NFTs: From Digital Ponies to Real Magic?

by

In the grand tradition of inventing things that make no sense and then pretending they do, a few NFT collections have managed to graduate from “crypto-native” to “actual business.” Pudgy Penguins, for instance, has taken the noble path of becoming an IP empire, selling over $13 million worth of digital fluff balls and 2 million units. Meanwhile, Doodles has evolved from a collection of doodles into a “creative platform” involving AI, content, and brand expansion-because nothing says “creativity” like a spreadsheet.

The NFT sector has become a bit more discerning, like a picky eater at a buffet. Utility-led and gaming-linked projects are holding up better than the old-fashioned speculative frenzy, which was basically the crypto version of buying a pet rock in 1978.

While a few projects are trying to build actual intellectual property (the kind you can’t just print on a laser printer), the long tail of profile-picture collections is quietly fading into the ether. Like that one uncle who still wears his 2005 Halloween costume every year.

BeInCrypto asked three industry experts how the NFT market is restructuring. Their answers were about as helpful as a weather forecast from a tea leaf reader.

Brand Equity vs. On-Chain Scarcity

The NFT market’s recovery now hinges on a philosophical debate: Is value derived from real-world brand equity, or is it still rooted in on-chain scarcity? It’s like arguing whether a teapot is valuable because it’s a teapot or because it’s made of rare earth minerals.

Federico Variola, CEO of Phemex, is skeptical that most NFT projects can make the leap to real-world relevance. He’s like the guy who says, “Sure, you can build a castle in the clouds, but where’s the plumbing?”

“There are still some difficulties in tying the value of NFTs to brand equity in the physical world when there isn’t a clear revenue or distribution funnel.”

In his view, many NFT brands haven’t proven they can generate meaningful business outcomes outside crypto. It’s like claiming your pet goldfish is a successful entrepreneur but never seeing it file a tax return.

“Because of that, I think the real value of NFTs has always been rooted in on-chain scarcity.”

As market sentiment around scarcity weakened, projects began searching for alternative narratives, from media expansion to merchandise, but often without a clear product-market fit. It’s like trying to sell ice to penguins.

“As a result, many of these brands are now stuck trying to pivot from on-chain scarcity toward real-world positioning without having a product-market fit.”

That helps explain why a large share of collections remain significantly below their peak valuations. Like a disco ball in a silent disco.

Fernando Lillo Aranda, Marketing Director at Zoomex, takes the opposite view. For him, the market has already moved past scarcity as a primary driver of value. He’s the voice of reason in a room full of people wearing VR headsets.

“Most NFTs won’t recover – and they probably shouldn’t. Scarcity alone was never a sustainable value proposition.”

He argues that verification on-chain does not create demand on its own. It’s like having a library card but never checking out a book.

“The market learned the hard way that being ‘on-chain’ doesn’t make something valuable – it just makes it verifiable. And verification without demand is irrelevant.”

Instead, he sees the surviving projects as those building real businesses around their IP. It’s the difference between a lemonade stand and a Fortune 500 company that sells lemon-flavored cryptocurrency.

“The only NFTs that have a real future are the ones evolving into actual businesses and IP engines.”

“If your project can’t live outside of crypto, in retail, media, gaming, or culture, then it’s not an asset, it’s a speculation artifact from the last cycle.”

The disagreement relates to execution. The move toward IP-driven value is already underway, but the open question is how many NFT projects can operate as real businesses rather than speculative assets. Like teaching a chinchilla to code.

Gaming’s Reset: From Play-to-Earn to Play-to-Own

The failure of early NFT gaming models made the speculation versus sustainability debate impossible to ignore. Play-to-Earn was built to reward users with tokens for activity. In practice, it depended on constant inflows of new players to support token prices. Once growth slowed, the model began to break down. Rewards turned into emissions, emissions turned into sell pressure, and in-game economies collapsed under their own weight. Like a house of cards built by a drunkard.

The recent migration is toward Play-to-Own-a model that treats NFTs less as yield-generating assets and more as ownership layers within a game. It’s like owning a plot of land in a virtual world, but with more bugs and fewer trees.

Anton Efimenko, co-founder at 8Blocks, sees this as a necessary correction in how value is structured. He’s the kind of person who would fix a broken toaster with a soldering iron and a prayer.

“The core issue with Play-to-Earn was that it tried to financialize gameplay too early. When rewards are driven by token emissions rather than real demand, the system becomes inherently unstable.”

Newer models focus on utility and persistence. Assets are meant to retain relevance inside the game environment, rather than function as extractive instruments. It’s like building a houseboat that floats instead of sinking.

