Thread by @0xngmi

I wonder if it may be easier to reach anti-nft artists by accepting their arguments instead of laughing them off or going against them, especially since a lot of these are actually true

- When you create NFTs that get sold you are increasing the fees paid to miners, which leads to an increase of energy spent today (if efficient market) or in the future (if max capacity is reached)

- Most NFTs are used for speculation, by creating NFTs you are enabling that

- The argument "if i dont do it someone else will" is bankrupt because if you follow it you should also scam people, which everyone universally agrees that is bad.

If someone steals money using a metamask trick nobody would say that scammer did right because of that reason.

Instead of fighting these arguments we could accept that they are true and counteract with other arguments like:

- How much does increased activity contribute to increasing total fees? If a tx didnt exist another one (with lower fees) would take its place, so maybe the increase is marginal

- NFTs are democratizing access to fine art markets to artists and creating new means for art commercialization

- NFTs are giving financial freedom to their creators

- Ethereum is transitioning to a system where energy spent will be much lower, so energy issue is transitory but NFTs could become a permanent model

Changing the discourse this way may help prevent the current cycles where the same anti-nft arguments are repeated over and over again and nobody ends up changing their minds