Coming from the traditional art world, my instinct was simple: a 1/1 equals the original artwork, ERC-721s are numbered editions, and ERC-1155s are open editions. Clean, familiar, straightforward.

But then I read this post by @thepropgallery that made me pause: every piece of digital art is a 1/1. Editions are just that 1/1, split into however many pieces you decide.

TheJPEGGallery ⌐◨-◨

@thepropgallery

Every piece of digital art is a 1/1

Editions are a 1/1 split into the x amount

This is unlike physical art where editions are copies of an original or prints

I have for years been an advocate of this reality, this space is now waking up

94

2:25 PM • Aug 27, 2025

It seems obvious when you put it that way. But that brings me to a crucial question:

In the digital realm, you can’t point to one “original object” the way you can with a canvas. But you can assign meaning through ownership. The ownership structure is what defines the work: is it a single token, or is that ownership split into ten, a hundred, or ten thousand parts?

The work is born at the moment of minting on-chain. That’s when intention crystallizes into existence, but the “original file” dilemma remains.

Projects like Art Blocks on Ethereum and Ordinals on Bitcoin are good examples, where the art (and often the code itself) lives entirely on the blockchain. With those, I almost feel the tangible presence of an “original.”

Most other NFT drops work differently: the token only points to a file somewhere else—usually on IPFS or Arweave. Those are safer than centralized servers, sure, but they’re still not the same as the permanence of fully on-chain data. I’ve often had the feeling that the “file” on IPFS is the true original—but the deeper I go, the more I believe it’s the act of minting that makes the piece “real,” despite where the original file is placed.

This is a new level of concept art!

This debate isn’t new. In the early days, there was a movement where collectors would ask artists to literally burn the physical original after minting the NFT, to make the token “the only version.”  There were videos showing proof of the artist burning the physical piece, and some collectors paid huge sums for them! It shows just how much we’ve struggled with the question of what the ‘original’ really is. Personally, it never felt right—and honestly, it deserves a whole article on its own.

If you’re working digitally, that art is inherently digital. So, is the original the first file saved on your device? Or is it the moment you decide to mint it? I’d argue it’s the minting—the intentional act of saying, “this is it.” That’s when the work – and therefore the original - is born.

Then there’s the question of multi-chain minting. Some people call it cheating, but I don’t think it is—if you’re transparent about it. Call it an “Open Edition Multi-Chain” and let collectors decide which chain they prefer. Transparency is everything.

For me, it would be comparable to offering a collector a choice of paper and frame to how they’d want their print made. If I had the choice, I’d want all my art on one chain, in one wallet. Instead, I follow where artists choose to mint—and right now, that experience is fragmented and messy.

That said, this only really works for unique art editions. For 10k projects, which function more as assets, it’s a whole different game. In theory, you could have a cross-chain mint—but it would require a serious tool: one that compiles all mints across chains, aggregates floor prices, tracks secondary activity, and makes the whole collection legible as a single asset class. Without that, cross-chain is just confusion.

This brings me to a distinction I think we don’t talk about enough: Art vs. NFT assets.

A 10k PFP collection isn’t really “art” in the traditional sense—it’s an asset class that relies on liquidity, floor price, utility, and trading activity. I’d compare it to trading cards and other collectibles. Collectors in that space are often still just crypto traders in disguise. 

True art collecting is about meaning, connection, and intention. And I believe the NFT art market will only fully mature when real art enthusiasts come in with that mindset. Because for them, ART IS the utility. We collect to appreciate it, to support the artist—not to flip it. Trading can be part of it if you want to rotate your collection and keep the wheel spinning, sure, but that’s secondary. We could go deep into royalties and the secondary market here, but that’s another article, another debate.

After much thought, I could agree that every digital artwork is, at its core, a 1/1. The rest is just a question of how you divide ownership, how you choose to store it, and how transparent you are in that process.

So maybe the better question isn’t what is the original? but rather: how do we, as artists and collectors, decide where the “birth” of a work takes place and how we want to split ownership?

Thank you for reading. If you like my articles, consider collecting, sharing or supporting my time by collecting my art or sending tips. I appreciate you all!

NFTs

In the beginning, there was Art, and then there were NFTs. Paladin Punks - custom-made as a gift Somewhat OG For those who love to browse wallets, I have a few for security reasons, so here they are: EVM OG Wallet (my art and collected art) on FND | Rarible | OS EVM Vault Wallet...

http://fercaggiano.art

Much love!

Fer Caggiano

mom, artist, curator, Art & Web3 consultant