Talk:Non-fungible token

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Notkc01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Connormem. Peer reviewers: Trueedits1009.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph needs adjustment to include semi-fungible tokens

The term "NFT" has 3 layers of meaning, the undeniable technical/literal definition and then two additional meanings growing further away from it.

1. Obviously the literal/technical definition means each token must be fully unique.

2. In common and (seemingly widely) accepted usage, "NFT" also includes semi-fungible tokens; cohesive sets of cards/artworks with multiple copies of each. Prominent examples of this usage include (in chronological order) Spells of Genesis, Rare Pepes, Curio Cards and multi-issuance artworks/collectibles (e.g. an artist might release 5 artworks in a set with 10 copies of each).

(anecdotal: I recently attended a major football/soccer game where they advertised an "NFT" on the scoreboard; a gazillion copies of a single digital card commemorating attendance at the game. https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2021/08/us-soccer-launches-only-forward-art-series-for-upcoming-usmnt-fifa-world-cup-qualifiers )

3. In even looser interpretation (one that is not clearly accepted), "NFT" is simply any non-divisible blockchain collectible that refers to "something" (as opposed to normal coins which are (a) divisible and (b) refer to nothing), whether part of a larger set or not.

(4. There are even kookier definitions after #3 (e.g. including divisible tokens, etc), but let's not get carried away.)

Side note: Whether an expiring token (Namecoin names, especially Quantum/Monegraph) can qualify as an "NFT" is hotly debated. These fit the literal definition of NFT, but can they be truly "owned"? Christie's, McCoy and the Quantum auction curator may have succeeded, at least for the time being, in including expiring tokens in general use of the term "NFT", but this isn't entirely settled, especially since they "re-minted" Quantum in non-expiring form (on Ethereum) for the auction.

In any case, I propose this (significant) change to the first sentence, accounting for definitions 1 and 2 above (floating here first due to outsized impact and desire not to start an edit war):

"In the literal and technical sense, a 'non-fungible token' or 'NFT' is a unique, non-divisible, non-interchangeable and transferable unit of data stored on a digital ledger maintained by cryptoeconomic consensus (blockchain). In common use, 'NFT' is interpreted more broadly to include semi-fungible tokens within a combined set (e.g. a set of 'cards' with multiple copies of each)."

Re: all of this... crypto has this weird property where people buy X and then go out and propagate X because they are financially incentivized to do so. The whole space has a bizarre evangelical aspect to it. So while "NFT" may have started life with the literal definition only, it seems to have expanded under the steady, loud, and widespread drumbeat of SFT holders (curio cards, spells of genesis and especially rare pepes). This shift helped, no doubt, by the fact that SFT projects have tens of thousands of units and holder-shills while "true" NFT projects tend to be much smaller (Etheria, Fidenza, Quantum, etc).

In any case, it's hard to find anyone who would deny that Rare Pepes are an NFT now, whether correct or not and whether we like it or not.

Is this right? Is this fair? Does it matter? To the victors go the spoils, I guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User5109nfsaln (talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• You raise some interesting points regarding the nuanced nature of NFTs, including "semi-fungibility." As I'm sure you're aware, this was accounted for in the ERC-1155 standard (which is covered in the article, but probably needs some work), and should, I think, be emphasized upfront. Somehow, classifying something that has the characteristics of semi-fungibility a "Non-fungible token" seems contradictory. And yet, I think you've hit the nail on the head by differentiating between literal/technical and common use definitions.
• I would be wary of saying "cryptoeconomic consensus," as this sounds like editorializing, i.e. interpreting the facts. There is no such term as "cryptoeconomic" (as yet) – I think what you mean is that the nature of the blockchain (being, in and of itself, a digital ledger linked by cryptography) offers an undeniable proof of the history of transactions. The use of blockchain guarantees consensus. So I would change the sentence to: "In the literal and technical sense, a 'non-fungible token' or 'NFT' is a unique, non-divisible, non-interchangeable and transferable unit of data stored on a digital cryptographic ledger (blockchain)." DecentrallyConnected (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

