El renacimiento de los NFT

Non-fungible tokens have not produced the broad digital renaissance once predicted by their strongest advocates. They have, however, established a durable method for recording ownership, access and provenance around digital assets. The speculative surge of 2021 brought NFTs into auction houses, gaming communities and popular culture, but it also attached unrealistic prices to many projects whose value depended largely on continued demand from new buyers. Several years later, the market is smaller, more selective and increasingly focused on whether a token provides a meaningful right, experience or connection to an artist.

The change is visible in both trading activity and cultural positioning. DappRadar recorded $1.6bn in NFT trading volume and more than 18mn NFT sales during the third quarter of 2025, indicating that the market remains active despite its retreat from earlier peaks. Yet aggregate transaction volume says little about the quality or permanence of demand. Low-priced gaming assets, digital collectibles and repeated marketplace trades can produce substantial transaction counts without recreating the high-value art market that dominated headlines in 2021.

The central question is therefore no longer whether a digital file can be associated with a unique blockchain token. That has been demonstrated. The more difficult question is what the token gives its owner, why another buyer would value it and whether the relationship between the token, the artwork and the creator can survive changes in platforms, technology and market sentiment.

Beeple changed the market but did not define its future

The sale of Mike Winkelmann’s Everydays The First 5000 Days at Christie’s in March 2021 remains the defining transaction of the NFT boom. The work sold for $69.3mn, making Beeple one of the most valuable living artists at auction and demonstrating that a purely digital work could command a price previously associated with established names in contemporary art.

The transaction mattered for several reasons. Christie’s gave the sale the institutional visibility of a major auction house, cryptocurrency wealth created a new group of potential collectors, and Beeple already had a large online audience built through years of publishing digital images. The price reflected the convergence of art, technology, online reputation and a rapidly rising crypto market rather than the sudden discovery of an unknown artist.

It also created expectations that could not be repeated across the wider market. Thousands of artists and entrepreneurs issued tokens in the hope that scarcity alone would generate value. Celebrity collections, computer-generated profile pictures and lightly differentiated projects attracted buyers who expected rapid resale profits. Many tokens provided weak intellectual-property rights, little artistic distinction and no durable reason for ownership once speculative interest declined.

Beeple’s sale validated the possibility of collecting digitally native art, but it did not establish that every tokenised image was a significant artwork or financial asset. The distinction became clearer when crypto prices fell, trading volumes weakened and buyers began evaluating the work, artist and ownership terms more carefully.

An NFT is not the artwork itself

A non-fungible token is a blockchain record that can identify a particular digital unit and document transfers between wallets. It may contain or refer to information associated with an image, video, piece of music, game object or physical asset. The token is unique within its technical system, but the media connected to it can often still be viewed, downloaded or copied by anyone.

This creates a frequent misunderstanding. Purchasing an NFT does not automatically transfer copyright, reproduction rights or commercial control over the associated work. Unless the terms state otherwise, the artist may retain intellectual-property rights while the buyer acquires the token and whatever limited licence accompanies it.

The distinction resembles some aspects of traditional collecting. Owning a painting does not necessarily give the collector the right to reproduce it commercially. In the digital market, however, the separation is more visible because identical copies of the image can circulate online while the token holder claims ownership of the designated blockchain record.

Collectors therefore need to understand several layers of ownership:

• The blockchain token: The buyer controls the token through a digital wallet and can transfer it according to the network’s rules.
• The associated media: The artwork may be stored directly on a blockchain, on a decentralised storage system or on an external server.
• Copyright and licensing rights: These depend on the contract or licence established by the creator and are not transferred automatically.
• Marketplace access: The ability to display or sell the token may depend on platforms that can change their policies or cease operating.
• Additional benefits: Some tokens provide access to communities, events, physical objects, games or future releases, although these promises depend on the issuer’s continued performance.

The quality of an NFT investment or collection cannot be assessed without examining all five elements. A technically valid token may be linked to a missing file, an unclear licence or benefits that the issuer never delivers.

Blockchain improves provenance but does not authenticate every claim

One of the strongest arguments for NFTs is that blockchains provide a visible history of token creation and ownership. A collector can inspect when a token was issued, which wallet created it and how it moved between subsequent owners. This can improve provenance in a digital environment where files can otherwise be duplicated without an obvious transaction history.

The record is only as reliable as the information entered into it. A blockchain can prove that a particular wallet created a token, but it cannot independently prove that the wallet belonged to the artist or had permission to use the work. Fraudsters have issued tokens linked to images they did not create, while compromised accounts have been used to sell unauthorised assets.

Auction houses, galleries and recognised marketplaces still perform an important function by verifying identity and establishing trust. Blockchain does not replace these institutions as completely as early advocates suggested. Instead, it provides another layer of documentation that can complement legal contracts, expert authentication and professional reputation.

The comparison with a museum or catalogue raisonné should therefore be used carefully. Cultural institutions do more than record transactions. They evaluate authorship, context, condition and significance. A blockchain records what happened to a token within the system; it does not determine whether the associated object is authentic, important or valuable.

Auction houses adopted NFTs but remained selective

Christie’s and Sotheby’s moved quickly into digital art during the 2021 boom. Their involvement gave NFTs access to established collectors, professional marketing and auction infrastructure. It also allowed the auction houses to reach crypto-native buyers who had accumulated significant digital wealth but had limited engagement with the traditional art market.

The relationship has since become more selective. Auction houses continue to offer digital works and participate in discussions around blockchain-based art, but NFTs have not displaced paintings, sculpture or conventional online sales. The wider art market remains dominated by physical works, with Art Basel and UBS estimating global art sales of $59.6bn in 2025.

Digital art occupies a smaller part of that market, although its cultural influence is not measured only by auction value. Artists increasingly work across physical installations, software, artificial intelligence, video and blockchain systems. Some use NFTs as certificates, distribution tools or access mechanisms rather than treating the token itself as the complete artwork.

Beeple’s later exhibitions illustrate this convergence. His practice has moved beyond isolated digital files into physical installations, machines, prints and works that connect online culture with objects displayed in conventional art settings. This suggests that the lasting influence of NFTs may be less about replacing museums and galleries than about giving digitally native artists additional ways to distribute and monetise their work.

Marketplaces widened access and magnified speculation

OpenSea, Rarible, Blur and other marketplaces made it possible for artists and creators to issue tokens without gaining prior approval from a gallery or auction house. This lowered barriers to entry and gave artists direct access to international buyers.

The same openness made quality control difficult. Collections could be created quickly, identities could remain anonymous and trading incentives encouraged users to buy and sell repeatedly. Some marketplaces rewarded activity with tokens, making transaction volume an unreliable measure of organic collecting demand.

Wash trading became a persistent concern. A user could move an NFT between related wallets to create the appearance of activity or qualify for marketplace rewards. Although analytics firms developed methods to identify suspicious transactions, the problem weakened the credibility of headline market figures.

Marketplace competition also exposed the fragility of creator royalties. Early NFT platforms promoted smart-contract royalties as a way for artists to receive a percentage each time a work was resold. In practice, royalty enforcement often depended on marketplace policies rather than an unavoidable feature of the token. As platforms competed for traders, some reduced or made royalties optional.

This was a significant lesson. Blockchain can automate payments when the relevant transaction follows a compatible contract, but it cannot force every marketplace or private transfer to honour the artist’s preferred terms. Legal enforceability and platform governance remain important.

Creator royalties offered promise but not certainty

Resale royalties are one of the most attractive ideas associated with digital art. Traditional artists usually receive no share when an early buyer later resells a work for a much higher price. NFT contracts appeared to offer a mechanism through which creators could participate in the secondary market automatically.

For artists with sustained demand, royalties can produce meaningful income. A creator who sells an early work at a modest price may benefit as recognition grows and collectors trade the tokens. This can better align the financial interests of the artist and the market around their work.

The model faces several limitations. Royalties can discourage trading when buyers regard them as an additional transaction cost, and platforms may choose not to enforce them. An artist also needs an active secondary market before resale income becomes material. Most NFT collections do not trade frequently enough to create reliable royalty revenue.

Artists should therefore avoid building a business model entirely around future resales. Primary sales, commissions, memberships, physical editions and professional services may provide more predictable income. Royalties should be treated as a potential supplementary benefit rather than a guaranteed annuity.

Collectors should also distinguish royalties from investment quality. A project that promises generous payments to its creator is not necessarily valuable to buyers. The central question remains whether there is durable demand for the work or access represented by the token.

Ethereum’s energy transition changed the environmental debate

Environmental criticism became closely associated with NFTs during the 2021 boom because many were issued and traded on Ethereum when the network still used proof of work. That system required substantial computing power and electricity to validate transactions.

Ethereum’s transition to proof of stake in September 2022 changed the calculation materially. According to Ethereum’s published energy analysis, the transition reduced annual electricity consumption by more than 99.98 percent. An NFT transaction on post-Merge Ethereum therefore has a very different energy profile from one conducted under the earlier system.

