Skip to content

← Writing

engineering

NFTs Explained for PH Devs (or: How a JPEG Sold for $69M)

· Jerwin Arnado

Archive note: this is a backdated post, written years later while rebuilding this site. It’s dated to the moment it covers, but the hindsight is real.

On March 11, Christie’s — the 255-year-old auction house — sold a digital collage by an artist named Beeple for $69.3 million. The buyer didn’t get a canvas. They got an NFT. Group chats everywhere immediately split into “we’re rich if we mint memes” and “the world has lost its mind,” so here’s the developer explanation I keep giving.

What an NFT technically is

An NFT (non-fungible token) is a record on a blockchain — usually Ethereum, usually following the ERC-721 standard — that says token #12345 in this smart contract is owned by this wallet address. “Non-fungible” just means tokens aren’t interchangeable: unlike one peso versus another peso, each token has a distinct identity.

The part that surprises everyone: the artwork is almost never on the chain. Storing megabytes on Ethereum is absurdly expensive, so the token typically holds a URL pointing to metadata, which points to the image — often on IPFS if done well, or on a regular web server if done lazily. In schema terms, you’re buying a row that contains your wallet address and a link.

token_id → owner_address
token_id → tokenURI → JSON metadata → image URL

So what’s actually owned? Provable, transferable possession of that token. Not copyright. Not exclusivity — anyone can still right-click-save the image. The honest analogy isn’t owning a painting; it’s having your name on a public, tamper-proof guestbook entry that the artist signed.

The parts worth taking seriously

Easy jokes aside, a few real things are happening here:

  1. Digital scarcity is now constructible. For the entire history of computing, files copied freely and “owning” digital art was meaningless. Whatever you think of the prices, that’s a new primitive.
  2. Artists get programmable royalties. Many NFT contracts pay the creator a percentage on every resale, automatically. Traditional art has never managed that; it’s a genuinely good idea wearing a ridiculous price tag.
  3. The market is real money, irrationally allocated. NBA Top Shot is doing hundreds of millions in volume on basketball highlight clips. Filipino digital artists are already selling pieces internationally for more than local clients would ever pay. Mania, yes — but some of it lands in deserving pockets.

The parts to be skeptical about

  • Gas fees: minting and trading on Ethereum right now can cost more than the art. The little guy is subsidizing the gold rush.
  • Link rot: if the metadata URL dies, your token points at nothing. A $69M receipt for a 404.
  • Wash trading and speculation: nothing stops someone selling a token to themselves to fake a price history. Assume some headline numbers are theater.
  • The energy argument is loud and currently fair; Ethereum’s proof-of-stake migration is promised but not delivered.

My take

The technology is a clever, narrow primitive — verifiable ownership of a pointer. The mania is the bull market wearing the technology as a costume. PH devs should understand how it works (clients will ask, soon), artists should cash the checks carefully, and nobody should mortgage anything. There’s a local angle building, too — keep an eye on the play-to-earn games using these same tokens. More on that soon, I suspect.