While I am sensible to the points you are raising and think they generally make sense, I do not agree with the specific proposal you put forward, for the following reasons:

• The term "semi-fungible" seems contradictory. Something is either fungible (i.e. interchangeable, non-unique) or non-fungible (i.e. unique, non-interchangeable). "Semi-fungible" does not seem to be a widespread term or concept outside of crypto-publications, and this is the kind where I would prefer to wait and see if it makes its way into the common parlance. In other words, let's avoid crypto-jargon for as long as it remains crypto-jargon.
• The lead should summarize the body, and I am generally skeptical of any proposed amendments of any lead that does not reflect a substantial change in the body. In my view, the proper course of action would be for you (or anyone else) to draft a section or a bunch of paragraphs that we could incorporate in the body, and then amend the lead.
• I think the current first sentence works better than the one you propose, in general but also per MOS:FIRST: Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject. JBchrch talk 23:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• As others have noted, the lede should be a short and concise summary; beginning the article with "in a literal and technical sense" does not advance that goal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the opening sentence based on DecentrallyConnected's feedback of my suggestion.

FWIW, "cryptoeconomic" is a well-known and useful term. Cryptography alone doesn't keep a blockchain in consensus... it's the cryptography plus the economic incentive for miners to hash (make random guesses) based on the true past ledger. Miners hashing on the wrong chain won't get rewards. This is what keeps all the participants agreeing with each other and prevents any single actor from altering the ledger to their own benefit. User5109nfsaln (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agreed with your sentiment, but, as you can see, there is no consensus on the change. And I think the reasons outlined above are sensible, which is why I do not oppose them.

Regarding "cryptoeconomic" – that's interesting, though the term doesn't appear to be "common parlance" yet, as JBchrch put it (outside of crypto or academic circles, perhaps). "Cryptoeconomic consensus" much less so. DecentrallyConnected (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@User5109nfsaln: The first sentence should geneally be in plain English. JBchrch talk 15:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo In the film section

Quentin Tarantino is spelled as Quenton. I believe this is a typo. Judawag (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed :) Mewnst (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

History

I see no mentions of early (pre-crypto days) NFTs. In particular, no mention of Tokenzone, funded in 2000 in NYC by Isaac, Ricardo and Eduardo Arias, which created the very first NFTs for gaming purposes. Disney, Harry Potter and other properties used Tokenzone technology from 2002 to 2009. Stevengarden (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

OpenSea, the first online marketplace for non-fungible tokens was founded by Devin Finzer and Alex Atallah in New York on December 20, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2455:465:9600:DC50:FB09:8611:872F (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Remove wikipuffery maintenance template?

The maintenance template at the top of this article, noting that it “may contain wording that promotes the subject through exaggeration of unnoteworthy facts” has been up since May 2 or so. Can this be taken down, or do people think the article still has these issues associated with it? Dtetta (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dtetta: I do think the article still has significant puffery issues. The article gives undue weight and frequent mention of the speculation of people who are inclined to promote the topic (such as NFT investors). It additionally hides the unsavory and unresolved contradictions around the attempt to create a legitimate proof of ownership within a completely unregulated (and often extralegal) market. Both of these issues, and many more, remain accurately recognized by the maintenance template. Mewnst (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree it still has puffery issues.

-"Increased public awareness" as a subheading in history. This is leading the reader towards an understanding that NFTs are already a part of the public consciousness. I think "Rapid growth" is more accurate and more neutral.

