One of the quiet downsides of blockchains (especially in the context of art) is how good they are at making transactions easy.
This sounds like praise, and often it is framed that way. Frictionless markets. Global access. Instant liquidity. No gatekeepers. All true... And also deeply consequential in ways the NFT space hasn’t fully reckoned with.
Historically, art didn’t become valuable because it was easy to buy. 𝑰𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕.
Works were made. Conversations formed slowly. Critics, historians, curators and peers argued about what mattered and why. Institutions eventually stepped in, not as arbiters of price but as amplifiers of significance. Only after this long, messy process did speculators reliably show up... drawn by attention that already had cultural density.
Blockchain native art reverses that sequence.
The first thing most works encounter now is not discourse, but speculation. A price chart. A floor. A bid ladder. Attention that arrives already financialised. Meaning is expected to justify itself after liquidity has spoken.
This inversion is important. Speculation is not neutral background noise; it actively reshapes who feels welcome to engage. The people most inclined to sit with work, to write about it, to contextualise it historically or philosophically, are often the very people least interested in wading through hype cycles, Discord drama, and price fixation. When speculation leads, discourse is crowded out.
The result is a strange paradox: 𝒂 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒖𝒏𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒐𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕.
This is why I increasingly think the NFT space doesn’t actually need more collectors. 𝐈𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬.
A collector optimises for ACQUISITION. A patron optimises for CUSTODY.
Patronage, historically, wasn’t about flipping at the right moment. It was about holding work through periods of uncertainty (social, financial, reputational) long enough for meaning to crystallise. Patrons created the time buffer that allowed culture to catch up with creation.
That buffer is almost entirely missing in NFT art.
Instead, works are often asked to perform too many roles at once: signal innovation, justify price, attract attention, build community and withstand speculative churn... all before they’ve had a chance to breathe. When they fail, the conclusion is often that “NFT art didn’t work,” rather than that it was never given the conditions required to work.
Defaults quietly reinforce this problem.
There’s a tendency to treat design choices (interfaces, currencies, metrics) as neutral plumbing. They aren’t. Defaults signal values. They nudge behaviour. They shape what feels normal. I go deeper on this here 👇🏾
I was once struck, living in Spain, by how some British expatriate communities recreated small pockets of England rather than engaging with the culture they’d moved into. The convenience was understandable. The outcome felt... hollow. You don’t absorb a culture by insulating yourself from it.
The same logic applies here. When platforms optimise relentlessly for familiarity, speed and liquidity, they aren’t just making things “easier.” They’re flattening cultural terrain. They’re telling participants, implicitly, what matters most.
That doesn’t mean markets are bad. Speculation isn’t evil. Prices are information. But when they become the first and loudest signal, they distort the ecosystem. They select for participants who can tolerate volatility and noise, not those inclined toward care, interpretation, or long term stewardship.
If art on the blockchain is to mature into something more than an endlessly refreshing marketplace, it needs an interstitial layer: collectors willing to act as custodians rather than traders, platforms willing to privilege cultural coherence over raw liquidity, and enough temporal slack for discourse to form without being drowned out by price action.
Culture takes time... Blockchains collapse time.
Reconciling those two facts may be the central challenge of on chain art... not a technical problem, but a cultural one.
If speculation now arrives before meaning, then waiting for discourse to “catch up” may be a comforting fiction. What that implies for collectors, communities, and the idea of patronage itself is harder to sit with—and worth examining separately.
One of the quiet downsides of blockchains (especially in the context of art) is how good they are at making transactions easy.
This sounds like praise, and often it is framed that way. Frictionless markets. Global access. Instant liquidity. No gatekeepers. All true... And also deeply consequential in ways the NFT space hasn’t fully reckoned with.
Historically, art didn’t become valuable because it was easy to buy. 𝑰𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒎𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒕.
Works were made. Conversations formed slowly. Critics, historians, curators and peers argued about what mattered and why. Institutions eventually stepped in, not as arbiters of price but as amplifiers of significance. Only after this long, messy process did speculators reliably show up... drawn by attention that already had cultural density.
Blockchain native art reverses that sequence.
The first thing most works encounter now is not discourse, but speculation. A price chart. A floor. A bid ladder. Attention that arrives already financialised. Meaning is expected to justify itself after liquidity has spoken.
This inversion is important. Speculation is not neutral background noise; it actively reshapes who feels welcome to engage. The people most inclined to sit with work, to write about it, to contextualise it historically or philosophically, are often the very people least interested in wading through hype cycles, Discord drama, and price fixation. When speculation leads, discourse is crowded out.
The result is a strange paradox: 𝒂 𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒖𝒏𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒐𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒏 𝒇𝒆𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕.
This is why I increasingly think the NFT space doesn’t actually need more collectors. 𝐈𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬.
A collector optimises for ACQUISITION. A patron optimises for CUSTODY.
Patronage, historically, wasn’t about flipping at the right moment. It was about holding work through periods of uncertainty (social, financial, reputational) long enough for meaning to crystallise. Patrons created the time buffer that allowed culture to catch up with creation.
That buffer is almost entirely missing in NFT art.
Instead, works are often asked to perform too many roles at once: signal innovation, justify price, attract attention, build community and withstand speculative churn... all before they’ve had a chance to breathe. When they fail, the conclusion is often that “NFT art didn’t work,” rather than that it was never given the conditions required to work.
Defaults quietly reinforce this problem.
There’s a tendency to treat design choices (interfaces, currencies, metrics) as neutral plumbing. They aren’t. Defaults signal values. They nudge behaviour. They shape what feels normal. I go deeper on this here 👇🏾
I was once struck, living in Spain, by how some British expatriate communities recreated small pockets of England rather than engaging with the culture they’d moved into. The convenience was understandable. The outcome felt... hollow. You don’t absorb a culture by insulating yourself from it.
The same logic applies here. When platforms optimise relentlessly for familiarity, speed and liquidity, they aren’t just making things “easier.” They’re flattening cultural terrain. They’re telling participants, implicitly, what matters most.
That doesn’t mean markets are bad. Speculation isn’t evil. Prices are information. But when they become the first and loudest signal, they distort the ecosystem. They select for participants who can tolerate volatility and noise, not those inclined toward care, interpretation, or long term stewardship.
If art on the blockchain is to mature into something more than an endlessly refreshing marketplace, it needs an interstitial layer: collectors willing to act as custodians rather than traders, platforms willing to privilege cultural coherence over raw liquidity, and enough temporal slack for discourse to form without being drowned out by price action.
Culture takes time... Blockchains collapse time.
Reconciling those two facts may be the central challenge of on chain art... not a technical problem, but a cultural one.
If speculation now arrives before meaning, then waiting for discourse to “catch up” may be a comforting fiction. What that implies for collectors, communities, and the idea of patronage itself is harder to sit with—and worth examining separately.
Subscribe to Ramblings of a Degen by SonOfLasG
Subscribe to Ramblings of a Degen by SonOfLasG
<100 subscribers
<100 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
SonOfLasG
SonOfLasG
1 comment
Blockchain art inverts the traditional path: liquidity and price signals arrive first, while discourse and cultural meaning follow. The piece advocates patrons and custodians over constant speculation, urging platforms to prioritize cultural coherence and time for meaning to develop. @sonoflasg