject to local law and the specifics of the case blablabla), it's not very clear what happens to the other copyright rights that aren't subject to the license. So an exclusive license to display a work for personal and non-commercial purposes may presumably allow the creator to grant a license for commercial use of the copyright to someone else. Not saying this is the case all the time everywhere, and it will depend on the language of the license.
• If I take a look at the what lawyers have written (in sources that are problematic for Wikipedia purposes), I'm not seeing that it is typical of NFTs to be associated with copyright. Because NFTs are so new, IP rights associated with a sale may be unclear unless carefully set by contract. [4]; Taking a look at some of the most recent high-profile NFT sales, the terms underpinning each smart contract have not typically assigned any IP rights. [5]; NFT transactions don’t purport to convey copyright or other intellectual-property interests regarding the work in question [6]; In one sense, the purchaser acquires whatever the art world thinks they have acquired. They definitely do not own the copyright to the underlying work unless it is explicitly transferred. [7].
• If I take a look at reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, I see that it is typical for NFTs to not be associated with a material copyright license. Currently, when a person acquires an NFT, the underlying asset is owned, but not the copyright. [8]; Owning an NFT does not mean you own the copyright to a given asset, but it does grant you bragging rights. [9]; Owning an NFT doesn’t equate to owning the copyright to a given asset, music or otherwise, but scarcity has helped push up valuations. [10]; The buyer of an NFT will not necessarily acquire a copyright, or even sole access to a work [11]; NFT purchasers don’t really own anything at all, other than a URL and some bragging rights. Creators almost always reserve their copyright [12]. JBchrch talk 14:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the NFT alone does not grant anything really, but it seems at least in some cases (hashmasks) it comes associated with some sort of legal document/contract, whether particularly meaningful or not at least the intent is there. Eg for hashmasks there is commercial use: iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, The Company grants you an unlimited, worldwide, exclusive, license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”). Examples of such Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying copies of the Art. Commercial use sounds pretty much like it would be limited to the buyer and nobody else has those rights (Eg putting the art on a T-shirt and selling it). On the other hand, Foundation explicitly disallows commercial use by the buyer. But maybe its just too early to really speculate about the legal side of things, but it seems pretty clear that each NFT comes with somewhat of a "licence" depending on the platform you buy it from and the rules what you can and cannot do are specified (whether that is will hold up in a court of law of course is unclear but at least the attempt is there). Also, having a RS discussing this would be valuable. However, in the context of granting a licence it becomes actually somewhat strange to highlight especially as a superficial reading of the rights in buying traditional physical art assets seem to come with somewhat similar limitations. Right now the article reads like the non-transfer of copyright is a very meaningful and unique aspect of NFT but from this reading, it actually does not necessarily seem to be the case, see also this quote: While many collectors assume that a work’s copyright is transferred when they purchase a painting or a sculpture, that is not the case. (not saying this is necessarily a RS but pointing out the direction here). --hroest 00:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add a source for ever sentence your are proposing. If you dont have an RS for it, no need to propose to add it. Also if all the text above is proposed for the lede (including the numbered list), it is too long and not correct per WP:MOS (we dont add numbered lists to ledes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf the proposed lead would only be the three paragraphs shown above, the bullet points represent changes that I would like to make and motivation why. I guess we have to compromise between explaining the concept for laypeople and strict verifiability. --hroest 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE summarizes the article and would not have anything complex in it. We dont add WP:JARGON to articles in general, and certainly not in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2021

Per my original mention on this talk page of the irrelevance and non-representative cover image: Archive1#Cover Image/icon ... why is this image still being used? It seems Hocus00 had removed it, but it returned. There's no representative logo for a non discrete subject matter such as NFTs.

If I recall when investigating where it originated from, it was created by a for-profit company in the blockchain space but had not traceable usage except for in this very Wikipedia article. As such its inclusion only leads to misleading self-referential use as the "logo" of NFTs, including this "see also" article (Old revision of List of most expensive non-fungible tokens) that is stating it to be the logo that "represents" NFTs. This "logo" wouldn't persist if it wasn't for its continued inclusion here, which isn't what Wikipedia should be about.

That's not even to mention the fact that the graphic is just generally not a good logo or aesthetically appealing to begin with, but I digress...
^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 10:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done JBchrch talk 11:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Add IPFS example

For example, this https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmQwyhubhyig5RyUgjz26fojndeeP4cWnc5xx4jQ1So7HH is IPFS hash (using cloudflare proxy) for that NFT for some code that Tim Berners-Lee sold. 2A00:1370:812D:E29E:F86A:4FE6:57CB:C983 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Add {{Advert}} to the top of the article. The tone of the article is a far-cry from neutral and does not meet Wikpedia's encyclopedic standards. The Uses section, while not the only problematic one, for example, is incredibly egregious. A Medical sub-section where NFTs are claimed to cure cancer would fit right in with the others.

I am not disputing any of the sources or statements in themselves - it's the overall tone of the article that clearly fails to meet Wikipedia's standards, as per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. 2804:431:C7CE:8F81:4A2B:64B9:32C:7325 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I readded the {{puffery}} that I had removed, reading this request as a form of WP:BRD. JBchrch talk 10:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Change USD$5.4 to USD $5.4 million in section NFT buying surge (2021–present)

Incorrect summary of Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s web source code NFT sells for $5.4 million BI613en (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2021

Add "Memes" to "Uses" section

Memes

In June 2021, the original Doge meme was minted by Atsuko Sato, the meme's original creator. The NFT was sold on June 12, 2021 for 1696 ETH (USD $4,100,000) , making it the most valuable meme NFT to be sold to date . Other notable memes to sell as NFTs are Charlie Bit My Finger , Nyan Cat and Disaster Girl. Memenft (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

change the hyperlink 'ETH' in the Academia subheading of the Uses section from ETH Zurich, a Swiss institute of technology to Ethereum, the cryptocurrency used for the transaction 2001:8004:2770:AB5B:59D:37E:484D:C56 (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)