-The same problem appears right below this in Uses, like the phrases "High-profile auctions" and "considerable public attention." Uses also lists far too many specific examples of NFTs which have been minted. The section should be trimmed before the puffery label can be removed. tellison11232 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant info on "popularity" from Popular culture section

In the popular culture section, most of the info was dedicated to the popularity of NFTs themselves rather than the more relevant topic of how NFTs are represented in popular culture. The irrelevant info has thus been removed, as the topic of NFT popularity is already discussed many times elsewhere in the article. Mewnst (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021

1. Add an additional section in history. Relationship between crypto art and off-chain digital art 2. Add a sub-section under "Uses" regarding 'Physical art' to describe Fewocious sales at Sotheby's, tethered NFTs (Augmented reality activated NFTs) etc.

I can provide sources for these changes. I am a digital art curator. Apotrophia (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2021 (2)

to omit the 'd' in created because it is written as infinitive.

Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded as many digital art NFT images as he could to create "The NFT Bay", modelled after The Pirate Bay, replacing Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded as many digital art NFT images as he could to created "The NFT Bay", modelled after The Pirate Bay, 95.182.232.227 (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Howdy! Thanks for pointing the poor wording out. How it stands now:

Geoffrey Huntley, an Australian programmer, downloaded 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images to create "The NFT Bay", modeled after The Pirate Bay, offering the whole collection of images as a free torrent.

I made a few more changes than what were directly suggested, I hope it's fine. Mewnst (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done PianoDan (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

Change "Virtual worlds such as Decentraland, Sandbox, Star Atlas, CryptoVoxels, and Somnium Space" to "Virtual worlds such as Decentraland, Sandbox, and Somnium Space" as two of the games are not listed in the supporting source. This article already has too much trivia as it is even ignoring unsupported claims like this.

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional banksy NFT project

I added a section about an additional Banksy NFT that received extensive coverage in the BBC, Bitcoinist, LA Weekly, etc, etc, but another editor reverted the changes as they said the page isn't supposed to be listing every NFT project. I agree with that sentiment, however still feel that the addition of the paragraph is warranted as the BBC reference gives NFTs some much needed support by a serious organization. Anyway, I paste my edit below for your reference and discussion. If you feel it should be included into the page proper, please feel free to include it.

In November 2021, Arts Media company Gloss created and listed for auction on Opensea a NFT "inspired by" Banksy's original work titled Warning Sign, 2006. Gloss said that the Banksy Warning Sign NFT was created to commemorate the lives lost in the September 11 attacks, and pledged to donate money from the sale to the New York City Fire Department Foundation, who represent the first responders on 9/11. The Banksy Warning Sign NFT also gave the owner a 5% equity share in the original artwork, which Gloss described as being a "world-first" offering in the NFT space.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightingales (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, we don't inline-link to Instagram accounts. There are lots of NFTs in the news; we certainly don't need to exhaustively list every one here. I don't see how this one is particularly significant. The only decent source here is the small BBC piece; the LA Weekly reference is a press release. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with OhNoitsJamie: you would need to provide one or two additional high-quality source for inclusion to be warranted. JBchrch talk 17:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi @JBchrch:! Thanks for your feedback. Just saw that 2 more high quality source articles have been published since we last talked: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gloss-creates-controversial-banksy-nft-060000193.html https://nftevening.com/bansky-inspired-nft-warning-sign-raises-money-for-victims-of-9-11/ There are several others but as Onoitsjamie pointed out above, those are more press release type articles. Is this enough to have my short piece re-inserted into the page? Thanks in advance Knightingales (talk)

Hi again. I have re-inserted the section with 2 more high quality references as suggested above. Thanks for your input Knightingales (talk)

Those are more press releases. Please find another venue for promoting GLOSS. Wikipedia is not a promotional platform. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Flagging up that User:Knightingales also created a largely hoax article for GLOSS that copied an impressive and entirely false history of awards and pedigree of media work from the LADbible article. At time of writing their Banksy-inspired auction has yet to meet its reserve price, so this doesn't sound like it's going to be a big part of the history of NFTs. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bidders apparently figured out that it had little to do with Banksy other than trying to attach itself to his name. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Significance

