Nonfungible tokens are currently a major topic of discussion within the crypto space, with creators and collectors alike jumping on the bandwagon.
According to Lee, artists in the real world are constrained by time and effort, likening this limitation to proof-of-work. For Lee, this restriction creates scarcity and, therefore, value for art pieces created by famous artists.
“NFTs, on the other hand, create artificial scarcity,” Lee tweeted, adding, “Because of the near zero cost to create another NFT, the market will eventually be flooded with NFTs from artists trying to cash in on this craze. Supply will overwhelm demand and the prices will eventually crash.”
Lee’s comments are a common criticism of NFTs a la right click and save. However, there are arguments to be made for the art scene, both real world and digital, being flooded by reproductions. The value of the piece often depends on the artist, with collectors paying attention to the creator of a work of art, thus distinguishing it from other copycat pieces.
Indeed, the ability to cryptographically sign art pieces is another oft-attributed benefit of NFTs, allowing artists to include metadata, file links and other necessary copyright elements.
With NFTs, scarcity becomes an expression of consensus, which is why an ultra-rare alien CryptoPunk sold for 605 Ether (ETH) back in January. While it would be possible to recreate this rare item, it would not be part of the collection created by Larva Labs back in 2017.
Hashmasks, another NFT collection, created 16,384 “cards,” selling out over $10 million worth in its first four days.
Lee’s critique also seems to limit NFTs to art rather than looking at the wider collectibles scene, with elements such as in-game assets and digital land. Earlier in February, nine digital plots of land on the virtual realm Lunacia sold for about $1.5 million.