This does not remove every environmental concern connected with digital assets. Data centres, devices and blockchain infrastructure still consume resources, while other networks may use different validation systems. The environmental impact of an NFT also depends on how it is issued, stored and traded.

The earlier debate nevertheless needs updating. Criticism based entirely on Ethereum’s former proof-of-work consumption is no longer accurate. Investors and institutions should examine the current network and its actual energy requirements rather than applying one general assumption to every blockchain.

The transition also shows how quickly technological risks can change. A criticism that is decisive in one period may become less relevant after a network redesign, while new concerns around centralisation, security or governance may emerge.

Gaming may provide a stronger use case than collectible images

NFTs can represent game characters, virtual land, equipment and other digital objects. In principle, blockchain ownership allows players to transfer these items between wallets and trade them outside a publisher’s internal database.

The idea is attractive because players already spend substantial sums on digital goods. A token can give them greater control over an item and potentially allow it to retain value beyond a single transaction.

Practical implementation is more difficult. Game developers must continue supporting the item, preserving the game and recognising the token. A sword from one game has no automatic utility in another merely because both use blockchain technology. Interoperability requires technical and commercial cooperation between publishers.

Early blockchain games also placed too much emphasis on financial rewards. “Play to earn” models often depended on new players purchasing tokens from existing participants. When user growth slowed, token prices fell and the economic incentives weakened.

More durable gaming applications are likely to treat ownership as a secondary feature rather than the main reason to play. Players must value the game itself, while the token gives them additional control over selected assets. A weak game does not become compelling because its objects can be traded.

Luxury brands use tokens as certificates and membership tools

Luxury companies have explored NFTs as a way to connect physical goods with digital records. A token can document the sale of a watch, handbag or collectible and provide access to product information, services or exclusive events.

This use case differs from speculative digital art. The token supports an existing product and relationship rather than attempting to create value independently. It may help brands maintain contact with customers after a resale and provide collectors with additional provenance information.

The benefits depend on reliable links between the physical object and the digital record. A token cannot prevent a counterfeit item from being paired with a copied reference unless the authentication process is controlled carefully. Owners must also transfer both the object and token correctly when the product is resold.

Luxury brands have an advantage because they already possess customer trust, intellectual property and service networks. They can integrate digital ownership into warranties, repairs, private events and resale programmes. Anonymous NFT issuers generally cannot provide the same institutional support.

The wider lesson is that tokens may be most useful when attached to established rights or services. A blockchain record can improve an existing ownership system, but it rarely creates economic value without something credible behind it.

Museums and cultural institutions face a different calculation

Museums initially considered NFTs as possible fundraising instruments and ways to engage younger digital audiences. Some institutions issued tokens linked to works in their collections or collaborated with contemporary digital artists.

The approach creates both opportunities and reputational risks. A well-designed project can support artists, finance conservation or extend access to cultural material. A poorly designed sale can appear to commercialise a public collection without offering meaningful artistic or educational value.

Institutions also need to address intellectual-property rights, donor restrictions and the permanence of digital platforms. If a museum sells a token associated with an artwork, buyers must understand whether they receive a digital edition, a certificate, access rights or merely a collectible reference.

Cultural organisations should not enter the market solely because NFTs are popular at a particular moment. Projects need an artistic or institutional purpose that remains defensible after token prices decline. The use of blockchain should solve a genuine problem or contribute to the interpretation of the work.

NFTs introduced new forms of fraud and operational risk

Digital ownership places greater responsibility on collectors. A person who loses access to a private key may lose control of the token permanently. A fraudulent website can obtain wallet approval and transfer assets without the owner understanding what has happened.

Scams became common during the market boom. Attackers impersonated artists, created false marketplace links and promised token distributions designed to gain access to wallets. Projects also raised money before their founders disappeared or abandoned the promised development.

Collectors should apply basic controls:

• Verify the issuer. The artist or organisation should confirm the official contract address and marketplace through established communication channels.
• Understand storage. Buyers should know whether the artwork is stored on-chain, through decentralised storage or on an ordinary server.
• Review the licence. Ownership of the token should not be confused with copyright or commercial usage rights.
• Use secure wallets. High-value assets should be separated from wallets used for routine marketplace activity.
• Question promised utility. Access to future games, events or physical products depends on the issuer remaining able and willing to deliver.
• Examine trading activity. High volume may reflect incentives, related wallets or speculation rather than broad collector demand.
• Consider tax treatment. Purchases and sales can create reporting obligations and taxable gains depending on the jurisdiction.
• Plan for succession. Owners need a secure way for heirs or authorised representatives to access digital assets without exposing private keys prematurely.

