Multiple times this week I’ve had to deal with staunch criticism of NFTs, most recently related to our Eufloria procedural generation experiments. These are huge misunderstandings that need explaining and (mostly) debunking. This is a summary of the discussion myself and friend Alex May @thestarboretum had today following a less than positive twitter post. This is posted partly at his suggestion.
He had three main criticisms of crypto art:
- Environmental impact — my discussion here is as a staunch defender of the environment
- Artistic merit
- Right-click Save and Value of Digital Goods
Environmental Impact
NFTs are a digital representation of ownership and provenance, powered by decentralised networks.
The first of these networks, Bitcoin, relies on something called proof of work (PoW) to function. PoW performed an at the time irreplaceable function integral to Bitcoin, and PoW uses energy as fuel by design. The stronger the network, the more energy it requires. Whatever Bitcoiners will tell you, energy is rarely free and using renewables is often taking them away from someone else. I’ve said for many years that Bitcoin’s fundamental flaw is unwavering worship of PoW. Criticisms are valid but also understand the reasoning behind keeping it — this is a very complex area and you cannot make sweeping statements about it either way.
First point, NFTs are nothing to do with Bitcoin.
NFTs are issued across multiple platforms; the two most popular are Ethereum and Flow, the latter almost entirely because NBA Top Shot is built on it. Ethereum uses PoW, like Bitcoin, Flow uses Proof of Stake (PoS) instead. Proof of Stake has negligible environmental impact because it does not need energy as fuel, it relies only on game theory/economic principles.
- Proof of Stake is still somewhat unproven; less decentralised and less secure than Proof of Work. The longer PoS operates, in its many forms, and the more academic and practical work goes on, the better it gets. However, this is why Bitcoin is not PoS — it was barely an option back then and there are trade offs even now. Even so, no major blockchain launched for years uses Proof of Work because of its limitations and impact.
- Ethereum has been trying to move off PoW for years and is within a year or two of doing so completely. Ethereum will soon have no environmental impact and Flow doesn’t have one. There is no lack of demand or effort on Ethereum’s side; actually it’s very survival depends on making the move. It’s just an immensely complex thing to do. There are also multiple major networks associated with Ethereum that are PoS, i.e. no environmental impact, and projects are expanding out to those as we speak. You cannot push Ethereum any harder than it already is.
- Blockchains have different merits and significant trade offs. It’s not a simple question of using Flow or a related network. You could always walk to work but if work is 50 miles away then it’s not practical.
- An NFT transaction has no environmental impact anyway. Ethereum’s PoW system works whether you use it for NFTs or not. Alex May considered it like a mill, where the workers can use tools by hooking into the river’s power because it’s there regardless. If NFTs disappeared overnight there would be negligible environmental benefit. (*nuance applies here)
In summary, if you felt really strongly you could opt not to issue on ethereum until it’s PoS. However, this has no environmental impact and nor does it push ethereum any faster towards PoS. This is not like opting not to fly. You could also mint NFTs for e.g. Matic or xDai, ethereum related PoS platforms, although we’re still developing the necessary ecosystem UX and tooling improvements. Again, it’s not a lack of effort. Many NFTs will move to these in the next few months.
To claim that NFTs are bad for the environment is simply incorrect. PoW is certainly bad for the environment but that’s a different topic entirely. I’m not going to entertain anyone who says PoW isn’t — that’s motivated thinking at its finest. The debate is only about if it’s necessary.
If NFT critics then go make a t-shirt, print a book or paint on canvas, they may like to consider that these acts are far worse for the environment than a piece of digital art. Everything we do in life has an environmental impact but it’s important to put things into proportion. We don’t change the environment by not doing art or blaming consumers, we change it by forcing large corporations to change their behaviour, by providing new technology for recording environmental impact, and by supporting sustainable, environmentally beneficial projects and communities. I was an early funder of Regen Network to do just that. A few years later and they’re on the verge of being the first major blockchain project for social good. They want to use NFTs in future and I would hate for misinformation to damage their impact. Your words matter.