“grown to be a significant sector of the Western art industry”. Forgive me if I am not convinced. Several high-profile auctions and a cottage industry online don't seem like a significant sector of the art industry. Steepleman (t) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed the line. I wrote that while attempting to condense and cut down a problematic paragraph in the lede. I should have cut it all out, it was entirely dubious. Even the claim about Ethereum having the first NFT is disproved in the history section. Thanks for agitating on this point, I will try to be bolder in excising nonsense in the future. Mewnst (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

In subsection Non-fungible token#Storage off-chain, it is stated that Huntley downloaded 19 terabytes of media. This claim has since been challenged by several parties, including one who’d provided computably verifiable proof of the archive only spanning 20-or-so gigabytes of actual data, padded with trillions of zeroes to inflate the apparent size of the torrent. Furthermore, a firsthand source cited in the above article claims that even the actual .tar file is either full of duplicate images or not a valid archive to begin with.

Given the amount of incredulous FUD surrounding the claim, I suggest that it be reworded into something weaker, like: “Huntley, […], published The NFT Bay, a mimicry of The Pirate Bay, advertising a torrent file purported to contain 19 terabytes of digital art NFT images.”

I'm not sure how exactly to adorn this with citations (so that it makes sense to the reader), nor am I a Wikipedia editor, so feedback is appreciated. Uakci (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Howdy! I think the reword is appropriate since no major outlet has verified that data claim either way. I went ahead and made that change. The forum posts that you linked don't qualify as credible sources by Wiki standards, but the major outlets that are currently cited make no claim of verifying that data. Have a nice day. Mewnst (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposing "Marketing and promotion" or similar subsection under "Uses", and NFTs that make no attempt at establishing ownership

Many high-profile NFTs that are listed in the article, including NFTs regarding musical or film works, make no attempt to transfer any ownership rights of the underlying work at all. They are instead collectables or tokens that only enjoy a tenuous association with the underlying works, most usually created for a promotional purpose, that are purchased because of a popular interest in the underlying work rather than an attempt at gaining ownership. A fair comparison is baseball cards, as a Lou Gehrig baseball card does not attempt to confer any kind of ownership over Lou Gehrig, but it derives value in having close association with the guy. NFTs popularly sell this "association," but it is only articulated in the article as a misleading "proof of ownership." This non-ownership use of NFTs is not yet adequately explained in the article, even though it is mentioned many times (very obviously seen in the "Film" subsection under "Uses").

This may be one missing component in deflating the puffery and cutting out the excess unimportant factoids. These "baseball card" NFTs may not be important to mention at all, as they usually don't have much significance to the underlying work. The articles on famous sportsball players never bother including what kind of collectable cards the players are in. Why should NFTs be any different? If there are no objections, I will pursue making edits to clarify this less impactful use of NFTs. Mewnst (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am right behind you. I think this whole page should be re-written. There are too many random facts concerning NFTs that should not be a part of this page. There are some very well-crafted advertisements that have been sprinkled throughout this page and it makes it hard to edit, but it can be done. I think this page should be redone by unbiased sources who have no stakes in the NFT sub-community. There are too many references to projects that are not needed to obtain a general understanding of NFTs. There really shouldn't be any references to any projects. If the projects themselves wouldn't be able to obtain their own page on Wikipedia, they shouldn't be mentioned on this page. The subject of NFTs is so vast that we could add things like Real Estate and go into great detail about how they relate to NFTs, when we really don't need to. We are defining what an NFT is right? Or are we advertising all the NFT projects? There are enough online resources already promoting these projects and I don't think it's in the general interest of most who have no involvement in NFTs to include content that promotes NFT projects. I have found four sources (three on UpWork and one of Fiverr) where freelancers specifically referenced this page and stated for upwards of $2500, they would promote their project through Wikipedia (also, that they already have successfully done this in the past). Who knows if they are lying about already posting on this page? All I know is that I came to this page completely unbiased and felt that is was extremely disorganized and that it had (in some places) been advertising projects that have no place in the explanation of what an NFT is.

