NFT stands for Non-Fungible Tokens that are data certifications of artworks on a blockchain eventually becoming digital assets.
WAGMI stands for We’re All Gonna Make It, a popular belief shared by NFT artists on Twitter, Discord, and other social media.
It is almost obvious how anyone can make it especially given how simple it has become to turn any artwork (visual, audio, literature…) into NFT. I have even taken the time to make a free tutorial on how to turn any JPG into NFT:
Hence, anyone able to follow through the youtube tutorial can in theory make an NFT without any prior capital.
Technically, that’s true, however, the distribution of wealth amongst artists strongly disagrees as it follows a Pareto law with a huge disparity between artists.
You might think that some artists work harder than others or some are better than others. However, when you examine closely you find zero evidence to prove such assumptions.
Where is this disparity coming from? Why isn’t everyone who is working hard enough and producing great art making it?
You might accuse me of being a zero-sum thinker, one who is predisposed to think of zero-sum games in game theory and for every winner, there shall be a loser, however, I have started with the premises that NFTs can be minted by everyone and sold to anyone…
Nonetheless, the quasi-zero-sum-game is manifested not in the technicalities but in their macro-economical application to a market that prioritizes and promotes top sellers as signature sales.
However, there is one way around this that is very easy to implement only if:
- top sellers were to agree to promote less visible artists
- platforms did not so much promote top-selling artists and vice versa.
- communities of less-selling artists emerge and promote them until they start selling.
- art collectors did not chase signature and hype.
The WAGMI would then make more sense!
