What exactly is a non-foungible token (NFT)? A tool that assists us in supporting creators and disseminating songs, photos, images, and other digital artworks that inspire us? Is an NFT a digital asset that can be traded for a profit? both?

NFTs were once a part of a community-based subculture. They are now in a class of their own, uniquely positioned at the intersection of the finance, technology, and creative industries. As a result, NFTs hold this distinct position because they can be attached to a wide range of songs, game assets, photos, videos, event tickets, and even real-world physical assets such as yachts. As a result, they gathered a remarkably diverse community and industry, all with very different backgrounds, goals, and values.

This week, value has emerged as a major topic of discussion within the upcoming NFT ecosystem.The agitation is specifically focused on the utility of art NFTs, such as tokens featuring photographs, music, poems, and so on. Is the value of this kind of NFT inextricably linked to the digital artwork represented by the token? Or is the value determined by the incentives (financial or otherwise) provided to token owners?

These are just a few of the questions posed by artists, collectors, and developers.

First Day Out, a recent NFT release by noted photographer and crypto artist Isaac "Drift" Wright, has sparked the debate. First Day Out was created as an ERC-721 on Drift's custom Manifold smart contract. Collectors who already had NFTs with Draft work were able to mint first, followed by a 24-hour period of public minting.The project raised millions of dollars, and then things got heated.

Why is the NFT community divided on the issue of usefulness?

All of the talk about Drift's First Day Out collection comes down to one word: utility. Within the NFT ecosystem, utility is a major buzzword. 

In general, an NFT's usefulness refers to the utility, profitability, and benefit it provides to its owner. An NFT's utility can range from membership in a private community or DAO to a ticket to a virtual or physical event, among other things. 

With the rise of the PFP (profile picture) NFT market, it has become common to base a project's value on its roadmap, deliverables, and community initiatives rather than the quality of the art itself (or the artist).

So, what exactly happened? Why is the debate resurfacing now? Drift, as previously stated, had a 24-hour public sale. This type of sale is known as a "limited open edition" in the NFT ecosystem. It is essentially a free-to-play game in which anyone can purchase a limited edition of the same NFT for a limited time. Drift raised over $6 million by selling over 10,000 NFTs at the end of the sale. 

As a result, some collectors have begun to ask Drift what comes next, i.e. what utility he plans to add (free airdrops? live meet and greets?) to thank those who supported him.
‍

Drift, on the other hand, has insisted that he owes nothing to anyone who purchases his work. For him, and many others in the NFT community, art may exist solely for the sake of art. It doesn't have to have any underlying utility other than that. Others are dissatisfied with this ideology. They believe that NFT creators should give back to their community, especially when their project is such a huge success.

This is where the debate begins. Is it acceptable for Drift to make so much money without returning anything to its collectors? Or do you really have no obligation because art is a utility and a benefit in and of itself?

Here's an example of what the community has to say:

Some thoughts on NFTs and their utility

The NFT market in 2022 is vastly different from what it was even a year ago. At the start of 2021, the NFT ecosystem appeared to be solely focused on digital art. NFTs were being discovered by artists as a new way to sell art and connect with their fans. Collectors were discovering that the NFT trade was a new way to collect and profit from digital art. But, in reality, things have changed. 

Since NFTs became popular, a slew of new people and communities have emerged, and many artists are making millions (as are many collectors). However, it is not an overstatement to say that art, or the actual application of creative skill (drawings, paintings, animations), continues to drive the NFT market. Not everything is about making money and profit. After all, Bored Apes, Cool Cats, Doodles, Cath Simard, and Drift would not have sold blank NFTs. However, this does not imply that artists are at the heart of the ecosystem.

Artists, on the other hand, have been creating and selling art for hundreds of years. Art has value in and of itself, as history has demonstrated. Why should an artist now offer her collectors something other than the result of her years of dedication to her craft?Things have shifted once more. NFTs have altered the landscape. 

They made it possible for collectors to own a work of art while also receiving special benefits. When their project was successful, they provided a way for artists to make millions from their work and become a rising tide for all ships by sharing the wealth with their collectors. These changes raised a slew of new concerns, and the debate is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon (if ever). The debate that erupted this week and began to make waves is very likely to result in some pretty large waves.