NFTs are the new emerging technology these days, and some people think NFTS is useless. Why NFTs Are Useless, you asked? Well, in this article we will be going to discuss it.
Why Are NFTs Useless?
If you were on the internet in 2021, you’ve probably heard someone mention NFTs. They probably weren’t extolling the virtues of NFTs either. Unless you’re a tech millionaire, cryptocurrency investor, or experimental digital artist, you probably think that NFTs are simply another pricey folly for the wealthy. That is correct, but the reality of the situation is not so simple.
So, in this post, we’ll argue for NFTs and explain why they may not be as bad as you’ve been made to think.
Why People Hate NFTs: The Environment
The argument against NFTs is straightforward: they aren’t things; they’re files on a computer that have been intended to be artificially scarce to earn money for businesses and the affluent elite by providing them something else to flex on other people with.
Furthermore, because of the amount of power required to make, market, and sustain NFTs, they are ecologically hazardous. Electricity, mind you, is often not produced from a renewable source; therefore, NFTs are expected to face a similar problem as any company that depends on fossil fuels.
These concerns are legitimate and allude to real-world issues; yet, there is more to it than simply criticism. Consider the fears that NFTs may hasten the rate of global warming. This would be true if all NFTs utilized the same amount of electricity, mainly if the energy needed to power NFTs was derived from fossil fuels.
However, this is not the case. Not all NFTs (or cryptocurrencies or blockchains) are created equal, and some ways of producing and sustaining NFTs use much less power than others. Furthermore, not all of the power used by NFTs today is generated by fossil fuels. And, as renewable energy like solar power becomes increasingly affordable, less and less energy will be derived from fossil fuels to power NFTs in the future.
Furthermore, bitcoin, blockchain, and NFT technologies are still infancy. The hardware we employed to power this technology isn’t as efficient as it might and will undoubtedly become. And, if these sorts of technologies are all about earning money, then everyone who depends on them will be driven to design techniques and technology that have as little overhead as possible in terms of a monthly power cost. Not to mention potential public relations catastrophes.
Is this to say that certain NFTs aren’t harmful to the environment in their present form? Certainly not. But it is not to imply that the discussion is limited to the simplistic notion that ‘NFTs are harmful to the environment.’
Why NFTs Are Useless: They Aren’t Real.
While many people are worried about the environment, many still drive automobiles that use petroleum. For many individuals, the major problem is not how much power is required to make an NFT but rather what an NFT is and what it performs.
An NFT does not exist physically, and even if you purchase a digital artwork NFT, you will be able to see that artwork all over the internet. So, for many, artificial scarcity and an often costly price tag all for what is effectively a virtual certificate of ownership over something you don’t own is a source of existential terror.
This may seem terrible, but sadly, digital ownership of media items has been common over the previous decade. Make no mistake about it: if you’ve ever purchased a game digitally, paid for music you downloaded or rented a movie online, you’ve had existentially terrible experiences.
Why You Should Either Like NFTs and Microtransactions or Hate Both
When we buy digital stuff in the present day, whether it’s a skin from a game’s microtransaction store or anything else, we’re not purchasing a tangible commodity, and we have minimal rights to the data we do buy. Plus, you can Google and discover the same movie you spent $5 for posted to a random streaming site for free, just as you can watch an NFT artwork for free.
So, what’s the difference between purchasing an NFT video game skin and just purchasing a skin? In terms of practicality, nothing. Except, given that everything else is the same, the NFT makes a lot more sense. If you buy a skin from a game, you usually can’t move it to another game; you don’t have excellent paperwork proving you’ve purchased and owned it, and you probably can’t resale it after you’ve bought it and grown bored of it.
NFTs are a digital record of purchase owing to the nature of the technology; they are simple to move from game to game, especially within the framework of a particular publisher; and they have real-world worth and may be transferred. Some of these features may even warrant a price rise.
Assume a skin is generally $5, but you can get a unique NFT variation for $15. Three times the cost may seem to be a significant increase, but if you become bored of it once it’s no longer being sold, you may sell it for the same price or even more.
Naturally, there are a million ways for game developers and publishers to stack the deck in favor of making NFTs worse than the microtransactions they’ve been shoving down gamers’ throats for over a decade. Still, the technology itself can bring a slew of improvements to the microtransaction business model as it currently exists.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that if you dislike microtransactions and believe they’re predatory schemes to replace content in video games with an infinite succession of paywalls, NFTs aren’t the solution. If anything, they solidify this monetization model in gaming by making microtransactions seem more genuine and legitimate while still providing publishers with the ability to earn billions from microtransactions.