From porting the BRC-20 Token issuance model to ETH's $FERC, to directly converting images into Base64 strings and inserting them into the Hex Data field of ETH transactions to implement the Bitcoin NFT burning method ETHscriptions, the Bitcoin NFT "burning" method has been frequently ported to ETH in recent times, attracting the attention of many players.

It seems that the idealistic beauty of Bitcoin NFT, such as "immutability, fairness, and decentralization," has been passed on to ETH through the slightly clumsy NFT generation method that replicates the characteristics of Bitcoin. However, is this really a return to idealism?

ETH’s “Fully On-Chain” NFT

As the ETH NFT ecosystem has developed to this day, as players, we may feel helpless about many issues, such as PUA based on the whitelist mechanism, "scientists" who took a large share during the public sale, the lack of new narratives, the insignificant projects themselves, and the rampant "dogs" who know that they are manipulated by funds but have to rush in, etc. However, as a time-tested NFT ecosystem, ETH NFT has also conducted in-depth discussions on many issues, and the market has given answers.

“Immutability” or “full on-chain storage” may seem like a “technical issue”, but it is actually a “market issue”. This issue has been discussed on ETH for a long time.

This is a tweet I found that was published 2 years ago. @dhof graded ETH's "full-chain NFT" according to different "full-chain NFT" implementation methods. One star is to store data in the data storage field calldata of ETH transactions, two stars are to store data through the EVM opcode sstore and render data through external scripts, and the highest three stars are to store data through the EVM opcode sstore and complete the rendering through the built-in renderer of the smart contract to output svg images or other similar data URIs.

If we rate Ethscription according to this standard, Ethscription can only get a one-star rating. As mentioned at the beginning of its official website, Ethscription is implemented by storing data in the data storage field calldata of ETH transactions. The rendering of images is done through off-chain indexes. By open-sourcing the indexes, off-chain operations are also decentralized.

For ETH, “full-chain NFT” is nothing new. I can quickly think of the names of several projects in my mind - Autoglyphs, Larva Lads, Chain Runners, and OnChain Monkeys, who are also active in Bitcoin NFT.

When you search for the tokenURI of Autoglyphs, you will find that it is a long string. By breaking up the string and outputting it, you will get a picture.

If you search for Larva Lads' tokenURI, you will find that it is a long string, but the type definition is json and the content is a base64 string. Larva Lads has built-in decoding and rendering operations in the contract to output SVG images.

Back to @dhof’s tweet. Under this tweet, I also saw a very interesting discussion:

@0xCardinalError said he didn't understand why @dhof was obsessed with full-chain storage. Full-chain storage is cool as an experiment, but for NFT, it is more important to focus on "building a sustainable culture." He also said that solutions like IPFS and Arweave reduce the cost of NFT casting, which is actually the "market problem" that I mentioned earlier, not the "technical problem." Although IPFS and Arweave are storage outside the ETH chain and there is a possibility of data loss, the ETH NFT market has already given a choice with real money.

@WhenLambo6135 explained the meaning of "immutability" very well - allowing the artwork to still exist when the creator/project owner disappears, just like Leonardo da Vinci did not need to continue painting Mona Lisa to keep Mona Lisa alive, but only needed to ensure that the painting was not lost and was properly kept. To some extent, this is also another perspective on blockchain - an information storage medium supported by modern technology and consensus. Compared with paper paintings, blockchain paintings do not require troublesome maintenance, only the Internet and computers do not disappear, and people's faith in the blockchain network.

The "building a culture of sustainable development" mentioned by @0xCardinalError is the same as the artistic creators who are indispensable contributors to the vigorous development of the ETH NFT ecosystem. They have been gradually recognized in one after another "making money is like drinking water" stories of getting rich. What we forget. The principle of Ethscription is not new to ETH, but it is promoted and speculated by some. Looking at it from the perspective of hype, naturally there is the famous "don't be biased" theory. But let’s look at the market. Most of what comes out of Ethscription and even various “new technology concepts” on Bitcoin are direct transfers of ETH Rock and CryptoPunks, and the most popular ones are still meme Tokens. For example, the so-called $ETHS issued by Ethscription, which is the first to imitate the BRC-20 Token, has no index, no trading market, and does not even have technical documents prepared by domo like BRC-20. It has seen a high price of 100U single piece on the sidelines. While writing this article, I even saw a KOL posting a BRC-20 on BSC. I searched Twitter and found only the source of this KOL. One of his Mint tutorials sells for $8...

Is this really a return to "idealism"?

"Development" depends on "market intervention"?

The main narrative of $FERC, which moved the BRC-20 Token issuance model to ETH, is "fairness and decentralization". However, on June 19, @kkk_ethe's exposure caused everyone to discuss the "market intervention" of $FERC developer Jackygu.

Jackygu responded:

Well... I'm sorry I can't understand it. I can only understand that $FERC's launch is "fair". But what I can't understand even more is, can the development of the project be achieved by "intervening in the market"? Which of Bitcoin, ETH, and even Doge has not experienced violent fluctuations? Those who can't be defeated will eventually become stronger.

In fact, what price fluctuations cannot break up is "consensus". The word "consensus" is almost overused now. It is not that I bought it today and you bought it, and we gathered together and shouted 100x and waited for others to take over, but it really formed an emotional connection and ideological resonance. Just like when Bitcoin was still very cheap, walking on the street and meeting someone who also said that he believed in Bitcoin, you might both have bright eyes and think that the other person is very interesting. This is a simple and direct manifestation of "consensus". If there were no selfless developers and real dreamers in the early days, could Bitcoin really have survived the test of time until now? If Bitcoin started to "intervene in the market" when it rose to $1 per coin, would Bitcoin still have "subsequent healthy development"?

As mentioned above, many ETH NFT players are dissatisfied with ETH NFT today. As ETH has come to this day, there are indeed many "unfair" things that make players dissatisfied, such as VC/CEX taking away a large number of initial chips, whales "occupying" Launchpad, and meme Token also setting a lot of "blacklists" and "transaction taxes" and other rules...

But these are not "technical" problems, they are "human" problems. In a decentralized world, we still have to use "decentralization" as the narrative of the project, which is already ironic... On the road of "making money", we have gone too far. When can we go back, and do we really want to go back? Just like the "Token Movement" that has been mentioned all the time, if we unanimously and firmly say "no" with our actions, then the so-called "unfairness" will disappear, but this is not the case.

Conclusion

At the end of writing, I am speechless. Let me conclude with the title:

The "NFT atavism" caused by Ordinals is not a return to idealism.