Massive Ecological Concerns vs. Passive Non-Fungible Returns

The crypto bull market is in full swing with BTC and ETH both at all time highs. The NFT space is bringing outright groundbreaking capabilities to countless individual creatives.

Not to mention the yet to be realized application potential now being recognized which couldn’t previously have been imagined. Now the carbon footprint of Ethereum is being shoved back into the spotlight once more. This time the NFT space in particular appears to be drawing inordinate negative focus. Could all the negative perspectives being embraced be due to anything other than the potential environmental impact of non-fungible tokenization?

Artists who have chosen to embrace NFTs in order to participate and succeed creatively as well as financially where they previously might not have been able to are often just as intent on creating positive impact, meaningful progress, and much needed change. Unfortunately, many legitimate grounds for welcoming the NFT revolution are currently taking a back seat to mostly flawed logic.

Of course some insiders have seen this coming for a while.

Probably not a bad idea to hear what a few other long time insiders are thinking…

Why does this NFT scapegoating logic fail?

𝚂𝚌𝚘𝚝𝚝 𝙻Ξ𝚠𝚒𝚜: Digital artists have created content for their employers because that was a good way to earn a living. It has always been hard to make a living selling your own digital art. Big industries like TV, movies, video games built business models which depended on high quality talent needing to work for them. If those artists can make a good living focusing on creating their own art, they might quit their day job. And that is bound to make some people angry.

J1mmy: I’ve been fighting this since the day I saw it. I used to be a miner and my costs were fixed monthly, more or less. Miners run at full speed all the time. Doesn’t matter if blocks are empty or full miners actually use and pay for the electricity used to run the network, and they profit from it. They are fully responsible here. Not people making efficient use of the network, like nftland.

Tschuuuly: ETH network takes their share in energy consumption, but NFTs are just a part of the cake. Go complain about defi, not the cool stuff and the artists. NFTs are coming, get used to it! They solve the problem of digital ownership. Now have fun seeing the possibilities evolve!

Raster Eyes: Do people consider how much energy other forms of entertainment use? How much energy does the world watching TV shows and movies and playing video games use? Also, ethereum functions as a whole economic machine with banking, lending, borrowing, investing, etc... How much energy does the whole world's banking and financial systems use? All the lights and computers that are left on in the (probably) hundreds of thousands of financial offices around the world. Nobody is criticizing any of these activities and institutions for their energy use. What we need to do is find clean energy solutions, because as we progress in our technologies we will inevitably use more electricity, regardless.

Pranked: They’re obviously not doing their research and due diligence before such attacks.'

It seems more than likely that NFT trailblazers and early investors will stay in place on the Ethereum blockchain while improvements continue to be made, such as Optimistic Rollups. An upgrade most specifically intended to help alleviate ETH gas fee’s for users. However, improved gas fee's are just a stepping stone on the path to ETH 2.0 - a fully Proof of Stake consensus Ethereum intended to put an end to energy intensive mining of the blockchain. Many critics have likely neglected to emphasize much about these upcoming upgrades. They’ve also not had much nice to say about the incredible community of brilliant, hard-working, and like-minded participants who have been instrumental in pioneering the NFT space we all now share in.

Is anyone actually considering pulling the plug on NFT first movers and welcoming detractors?

See you all next week.