It is 100% possible to create this page without referencing any projects. I have read many great sources explaining NFTs that do not mention a single project.

I have since reading this page, read eleven well-written NFT explanations on other websites that explained NFTs beautifully without having to mention or advertise a single project.

If this is possible, why can't we do it here? Do we want to reference some projects? If we have to, could they be completely non-profit projects only? Chris Giller (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Several recent attempts at advertising have been rejected, but I'm sure there's more pruning to be done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the general notion (now explicit consensus) that this article should not just be a list of NFT projects. However, there are some projects that have received significant coverage and should be included to illustrate what these things are to a general readership. Examples include Beeple, Cryptopunks and NBA Topshot. Those are definitely worthy of inclusion. JBchrch talk 17:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting point. We tried to cover this aspect in the #Copyright section but we should probably be more thorough in this point, yes. JBchrch talk 17:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

Add Loopring as a viable zkRollup Layer2 project. Source: https://loopring.org/#/ 92.236.234.119 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Declined, request must include a complete and specific description of the edit to be made, see WP:EDITXY. This also just looks like a promotional link. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

New source

Hi. My thread did not get any responses, so I'd like to bring it back to present a source I'd like to have used for the article. The thread in question can be found here, but is also copied below.

== Creator of NFTs owns up to shortcomings == I found an article by one of the creators of NFTs explaining how they ended up being, for lack of a better word, a disaster. The article in question will be included via reference. Consider adding this article to the main article? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC) References

Thank you. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Quotation marks in Issues and criticisms section

Why, in 'Plagiarism and fraud' part of 'Issues and criticisms' section, sentence "artists having their work copied without permission" is in the quotation marks? It's not a quote, it's a fact. It has been proven so later on in this exact article. It's not even a quote from [143] in that section.

I don't think that's what quotation marks are for. 83.28.228.113 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a quote from the source at https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/pay-millions-art-you-cant-touch-inside-nft-digital-art-940943, but does seem unnecessary. I've removed the quotemarks and rephrased it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This article

Good encyclopedia articles lead with good, clear explanations answering the 6 W's: Who, What, Where, Why, How and When. Not only does this article not accomplish this task in the introduction, but it doesn't accomplish it in the body, either. I am familiar with the ERC-721 non-fungible token standard. I am familiar how blockchain works. I've been involved with networking and information security for 35 years. Reading through this article for the third time, however, I am still not seeing any sort of clear explanation suitable for the general populace of exactly what an NFT is and how it can and/or should be used by your average technically literate person. To quote Dozer from The Matrix, "He still needs a lot of work." Clepsydrae (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can help to improve it. Steepleman (t) 12:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to get a much better handle on it, first. I'm not a subject matter expert on NFT. Clepsydrae (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're "not seeing a clear explanation suitable for the general populace of exactly what an NFT is and how it can and/or should be used by your average technically literate person", then I think you have successfully grasped the concept of NFTs. WP Ludicer (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol, well, that's cryptic!  :) Clepsydrae (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Unique"

The lead currently states: A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique and non-interchangeable unit of data stored on a blockchain. I don't think "unique" should be there - the piece of data can be uniquely associated with an address, but the metadata itself is not necessarily unique, nor the data the token may be pointing to (see EIP-721). BeŻet (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I see merit in your reasons and have boldly removed the word from the lede. Mewnst (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

