Maybe it's because I'm not a digital native - someone born with a silver smartphone in their mouth - or maybe it's because the digital divide in some respects is as much generational as it is economic, but I really don't get NFTs. And would be just as happy if I'd never heard of them. Better yet, if they didn't exist to begin with.
In case you've been sheltering in place under a rock, or a digital version of a rock, an NFT is a non-fungible token. That clear enough for you? If you're me, or like me, or an NFT version of me, probably not.
NFTs are digital representations of something. That something may be physical - a work of art - or digital to begin with - the first tweet Twitter founder Jack Dorsey ever sent. An NFT can be traded, and if you own one, it's all yours (although for artistic works, the original artist may get a cut on each sale/trade) of the NFT. The content's authenticity isn't protected by a flimsy copyright, or a certified provenance; it's protected by blockchain technology. But here's the rub: the original owner of the NFT - their artwork, their tweet - may be able to make as many NFTs as they'd like. Thus your NFT may be unique to you, but not unique as a representation. There may be a lot of them out there. But that, of course, would render each one less valuable. The originator needs to figure out what quantities to gamble with.
I realize that this explanation is not all that clear. Then, again, it's not yet clear whether NFTs will have staying power, or whether they'll be looked back upon as one more example of tulip mania and the madness of crowds.
But enough!
I. Really. Don't. Get. It.
But some folks apparently do get it. Or want to get it. Or just want in on something new, shiny and non-fungible. Thus, someone paid nearly $3 million for that first Jack Dorsey tweet. The proceeds of that sale went to charity, but others are getting rich and there have been many works of art - make that works by artists - that have sold for a lot more than $3 million. Nothing you can hang on your wall. Nothing you can donate to a museum so that they can hang it on their wall. Just something that lives "out there" that you can look at on your smartphone.
(Here's my earlier post on art world NFTs.)
Anyway, because crowds are mad - certifiably bonkers, in fact - a lot of folks jumped in on the NFT craze. Including the sole surviving child of Ted Williams, who had an artist create some baseball cards that she sold as NFTs. She wasn't having a ton of luck, which is no surprise, given that the average Ted Williams fan is likely about my age and would rather have an actual dog-eared cardboard card than a digital representation of one. (Did I blog about the Ted Williams NFTs? Is that even a question?)
Not surprisingly, since it's art-adjacent, the fashion industry got moving on NFTs.
One of the first movers, "virtual fashion brand RTFKT sold a digital jacket for over $125,000."
Well, I can certainly understand not wanting to actually wear that jacket. But an NFT of it being worth $125K? Yikes!
RTFKT also sells digital sneakers used by gamers, and something to do with pigeons. Or meta pigeons. Or something.
Whatever it is, it's working. In March, it took just 6 minutes to "earn" $3M selling 608 pairs of NFT sneakers. That's a cool $5K a pair.
By the way, RTFKT is pronounced ARTEFACT, not, as first came to my mind, ratfuckert.
Another crypto-first brand - as opposed to a fashion brand that sells physical items that are wearable - is the aptly named Overpriced.™. The company:
...was able to sell an NFT hoodie for $26,000 through connecting with the meme-centric, self-referential nature of crypto culture...the first collection consists of 25 black hoodies featuring large QR codes and their slogan, “Fuck you(r) money”, in neon graffiti. The slogan is a blunt comment on how fashion is about showing off how much money you have, while also acknowledging that their hoodies are indeed overpriced, the Overpriced.™ founders say. (Source: Vogue Business)
As the acronym goes: FFS.
Other fashion brands haven't been as shrewd and fortunate as RTFKT and Overpriced.™ with their NFT forays.
Now, the smoke is beginning to clear on the initial hype cycle as NFT price tags level out, and fashion brands are having a harder time making a big splash on existing NFT exchanges. Any brand or person can “mint” an NFT, which has led to a flood of NFTs for sale, and often brands lack familiarity with the crypto audience that form the core base of NFT buyers, experts say. And NFT sellers often don’t understand just how small the NFT buyer base is: blockchain analytics company Covalent found that fewer than 2,000 buyers accounted for 80 per cent of total purchase volume on Rarible, the second-largest NFT exchange. Even widely known celebrities are struggling to sell NFTs: only one of supermodel Kate Moss’s NFTs has sold, while another remains unbid on.
...buyers want to show off their purchase, but they don’t want it to get damaged, so they refrain from wearing it.
So why not eliminate the hassle of acquiring fabric and hiring a bunch of Vietnamese folks making less than a buck an hour hunching over their whirring sewing machines 12 hours a day?
Another digital fashion branch, DressX, has customers send in a picture of themselves when they buy an item. DressX send them back a digital photo of them wearing said item that they can then go and post on social media.
Are we heading for a world in which work-from-home digital natives sit around naked posting digital photos of themselves wearing virtual clothing on Instagram?
What next? Food NFTs? No more messy pots and pans. No empty calories. Guess that's what the robots will consume once the singularity arrives, and technology takes over the world.
Thanks, but no thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment