One of the reasons why many people find crypto-currency appealing is because of it being a decentralised means of managing currency without the unnecessary fees and bottleneck induced by the ‘middle man’. i.e the banks...

However, how true is this?  After all, there are still fees to pay, plus there are still a few unnecessary middle men...

The idea of gas fees and the environment. 

The question to ask here is; If high gas fees indicate high power consumption for processing, and high power consumption is the current issue concerning crypto mining and its effect on the environment. Then isn’t paying high gas fees  contributory to consciously harming the environment?

And then there is the one thing that privately and currently bothers me, and that is; If NFT Artworks are fundamentally based on the idea of scarcity and uniqueness.

And yet, there are many examples of collections of NFTart exceeding 1000s of iterations of a piece of artwork.

Now, unless I am missing out on a better understanding of scarcity, this practice, beyond a certain point, seems to contradict the concept, or at least adds to the ambiguity, of a “Non Fungible” item.

Okay, so whilst understanding the idea of owning a piece of art is pretty straightforward, what actually makes a piece of art valuable may depend on some of the qualities below: 

• it can be “popularised...”

i.e. based on celebrity status, brand or notional standards of quality and craftsmanship. 

• it is useable or can be repurposed...

As with conventional means of licensing artwork or music for third-party use. A practical NFT may need to be useable or allow for repurposing.

• it has a historically noteworthy attachment

Some things are just collectable, Especially if there is an emotional or historically noteworthy attachment.

Please feel free to have your say below in the comments section and help contribute to consolidating a revised version of this topic.