the piece of data can be uniquely associated with an address This is true of any crypto. What makes NFTs special is their "non-fungibility", and "unique" is the MOS:FIRST-compliant plain English way of expressing this characteristic. JBchrch talk 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that per MOS:FIRST "unique" can introduce confusion. Their "non-fungability" doesn't imply uniqueness, it implies that they are non-interchangeable, which is what we already have in the lead. BeŻet (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't introduce confusion at all. "Unique" is used by numerous sources to describe NFTs. [1] ("NFTs are designed to be unique") [2] ("Take nonfungible tokens, or NFTs, which are unique bits of code on a blockchain") [3] ("“Non-fungible” more or less means that it’s unique and can’t be replaced with something else") [4] ("Non-fungible digital assets are unique goods that don’t have interchangeable value") [5] ("The CryptoPunks were non-fungible tokens—unique digital assets") Besides, I don't see the conceptual distinction between unique and non-fungible: they're synonymous. JBchrch talk 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It is an oft-repeated mantra for media about NFTs written for mass consumption, but those sources are wrong about a key detail. Sure, the token side of things happens to be its own unique cryptographic function, but there's no verification at all that the underlying file asset is unique. One could make thousands of NFTs of an identical picture of their favorite shirt. They'd all have an equal, non-unique interchangeable value. There is a dangerous implicit assumption that this "uniqueness" of NFTs is a guarantee, of some form or another, that an NFT is going to represent a unique underlying file. That popular misconception alone is good enough reason to avoid using the word in the article when broadly describing NFTs.

Since you brought up that "non-fungible" is synonymous with "unique", allow me to bring up a counterpoint: the United States dollar. Each physical dollar has its own serial number, each one is truly unique. But it's fungible as well. Every physical dollar is equal to any other physical dollar, but all are unique. "Non-fungibile" and "unique" are not synonymous. Mewnst (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

there's no verification at all that the underlying file asset is unique Which is irrelevant, because the first sentence refers to the unit of data recorded on the digital ledger, which, as you say, happens to be unique. The term "non-fungible token" refers to the token, i.e. the sign recorded in the ledger, and that's what we need to define in the first sentence. One could make thousands of NFTs of an identical picture of their favorite shirt: yes, but each of those NFT would be individuated on the blockchain as a non-fungible token, otherwise it would just be a regular fungible crypto. There is a dangerous implicit assumption that this "uniqueness" of NFTs is a guarantee, of some form or another, that an NFT is going to represent a unique underlying file We do not sell tokens ourselves, so we need not concern ourselves about potential liability. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS we don't need to save the world, either. We need to be honest and understandable about what non-fungible tokens are, and for this purpose there's no getting around the fact that non-fungible and unique are equivalent terms.

About your example on the dollar, there's no nice way of saying this, but you misunderstand the concept of fungibility/non-fungibility. Fungibility is always relative to someone or to a specific transaction. There's no absolute fungibility/non-fungibility. Lawyers and courts have been thinking about this for centuries. A stack of dollar bills is fungible in the context of me buying a beer. But a stack of dollars is not fungible in a context where the clean origin of the bills is important to the transaction. A classic example is a shirt: a white shirt of a certain size is fungible when it's at store (interchangeable with any similar shirt), but it's non-fungible when I bring it to the cleaners, because the cleaners needs to make sure that they return my specific shirt and not a similar one. However, we need not concern ourselves about all of this for the first sentence of this article, because NFTs are non-fungible by definition: it's in the name of the thing. If you dispute that NFTs are non-fungible, then not only are you contradicting the vast majority of the sources, you are also contradicting the concept that they are "non-interchangeable". Again, there's no getting around the fact that non-fungible = non-interchangeable = unique.

Finally, since I know this is going to come up, I'm acknowledging that in practice there are series of fungible NFTs and other bullshit of that nature. But we can expand on this in the body, and not in the first sentence, which is supposed to give a clear and understandable definition of the subject matter according to the most standard understanding. JBchrch talk 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The lede should unambiguously communicate what the subject matter is. NFTs are non-fungible cryptographic doohickeys. Adding the word "unique" adds a lot of needless ambiguity ("unique in what sense?"). "Unique" is something that could apply to any major cryptographic function, like with SHA-2. But, the SHA-2 page still manages to never mention the word "unique". Why do NFTs get this special treatment for having "unique" thrown in front of its cryptographic functions? It's not descriptive and too vague.

