From a sociological perspective of blockchain, how do NFTs evolve from digital immigrants to indigenous ecosystems?

In the observational framework of blockchain sociology, NFTs are undergoing a profound social transformation. What they represent is far more than just a technological innovation; it signifies a fundamental shift in human understanding of digital asset ownership. When we discuss the future pathways of decentralized publishing (DePub) and NFTs, we are essentially exploring how a new generation redefines “ownership,” “trust,” and “cultural value” within social processes.

The Certificated Value of NFTs: Reconstructing the Social Foundation of Digital Ownership

The core essence of NFTs is “certification.” This seemingly simple definition touches on the most fundamental contradiction of the digital age—ownership in the physical world implies exclusivity; whereas in the digital realm, copying is nearly costless, and copies are indistinguishable from the original. The emergence of NFTs reassigns the social meaning of “ownership” to digital content.

When a reader holds a book via an NFT, they gain not only the right to use the content but also a permanent certificate that “I have indeed paid for this.” This subtle shift actually reflects a societal transition in the perception of digital asset ownership.

From a metaverse perspective, the appearance of platforms like Opensea, Amazon, and others marks the formation of virtual commerce ecosystems. AppWorks insightfully pointed out that the NFT market is essentially e-commerce within the metaverse. However, just as Taobao faces counterfeit issues with physical goods, fake NFTs on decentralized platforms are also unavoidable—because copying and counterfeiting costs are near zero, and counterfeit products are even more rampant than physical goods.

A key misconception here is that NFTs as certificates can only prove that a transaction and ownership occurred, but cannot guarantee that the NFT originates from the original creator or authorized party. In other words, they attest to a “purchase relationship” rather than the “authenticity of the item.”

The Dual Dimensions of Decentralized Publishing: From Provenance to Ownership Transactions

Within the framework of blockchain sociology, decentralized publishing can be dissected into two levels. The first is “ownership and provenance,” established through technologies like ISCN (International Standard Content Number) to create immutable records linking works and authors; the second is “holding and trading,” where NFTs serve as proof of transaction relationships between the creator and buyer.

Ideally, NFT creators should be the original authors or authorized parties. But technically, anyone can mint a Harry Potter NFT. The market is flooded with individuals who steal digital works and mint them as NFTs for sale, and those “copy-minting” entities even brazenly transfer existing NFTs onto another blockchain for re-issuance—replaying the scenario of counterfeit sellers in developing countries in the physical world.

Currently, in the DePub ecosystem, blockchain is mainly applied to the “holding and trading” layer. People understand the cultural value NFTs can carry, but cannot deny that the current craze is primarily driven by speculation—an allure of getting rich, or at least the illusion of wealth.

As for the “ownership and provenance” layer, although it also receives attention (since buying fake goods results in total loss), verification methods for authentic products are still largely centralized, rarely utilizing blockchain or decentralized consensus. This is similar to traditional e-commerce platforms like Taobao or Shopee, where official channels verify authenticity.

It’s worth reflecting that platforms like Opensea are often misunderstood as “decentralized NFT markets.” In reality, they are “centralized marketplaces for selling decentralized products,” opaque in authenticity verification and content control, effectively a one-man show. This underscores the importance of infrastructure like ISCN.

From Content Migration to Indigenous Content: Paradigm Shift in Blockchain Sociology

An important observation in blockchain sociology is the generational differentiation within human society. The widespread use of the internet divided the global population into “internet natives” (Generation Z) and “internet immigrants” (those who adopted the internet later). Even today, some still refer to the internet as “new media,” reflecting their view of the world from the perspective of “old media.”

A similar divide will occur again in the era of blockchain. We will witness the birth of “blockchain natives”—a generation that has never experienced traditional banking or financial systems; alongside them, “blockchain immigrants”—those who have successfully transitioned from traditional finance to cryptocurrency.

In the content world, a similar division exists. In the early days of the internet, publishers hurried to put newspapers, magazines, and books online—these are “digital immigrant content.” Thirty years later, more and more creations are born digital and live online from the moment of publication—these are “digital native content.”

Interestingly, most digital native content has not yet been stored on blockchain or IPFS, having no direct relation to decentralized consensus. This largely stems from users not perceiving the need. In Taiwan, understanding of blockchain often remains at an abstract level—imagining through “foreign cases” like Ukraine or Hong Kong; for Hong Kong people, media disappearance has long been a painful reality and daily concern.

In the past year, many media outlets such as Apple Daily, RTHK, Stand News, and others have been shut down. The disappearance of digital content is more thorough than the cessation of print publications—because the former signifies no future, and the latter even erases the past. Apple Daily’s 30+ years of content vanished overnight with the website closure, as if it never existed.

As George Orwell said, “The struggle of mankind against power is the struggle to remember and to forget.” Hong Kong citizens back up disappeared civic media onto blockchain for permanent preservation. However, blockchain can guarantee that the content written in cannot be tampered with, but cannot ensure it is identical to the original—format distortions or deliberate modifications may occur.

The most common motivation for putting content on-chain is of course to mint NFTs for monetization. Creators, publishers, and distributors are minting their IPs as NFTs—whether anime, photos, or music—these are “content immigrants”—originating from print or online, later migrating into the metaverse. Like physical migration, these contents were not born on blockchain; on-chain records are supplementary, possibly erroneous or fake. For cultural preservation, these deviations can produce false information; for cultural monetization, they can produce “A-grade” copies.

However, true innovation comes from the “native” NFT content.

The Rise of NFT Natives: Redefining Creation and Dissemination

Currently, some generative art or “NFT-for-NFT” content is minted directly on the chain at the moment of creation. These are the genuine “NFT natives.”

