NFTs Have One Big Problem... Really?

The editors of LinkedIn have an interesting way of describing technology disruption in the archiving industry. They recently featured a post about "One Big Problem" for NFTs (or Non-fungible Tokens). What's the one big problem, you ask? It's difficult to find in the article they referenced which discusses NFTs impact in the world of archiving.

You can find the original post here, which garnered tens of thousands of clicks, and the original article it references here.

So what's the shocking revelation about NFTs that will destroy archiving as we know it? Tough to glean from the article. To be sure, the author Rick Prelinger is seriously concerned, even on an existential level, writing:

These developments pose existential threats to our field, and by extension, to the survival of human history and culture.

Wow. Sounds serious. Let's dig deeper. Prelinger points to the fact that archiving institutions are largely cash strapped, underfunded monoliths. Hmm. Would seem churning some of those old pennies out as NFTs could be a solution- you know- on marketplaces where investors are actively seeking unique and interesting pieces. Is that the "one big problem"? Seems like NFTs would be a solution there. Let's move to the next point.

Prelinger is under the forgivable and common misconception that owning an NFT is the same as owning the rights to the work. He laments:

Ideally, archives and museums should own and control both the physical and digital states of its collections. That won't happen if they have to sell or license NFTs in order to survive.

Unfortunately these two sentences have no logical connection. If archives had the rights to monetize any part of their collections, they could potentially mint NFTs as a fundraising tool without touching the underlying physical or digital object. It's a win-win. The owner of the NFT can't run away to Venezuela with it in hopes of never allowing another would-be viewer of the artifact to enjoy its dusty, torn edges. It just doesn't work like that.

Prelinger's crisis is further fueled by knock-offs in the NFT world. This one might have some merit, but it also has solutions. We all know how easy it would be for anyone to steal an image from the web and sell it as an NFT. Of course, this was already happening en-masse, but now there is a new monetization possibility. And its true. We cannot stop these bad actors easily. They are breaking copyright laws and getting away with it. It's an old problem on the internet, and NFTs are not the cause. They could however, contribute to the solution. As buyers of NFTs become more concerned with authenticity in order to the value and ROI (Return on Investment) of the purchase, they will be looking into where the digital representation comes from. It would seem like large, stodgy archival institutions still running mainframes would be the ideal party to verify provenance. This one sounds like its skewing toward saving the archival industry as opposed to destroying it. Let's move on.

Oh wait. That's it. The rest of the article is dedicated to how AI and deep fakes complicate the philosophical notion of authenticity. Look, it's an interesting read. Prelinger should be lauded for bringing up important issues in the development of the NFT ecosystem- a bourgeoning jungle with many solutions being proposed, developed and scaled for the above 'one-big,' errr, 'a couple small,' ummm, 'not-so-much-problems-as-solutions' that NFTs present.

One last point. There might be "one big problem" but it's with the editors of LinkedIn and similar mainstream outlets. Like the Bitcoin naysayers of old, any time a new technology threatens to disrupt the bottom line in any way to the traditional power wielders, even when it will likely raise their profits, is a point of concern. Power doesn't just like money. It likes power.

https://www.dhirubhai.net/news/story/nfts-have-one-big-problem-5419642/