How would WP:RGW apply to this correction in language? NFTs are not an area of advocacy, and I'm simply an editor who thinks that NFTs are best explained without using a certain word. For all we know, "unique" is merely a lingual relic from old public relations work to push out a misleading but alluring description of a newfangled cryptothing. Mewnst (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your comparison to cryptographic functions, and your earlier mention of its own unique cryptographic function. NFTs are not functions, they are a form of data stored in a distributed ledger, which have the characteristic of being individualizable. I invoked RGW because I'm reading that this article needs to correct a popular misconception and a misleading but alluring description, when in fact what is being targeted is actually correct information. The bottom line is that conceptually and definitionally "non-fungible", "non-interchangeable" and "unique" are equivalent, and that "unique" is used in plenty of high-quality sources. I have seen no strong rebuttal to this. JBchrch talk 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitions could be argued all day, but the core issue that BeŻet brought up is how NFTs are not necessarily unique in their metadata or pointing links. They are not consistently unique in any worthwhile sense of the word.

Why do you feel the need to throw "you misunderstand" and "you dispute that NFTs are non-fungible" and "you are contradicting the concept" into this discussion? Stop misrepresenting my statements and being this hostile over a petty disagreement over definitions. Rude. Mewnst (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile. I think that you are wrong and I'm telling you what I think straight and without bullshiting you with superficial politeness like "have you considered..." or "in my humble view...". This is not a petty disagreement, and I'm honestly baffled to read this: the sentence that we are talking about gets thousands of views per day, so it's absolutely crucial that we get it right. To the point: NFTs are unique because contrary to bitcoins, you only get one of each as a technical matter. Again, as I've said below, I think that there may be some misunderstanding here about what NFTs are, and how they work. JBchrch talk 02:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't just get "one of each", there's nothing stopping you from getting two or more of the same NFTs if more are minted. Both will just have different IDs. I don't think NFTs are unique in any meaningful way. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If they get different IDs, they are unique. If it's the same NFT minted twice, then they are fungible with each other, so they aren't NFTs. In any case, I've provided high-quality sources saying that they are unique. JBchrch talk 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course they still are NFTs, a lot NFTs are sold this way, and we have the right to question sources if they regurgitate marketing material from NFT sellers if we can present compelling evidence that they are wrong. BeŻet (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In that case what you should argue for the removal of "non-interchangeable" as well, because there's no conceptual difference between the two words. And no, we don't have the right to question the (high-quality reliable) sources unless we are in WP:FRINGE territory, which we aren't. JBchrch talk 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rereading this conversation, I get the feeling that you read "unique" as in "this apartment is truly unique" or "this is a unique job opportunity". I hope that it's not the case, and that there's no misunderstanding about the fact that "uniqueness" is a characteristic of the "unit of data" mentioned later in the sentence, which derives from its non-fungibility. JBchrch talk 01:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I read "unique" as "one of a kind". NFTs achieve non-fungibility through cryptographic/technical means, but this uniqueness is superficial by itself. The underlying asset/file/pointer link/metadata of the NFT is not necessarily unique, and frequently duplicated (as forgeries or stolen works from DeviantArt or limited series collectables of a single file or whatever else).