These precautions do not eliminate market risk. They reduce the possibility that a technically avoidable error destroys the value of an otherwise legitimate holding.

Valuation remains highly uncertain

Traditional art valuation is subjective, but it draws on an established network of galleries, auction records, specialists, museums and collector histories. NFT markets developed much faster and often lacked comparable institutional depth.

Prices were frequently influenced by online attention, cryptocurrency wealth and community enthusiasm. A collection could rise rapidly after celebrity promotion or a marketplace listing, then decline when attention shifted elsewhere. Limited supply did not guarantee lasting scarcity because new collections could be issued continuously.

Valuation should begin with the creator and work rather than the token format. Collectors can examine the artist’s practice, exhibition history, technical contribution, community and commitment to future work. They should also assess whether the token represents an important piece within that practice or one of thousands of similar items.

Liquidity must be evaluated separately. A marketplace may show a high last sale without providing evidence that another buyer exists at the same price. Floor prices can be supported by a small number of bids and may fall quickly when sellers attempt to exit.

NFTs should therefore not be treated as substitutes for cash, bonds or diversified equity investments. They are speculative and culturally dependent assets whose financial value may decline to zero. Even significant digital artworks may have irregular resale markets.

Artificial intelligence complicates digital scarcity

Generative AI can produce images, music and video at extremely low marginal cost. This expands creative possibilities but also increases the supply of digital material competing for attention.

NFTs can provide a record showing which token is associated with a particular creator or release. They cannot establish that the underlying work required substantial human effort or possesses artistic significance. In a market flooded with generated images, provenance may become more important while aesthetic differentiation becomes more difficult.

Artists may use AI as part of a deliberate practice, developing models, datasets and concepts that distinguish their work. Others may issue large collections of automatically generated material with minimal curation. The technical method alone does not determine artistic value.

The overlap also raises questions about training data and copyright. An artist can issue an NFT linked to an AI-generated image without resolving whether the model used protected works during training. Collectors and institutions may need greater disclosure about creative processes and rights.

Digital scarcity becomes meaningful only when attached to something people value. A unique token associated with an interchangeable image remains economically weak, however secure the blockchain record may be.

The market’s future lies in narrower and stronger uses

The NFT market is likely to remain active over the next three to five years, but its strongest applications may no longer use the term NFT prominently. Consumers may interact with digital tickets, memberships, game assets and product certificates without needing to understand the blockchain infrastructure beneath them.

Digital art will remain an important category, particularly for artists whose work is created for screens, software and online environments. Auction houses and galleries will continue participating selectively, while successful creators will combine physical exhibitions, digital editions and direct online distribution.

The market is unlikely to recover simply by repeating the profile-picture collections and speculative incentives of 2021. Buyers have greater awareness of platform risk, weak licensing and unreliable promises. Projects will need clearer rights, stronger creative identities and benefits that do not depend on continually rising token prices.

Regulation may also become more significant. Tokens marketed as investments or linked to revenue can attract securities-law scrutiny, while marketplaces face obligations concerning money laundering, consumer protection and taxation. Greater oversight may increase costs but improve confidence among institutional users.

Technological development will continue reducing transaction costs and simplifying wallet use. Better interfaces are necessary because mainstream consumers are unlikely to manage complex addresses, private keys and network fees merely to access a digital collectible.

Digital ownership survives the speculative cycle

NFTs did not recreate the Renaissance, democratise the art market completely or make every digital object investable. Their early promoters often confused technical scarcity with cultural value and marketplace liquidity with lasting demand.

The technology nevertheless addressed a genuine problem. Digital creators can now issue identifiable editions, document transfers and sell directly to global audiences. Collectors can hold blockchain-based records connected to works and experiences that exist primarily online.

Beeple’s $69.3mn sale remains a landmark because it forced the traditional art market to recognise the commercial importance of digitally native work. It should not be used as a general valuation model for the millions of tokens issued afterwards.

The long-term significance of NFTs will depend on what survives after speculation is removed. Tokens linked to serious artistic practices, useful digital goods, reliable product records or genuine membership rights may remain valuable. Those supported only by artificial scarcity and expectations of resale are less likely to endure.

The NFT market is not entering a new renaissance. It is entering a more demanding period in which ownership claims must be matched by credible rights, artistic quality or practical use.