NFT Cryptocurrency
Carla Paz-Almonte
Many of the mega-famous and super-rich are trying their luck in NFTs, a new style of digital art that promises a one of a kind piece. Billionaire Elon Musk auctioned off an NFT that received one of the highest bids of $1.12 million. NFT artists like Beeple have sold their NFT art for upwards of $69 million. Musicians, including Gorillaz and Grimes are also trying their luck in NFTs.
Although these huge names have participated in the NFT trend for some time, their participation has begun to inspire backlash. When Gorillaz announced they would be selling an NFT, there was an immediate influx of criticism. Many fans pointed out that the NFT would negatively impact the environment since it has come to light that to create these unique pieces, megawatts of energy need to be used. With the rise of NFTs in the past couple of months come questions about the function of NFTs and how they are impacting the environment.
Before we get into why NFTs are bad, we have to first understand what NFTs are. As previously stated, NFT stands for non-fungible token, which means what you receive is one of a kind. NFTs can be anything from art to music, but all NFTs are digital. The reason why so many are excited about this is because the sale of digital NFTs is a new way of collecting digital art. Though the main appeal of NFTs is to own one of a kind art, anyone can still download the art without having to bid millions of dollars for it. So, what are people paying for if you can download it for free? What you do get is ownership of the artwork, despite the artist still maintaining the right to copyright and reproduce it. The best way to explain it is that you own the original art piece, while everyone else has a reprint.
Most NFTs are supported by a blockchain called Ethereum, which is a cryptocurrency. This blockchain stores extra information to support NFTs. All of the data they store is supported by “mining,” which means that the system uses computers that are equipped with advanced cryptography that decide if transactions are valid. The energy being used in this process is the same amount of energy that would be needed to sustain a small country. For example, Space Cat (an NFT of a cat in a rocket going to the moon), is equivalent to two month’s of energy usage of someone living in the EU. This was estimated by a website called cryptoart.wtf, which was created by Memo Akten, a digital artist. The website was used to analyze over 18,000 NFTs. He found that the average NFT is equal to one month’s energy use by someone living in the EU. The website has since been taken down because it “has been used as a tool for abuse and harassment.”
What’s up for debate about the use of NFTs is whether they are significantly polluting the environment or if miners would have generated the same amount of energy anyways. Even if NFTs did not exist, miners would still be polluting the environment, and NFTs only make up a small part of all of the transactions on Ethereum. “There is a whole ecosystem of people who are creating emissions, so I don’t think it’s fair to the artists to say that you created this amount of CO2,” John Crain, CEO of Superare, an NFT marketplace said.Crain says he shares the concerns over the environmental impact of emissions and is looking for a way to make sustainable transactions for his company. Many NFT artists are hoping that the issue will be fixed in a year or two, but in the meantime, NFT art will continue to be produced.
Sources:
Comments