I believe this disagreement between us arises from a far bigger issue with the article. This article is not limited in scope to NFTs themselves, but also covers what digital files NFTs are popularly associated with. If this article was more appropriately limited in scope to the technology itself, there wouldn't be any issue with mentioning that the uniqueness of each token makes it all non-fungible. But, this article makes the error of conflating this pure description with the files that are often tacked onto an NFT. So much emphasis is placed on the artwork and the projects and the vidya games and the noise. It fails to properly communicate that the underlying files that NFTs point to exist outside of the realm of NFTs. It's instead this chimeric wash of art auction info rather than an informative page on the subject matter, and editors are left bickering about whether or not "unique" is okay to use because of the unresolved metadata issues in the technology. Information on the associated metadata of NFTs makes up 80% of the page for no good reason, and it coloured my reasoning for avoiding the term. Sorry for being a hardass about this. I'm a fucking idiot for not taking a chainsaw to the art shit already. Mewnst (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you as a matter of WP:TRUTH, but as a matter of MOS:FIRST this is in contradiction with the vast majority of the sources on the topic, which explain that NFTs are used to individualize some sort of ownership over digital files. And you really don't have to apologize for being a hardass about it, not only because you weren't, but also because being a hardass is what this Wikipedia thing is all about 🙃. JBchrch talk 11:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rereading your comment I just want to say that I agree with everything from It fails to properly communicate to 80% of the page for no good reason. JBchrch talk 15:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

Change Curio Cards, to Curio Cards (the first art project on the Ethereum blockchain), 2601:409:8500:3D00:9DE3:FF81:EB43:AE3F (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, that additional statement would need a source to confirm it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, can you lift the semi-protection so I can fix the Wikipuffery please? Gabi Salinas (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I need to fix possible Wikipuffery on the Non-fungible token page.

Hello there, I'm Gabi. I need to fix possible Wikipuffery on this NFT article, but I can't edit. Can someone else do this for me? I currently have 4 edits and getting started editing on Wikipedia. Gabi Salinas (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Signed, IAmChaos 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article, made a few edits, and believe that the puffery warning can be removed. I have boldly done so. If anyone thinks specific statements include puffery, please point them out and I, or another editor, may be able to fix them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Uses section

Is the style of the current "Uses" section detrimental to covering the topic in an encyclopedic manner?

Survey

• Yes, as starter — I believe that the current uses section reads like a list of news items/headlines rather than a comprehensive analysis of how NFTs are used. Additionally, as all criticism is left for the "Issues and criticisms" section at the bottom of the article rather than throughout the article, it means that readers that come across the section are not given a concise understanding of how NFTs are used.
  Additionally, having separate subsections for things like games and media does not make much sense to me as, from my understanding, there is not much difference in what the NFTs of these mediums are (a certificate of authenticity/ownership and not the work itself). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I believe that this RfC should be withdrawn, as (if I'm not mistaken) I don't see that we've had a previous non-consensual discussion about this. The first step should probably be to reduce the size of the "unwanted" content through bold editing, and then launch an RfC if a discussion about a contested edit leads to nowhere. JBchrch talk 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. I've just been avoiding bold edits.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

change Curio Cards to Curio Cards 2601:409:8500:3D00:C129:3D87:7A4D:8951 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done, link added. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

NFT promotion methods

There is a large pool of self NFT promotion methods, one is to use automated bots to do the job, I think it would be a good idea to expand this Wiki entry by adding information about it a showcase of real-world example

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bShLx11OhMA

Just a thought, because it's getting more and more popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winele8 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hermès legal action against artist

There is a new article today in The Guardian newspaper about the French luxury house Hermès starting legal action against an artist named Mason Rothschild. It says that Mason created NFT tokens of Hermes' Birkin bags without Hermes' permission and that those tokens which were sold to make money for Mason violates the trademark rights of Hermes. Would I be able to or could and editor with permission include this blurb in the Fashion subsection of this page? source: Agence France-Presse (January 22, 2022). "Hermès suing American artist over NFTs inspired by its Birkin bags". www.theguardian.com. Retrieved January 22, 2022. Smellyshirt5 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this is due inclusion in the article. It's just yet another example of IP rights violations through NFT use. Perhaps the article could be cited as part of a series of sources to support a statement similar to There have been cases of artists having their work sold by others as an NFT, without permission., a sentence currently in the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

NFT Scheme

I sugget to put also the NFT Scheme: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NFT_Non_Fungible_Token_-_Explained.jpg