The "NFT regression" triggered by Ordinals is not a return to idealism

Author: Cookie

Source: BlockBeats

From transporting the BRC-20 Token issuance model to ETH's $FERC, to directly inserting images as Base64 strings into the Hex Data field of ETH transactions to achieve the Bitcoin NFT minting method known as ETHscriptions, the "minting" method of Bitcoin NFTs has recently been frequently transported to ETH, attracting the attention of many players.

It seems that the idealistic aesthetics of Bitcoin NFTs, such as "immutable, fair, decentralized," have been conveyed to ETH through the somewhat clumsy NFT generation method formed by Bitcoin's characteristics. However, is this really a return to idealism?

"On-chain" NFTs on ETH

As the ETH NFT ecosystem has developed to this day, we as players may feel helpless about many issues, such as the PUA based on whitelist mechanisms, "scientists" who take away a large share during public sales, the lack of new narratives, and the proliferation of "meme coins" that are known to be manipulated but still have to be chased. However, as a well-established NFT ecosystem, ETH NFTs have also engaged in profound discussions on many issues, and the market has already provided answers.

"Immutability" or "on-chain storage" may seem like a "technical issue," but it is actually a "market issue." This topic has been discussed on ETH for quite some time.

This is a tweet I found published two years ago, where @dhof classified ETH's "on-chain NFTs" based on different implementation methods. One-star is storing data in the calldata field of ETH transactions, two-star is storing data via the EVM opcode sstore and rendering it through external scripts, and the highest three-star is storing data via the EVM opcode sstore and completing rendering with a built-in renderer in the smart contract to output SVG images or other similar data URIs.

If we rate Ethscription according to this standard, Ethscription can only receive a one-star rating. As mentioned at the beginning of its official website, Ethscription achieves this by storing data in the calldata field of ETH transactions. The rendering of images must be done through off-chain indexing, and by open-sourcing the index, off-chain operations are also made decentralized.

For ETH, "on-chain NFTs" are no longer a novelty. I can quickly recall several project names in my mind—Autoglyphs, Larva Lads, Chain Runners, and OnChain Monkeys, which are also active in Bitcoin NFTs.

Retrieving the tokenURI of Autoglyphs reveals a long string, and by segmenting this string, an image can be produced.

Retrieving the tokenURI of Larva Lads also reveals a long string, but the type is defined as JSON, and the content is a base64 string. Larva Lads has built-in operations in the contract for decoding and rendering, ultimately outputting SVG images.

Returning to @dhof's tweet, I also saw some very interesting discussions:

@0xCardinalError expressed confusion about why @dhof insists on on-chain storage, stating that while on-chain storage is cool as an experiment, what is more important for NFTs is to focus on "building a sustainable culture." He also mentioned that solutions like IPFS and Arweave reduce the minting costs of NFTs, which is actually the "market issue" I mentioned earlier, rather than a "technical issue." Although IPFS and Arweave are off-chain storage solutions and carry the risk of data loss, the ETH NFT market has already provided choices with real money.

@WhenLambo6135 explained the significance of "immutability" well—allowing artworks to exist even when the creator/project disappears, just like Da Vinci doesn't need to continuously paint the Mona Lisa to keep it alive; he just needs to ensure the painting is not lost and is well-preserved. To some extent, this is also an understanding of blockchain from another angle—a medium of information storage supported by modern technology and consensus. Compared to physical paintings, blockchain artworks do not require troublesome maintenance; they only need the internet and computers to not disappear, as well as people's faith in the blockchain network.

The "building a sustainable culture" mentioned by @0xCardinalError, like the indispensable contributors to the thriving ETH NFT ecosystem—art creators—have gradually been forgotten in one "get-rich-quick" story after another. The principle of Ethscription is not new to ETH, but it has its promoters and speculators. Viewing it from a speculative perspective naturally leads to the famous "don't be biased" theory. But if we look at the market, most of the "new technological concepts" that Ethscription and various other projects on Bitcoin have produced are direct copies of ETH Rock and CryptoPunks, and the most popular remains meme tokens. For example, the so-called first imitation of the BRC-20 Token, $ETHS, issued by Ethscription has no index, no trading market, and doesn't even have a well-prepared technical document like BRC-20, yet it has reached a high price of 100U per piece in the over-the-counter market. While writing this article, I even saw a certain KOL posting a BRC-20 on BSC, and after searching Twitter, I found only that KOL's source, with a minting tutorial priced at $8…

Is this really a return to "idealism"?

"Development" through "Market Intervention"?

The narrative of $FERC, which transports the BRC-20 Token issuance model to ETH, emphasizes "fairness and decentralization." However, on June 19, the exposure by @kkk_ethe sparked discussions about developer Jackygu's "market intervention" regarding $FERC.

In response, Jackygu stated:

Well… I cannot understand; I can only understand that the launch of $FERC is "fair." However, I cannot understand whether the development of a project can really be achieved through "market intervention." Bitcoin, ETH, and even Doge—none of them have escaped severe fluctuations, right? The ones that cannot be knocked down only grow stronger.

In fact, the price fluctuations do not shake "consensus." The term "consensus" has almost been overused; it is not about today I buy and you buy, and we shout 100x together for others to take over, but rather about forming genuine emotional connections and ideological resonance. Just like when Bitcoin was still very cheap, if you encountered someone on the street who also believed in Bitcoin, you might both light up and find each other interesting—that's a simple and direct manifestation of "consensus." If there were no selfless early developers, no true dreamers in the beginning, could Bitcoin really have withstood the test of time? If Bitcoin had started "intervening in the market" when it reached $1, would it still have "subsequent healthy development"?

I mentioned earlier some points of dissatisfaction among many ETH NFT players today. Indeed, as ETH has come this far, there are many "unfair" aspects that make players unhappy, such as VCs/CEX taking away a large amount of initial chips, whales "occupying" Launchpads, and meme tokens setting up a bunch of "blacklists," "transaction taxes," and so on…

But these are not "technical" issues; they are "human" issues. In a decentralized world, to still use "decentralization" as the narrative of a project is already quite ironic… On the path of "making money," we have gone too far; when can we go back, and do we really want to go back? Just like the frequently mentioned "Token withdrawal movement," if we firmly say "no" with our actions, then the so-called "unfairness" will disappear, but the reality is not so.

Conclusion

As I write to the end, I am also speechless. Let the title serve as the conclusion:

The "NFT regression" triggered by Ordinals is not a return to idealism.