I read an article this morning and it made my blood boil. I understand a lot of people don't understand Technology or even crypto. I get that and I expect some ignorance with it. But what I can't stand is people going out of their way to bash it without knowing the true details.
This is the article in question if you want to read it.
In it the author talks about how NFT's are basically destroying the planet. He makes that assertion by stating that any 1 given NFT has hundreds of transactions tied to it. Because of that each transaction would need processing power (Proof-of-work) to complete it and there by using electricity and by association releasing carbon into the world. I am not going to disagree with those statements.
However what I am going to strongly disagree with is that NOT ALL NFTS ARE CREATED EQUAL. The author is basing his figured off the Ethereum blockchain and well yeah Ethereum sucks. Gas fees are ridiculous and a highly used crypto at the moment.
But an NFT sale from start to finish can be hundreds of transactions. It is estimated that an average NFT takes up 340 kWh of energy and emits 211 kg of CO2. This compares to flying for two hours or driving for 620 miles. Worst, most NFTs will never be sold, causing artists to lose money while also harming the planet irreversibly.
That is just ignorance and not doing your research. It pisses me off because the author is targeting NFT's because it's what "hot" right now. Why don't we attack all Proof and Work Cryptos then. They are the base at what is using a ton of electricity and releasing all this carbon. Proof of Stake cryptos are the future and do not destroy the planet like Proof-of-Work. Does the author mention WAX or Atomichub? You know the ones who run the hottest NFT based games ON THE PLANET? nope!
This article is my rant at people trashing crypto without knowing the facts. Sure this particular author did some math on Electricity to Carbon and estimated transactions per NFT. But I can honestly say that a lot of my NFT's were either minted to me or minted and sent to me and stayed in my wallet without me touching them. So that is 2 transactions at best for those NFT's. So please don't make grand assumptions on the NFT market and those who utilize it.
Say an artist sold around a small number of artworks, with each having a few hundred editions, totaling 800. Over a course of 3 months, these sales totaled 138,272 kWh of energy and 85 tons of CO2. This is comparable to flying for 825 hours and consuming electricity for 40 years.
Where are they pulling this crap from? I understand they are only referring to artwork NFT but in the same breath they need to clarify throughout the article. Because if someone unfamiliar with Crypto and NFT's reads the article they are going to have a mindset that all NFT's are bad and destroying the world. And while I think that Proof of Work cryptos are inherently bad for our planet, there are WAY worse offenders out there. If you really care about Global Warming and the planet then do your research on what is the leading cause of Carbon emissions... I will give you a hint (it's Animal's we raise only to be killed and eaten)
So that is my rant to everyone reading this. Please when you read something think critically about how it's being written. When you write something thing of the big picture.
You could say my title is click bait, a dramatic title to get people's attention. And yeah it is
You could say I am biased against Ethereum and PoW, and yeah I am and I admit it.
Know your audience and know your author! And stop demonizing NFT's because a NFT is not the problem. It is just the face of a problem!