Artistic Merit
Crypto art already covers many different areas, from fine art to procedurally generated limited editions.
Check out places as diverse as https://knownorigin.io/ and https://artblocks.io/, or an art/visual/economically innovative project like https://eulerbeats.com/, or audio-visual and merchandise uses from the likes of https://deadmau5.rarez.io/.
Of course there are not so fine niches of the internet who trade in digital art you may consider infantile or without merit, but that’s the world we live in. Alex’s point here was that he’d seen a lot of Pepe memes and classic libertarian posts. While they certainly exist, they’re now a just one genre of many.
Artistic merit is in the eye of the beholder. NFTs operate on open platforms which allow a high degree of innovation and iteration, yet also copycats and misuse. There is good art, bad art, contentious art, pure money plays, and everything in between. A diverse ecosystem is a healthy one.
Right-click Save and Value of Digital Goods
Older generations, by which I mean anyone over 25, find it more difficult to grasp the value in digital items. I did a tweet storm comparing digital and physical here.
What’s important is to understand that where you don’t see value, your children are stocking up on Fortnite cosmetics. They live and breath digital. They get it and they’re the future. As they get older, they will see the value in more innovative digital content and in owning it properly. This is staring you in the face, you just don’t want to believe it.
I’m not just predicting this, the NFT audience now extends far from just a weird crypto crowd and they are collecting like crazy. Some to keep, some to trade, some to share. NBA Top Shot is an NFT video clip collecting and trading platform which did nearly $50m in sales on a single day this week. People care about ownership and provenance a lot more than simply being able to view content or look at something. They always have they always will.
Right-click save all you want, it changes nothing. I could print my own Banksy’s too — so what?
Conclusion
NFTs are here to stay. Whilst there is undoubtedly a bubble right now, for the first time they provide a way for digital artists, photographers, programmers, experimental musicians, animators, short film makers, 3d sculptors, economic designers, and indie game developers, to finally have access to the economic and reputational benefits classical artists have had access to for millennia.
Our digital artforms have been looked down upon for 30 years. We never got the recognition, the press or the gallery space other artforms did but that’s changing thanks to the likes of beeple. People can finally collect our work. They can value our work like never before. We should not be attacking it out of spite, immature technology, or because we’re too lazy/time constrained to do our research, instead choosing to shout or tweet because it’s easier.
Certain posts are designed to make you angry and not engage your brain. Just because they come from an artist or are about an important topic doesn’t change that.
We’re better than that. YOU are better than that as if you’re reading this you are an artist and I’m sure you care about the environment!
I’m not asking you to like NFTs or crypto art or support PoW (I don’t for the record). I’m saying you shouldn’t damn this area without knowing or caring about the facts. We’ve seen enough of this from certain politicians. We can only make the world a better place by being more understanding, respectful and putting value back on truth. Otherwise we’re every bit as bad as they are.
A note on Memo Atken’s post on the ecological impact of NFTs. It’s a hit piece which is hyperbolic, misleading, and abuses data throughout. The comments he makes in it are inflammatory, unhelpful, and as far as I’m concerned it’s a Daily Mail approach to environmentalism.
Making artists believe their NFTs are destroying the environment and to the extent that he says is deeply wrong; it’s shaming and guilting artists for no reason. His words have an effect; his words essentially left a friend of mine in a terrible state today. If you’re reading Memo, I understand where you’re coming from but this is not helpful — you’re not saving the environment and you’re not pushing ethereum to PoS. If you wanted to gather artists to do an environmental impact project then you could still have done it around PoW issues but in a positive manner, not like this.
Final notes: there are endless nuances but they only matter if you feel the need to dive in. I’ve also tried to avoid using much technical jargon. When I discuss impact I’m not talking about that caused by every computer network and, while blockchains are less efficient than classic single servers (but even then, nuance), I’m talking about the specific issue referred to when discussing Bitcoin et al.
PoW and PoS are parts of consensus systems, an incredibly complicated area to understand. However, Bitcoin’s PoW is the simplest and you can read about it in the original whitepaper.