Here’s an interesting analogy. I once experienced a moment when I couldn’t find a pen, so I signed documents with an Apple Pencil. As a writer, I still use terms like “writing with a pen” or “pen mistake,” but those words have become idioms. My actual workflow has shifted to “typing,” with occasional “key errors,” because I haven’t touched original manuscripts for twenty years. Young children just learning to speak, holding a new iPad, probably have no idea what a manuscript looks like.

Pen and paper still have their die-hard supporters, and rightly so—whether for tactile feel, brushstrokes, tradition, or habit, these are valid reasons. But practically, whether editing, typesetting, or publishing, creating directly with digital tools is far more efficient. Pen and calligraphy are excellent cultural practices, but they will gradually decline in daily work—an irreversible trend.

From physical to digital, and from digital native to NFT native, the same applies. As the forms of content carried by NFTs become more diverse, and transactions more widespread, their advantages will become more apparent. Word processing software will naturally offer “Save as NFT” functions. Ultimately, systems may even automatically store works as NFTs behind the scenes.

The technology already exists to drive such software; the main barriers are usability, high “gas fees,” and insufficient demand. But these obstacles will change over time. Many people now type on keyboards daily, and initially, word processing software was considered expensive, difficult, and lacking warmth—far inferior to pen and paper.

The phrase “NFT-for-NFT” is not pejorative; it reflects a phenomenon of “alienation”: the act of expression, creation, and reporting are one thing; the choice of medium and monetization method are another. But as NFT becomes increasingly popular, many creators first focus on selling NFTs and then consider what to create—otherwise, their works might “have no market.” This odd phenomenon is akin to deciding to sell a certain beverage first, then thinking about the recipe—an alternative expression of the “media as message” theory.

But this should only be a phase at the beginning of NFT adoption. As the public becomes more accustomed or weary of the current NFT ecosystem (who will keep buying profile pictures?), the industry will naturally develop NFT forms that better align with original creative intentions, and more integrated creative tools within content production workflows.

Numbers Protocol’s Capture and LikeCoin’s depub.SPACE have already begun realizing this vision—they enable users to produce truly “NFT-native” content, integrating the context and narrative of content creation into NFT metadata, making creation and sales seamlessly connected.

In the future, more traditional content will find organic ways to integrate with NFTs. For example, directly minting an ePub as an NFT is feasible but awkward—like early internet media uploading entire newspapers with layout intact as PDFs, which is convenient but clunky. The true “NFT book” will be created by either innovative platforms like Amazon, which have no legacy baggage and seek innovation, or by traditional publishers transforming themselves—who can best interpret the challenge of “old wine in new bottles.”

When native content becomes mainstream in NFTs, the distinction between the “ownership and provenance” layer and the “holding and trading” layer of DePub will blur. Records of creation and audience collections will all be stored on blockchain, making decentralized consensus truly an end-to-end reality.

Although I consider myself an optimistic technologist, I do not believe that misinformation and counterfeit goods will completely disappear in the era of NFT natives. But at least, the industry can leverage on-chain data to help distinguish authenticity, and perhaps even see the emergence of decentralized NFT marketplaces, publishers, and fact-checking organizations.

Role Reconfiguration in Ecosystem Evolution: The Publisher’s Mission in the Decentralized Era

Regarding the future of decentralized publishing, some assume that publishers will disappear in this era. This is a confusion between the concepts of “decentralization” and “disintermediation.”

Decentralization and disintermediation are fundamentally different. Decentralized publishing does not mean the absence of publishers—at least, I believe so.

As long as individuals or organizations continue to generate value, they will persist beyond paradigm shifts. In the smartphone era, users only download apps from app stores; telecom operators are no longer the focus. Yet, telecom companies did not disappear; instead, they became more profitable by providing bandwidth. Conversely, those merely “living off old laurels” or “occupying the toilet without doing anything”—organizations that thrived under the old system—will be eliminated in the new paradigm—but this is not inherently related to decentralization.

The functions of publishers are multifaceted. Some may change or disappear in a decentralized era—for example, settlement might be handled by smart contracts. But the need for content curators, editors, curatorial, and promotional roles will not vanish simply because publishing becomes decentralized. If publishers truly disappear, the issue is not that these functions are no longer needed, but that publishers cannot grasp how to perform these functions effectively under the new paradigm.

As a writer, I have been seeking new ways to survive in the new era. I believe there is no guaranteed winning method, but I am convinced that in facing the wave of popularization brought by blockchain sociology, traditional publishers, creators, and reporters must first deeply understand the nature of the digital world—viewing it as an entity that exists alongside the physical world, each with its own strengths and mediums, rather than as a “virtual” realm dependent on the “real” world.

Taking copyright as an example. “Copyright” originally meant “the rights to reproduce”—if you write a book, you have the right to reproduce it. This concept stems from physical-world logic; applying it rigidly to the digital world creates contradictions.

In the physical world, reproduction has costs, and distribution requires high-quality originals, which forms the basis of copyright. But in the digital world, any content can be copied infinitely at near-zero cost, with no difference between copies and originals. The concept of “ownership” itself becomes blurred—extending copyright as “ownership” becomes increasingly awkward and forced.

Some traditional media are still struggling to find a viable business model for digital content in the internet age, while NFTs are once again shifting this paradigm. They reintroduce the concept of “ownership” while preserving the characteristic of unlimited digital copying. Banning copying is no longer a prerequisite for revenue; the motivation to own is no longer based on exclusive viewing rights—digital business models, which have just stabilized, now face new challenges and opportunities.

Within the framework of blockchain sociology, the trend of NFTs is set, but details remain to be explored and implemented by industry practitioners and participants. As long as we let go of prejudices, deeply understand the advantages of decentralized consensus, and embrace the new paradigm of decentralized publishing, publishers, reporters, and creators will be able to survive and thrive in this new landscape.