“Play-to-Own shifts the focus from extracting value to owning something that has utility within a functioning ecosystem. That reduces sell pressure and aligns players more closely with the long-term health of the game.”

This does not eliminate speculation, but it changes where it sits. Value is no longer tied to how quickly rewards can be realized, but to whether the underlying game can sustain engagement without relying on constant token incentives. Like a dating app that doesn’t charge for swiping left.

Gaming has become one of the clearest testing grounds for this transition. If NFT-based ownership can hold value without emissions-driven rewards, it may offer a path forward. If not, the same issues are likely to resurface under a different name. Like a ghost in a haunted house that keeps changing its costume.

Tokenizing IP: Liquidity vs. Loyalty

As projects search for new ways to unlock value, one emerging direction is the tokenization of NFT IP itself. In theory, that can broaden access, increase liquidity, and give communities a more direct stake in the commercial upside of a brand. But it also raises harder questions about governance, alignment, and loyalty. It’s like splitting a dragon’s hoard into shares and expecting everyone to agree on what to buy next.

Efimenko says the structure can create opportunities, but it also changes the incentives around ownership. It’s like giving a dog a treat and then expecting it to write a thesis on canine ethics.

“The moment NFT IP becomes more liquid, you invite a different class of participant. Some will care about the brand, but many will care mainly about price exposure and short-term upside.”

Communities built around identity and culture do not function like ordinary token markets. The more tradable the asset becomes, the more likely decision-making is to shift toward actors with weaker long-term attachment to the project. It’s like a band where the drummer only shows up if the pay is good.

“Liquidity can help expand participation, but it can also fragment governance. If too much influence moves to holders who are financially motivated but not operationally aligned, brand direction becomes harder to manage.”

This leaves NFT projects in a difficult position. Broader financial access may strengthen the balance sheet, but it can also dilute the kind of committed holder base that many successful brands rely on. Like trying to build a loyal customer base while selling your customers to a competitor.

Ultimately, a highly liquid community asset may be easier to trade, yet harder to build around over time. Like a recipe that’s easy to copy but impossible to cook.

Fixing Crypto-Native Gaming

Our analysis so far leaves one more question hanging: whether blockchain mechanics can restore trust in crypto-native gaming and gambling after years of broken incentives, opaque systems, and user fatigue. It’s like trying to fix a broken clock by adding more gears.

This is potentially where blockchain still offers a real advantage. Game logic, reward flows, and outcomes can be made transparent in ways that traditional platforms often cannot match. Provably fair mechanics give users a way to verify that systems are functioning as claimed, rather than simply trusting the operator. It’s like a magic trick that reveals its secrets halfway through.

But transparency alone is not enough to rebuild confidence.

As Lillo Aranda puts it:

“The market learned the hard way that being ‘on-chain’ doesn’t make something valuable – it just makes it verifiable. And verification without demand is irrelevant.”

The same logic applies to gaming. Verifiable mechanics can help solve the trust problem, especially in areas like crypto gambling or reward distribution, but they do not solve the product problem. If the game is weak, the economy is extractive, or the user experience feels designed around monetization rather than entertainment, transparency will not save it. Like a restaurant that puts a window in the kitchen but still serves mystery meat.

The sector’s next phase may well be a test of whether crypto products can combine fair mechanics with actual player retention. In that sense, blockchain may help restore trust, but only if the game itself is worth trusting. Like a bridge that’s only as strong as the stones it’s made of.

Final Thoughts

The NFT market is being forced into a more selective phase, where value has to come from something more durable than hype alone. It’s like a fashion show where the models are replaced by mannequins.

Variola’s comments point to the limits of the current pivot. Many projects are trying to move from scarcity-led speculation into real-world branding without a clear business model or product-market fit. It’s like building a spaceship to Mars with a recipe for lasagna.

Lillo Aranda furthers the argument, suggesting that only the collections capable of operating as actual IP businesses are likely to retain relevance over time. It’s like a tree that only grows fruit if you water it with gold.

Efimenko, meanwhile, highlights the challenge underneath both views: ownership design, token incentives, and governance all shape whether a project can remain stable as it grows. It’s like trying to balance a teeter-totter with a sack of potatoes and a flamingo.

NFTs are not disappearing, but they are becoming harder to justify as pure collectibles. The projects that endure are more likely to be the ones that can build beyond the chain, sustain user demand, and give digital ownership a function that lasts longer than a speculative cycle. Like a magic trick that’s actually real.

Read More

2026-04-03 09:25