Despite the emergence of so-called Ethereum killer blockchain networks such as Polygon and Solano, Ethereum is still the first choice for minting non-fungible tokens (NFTs), says the CEO of the firm behind decentralised art gallery Pixlr Genesis.
Cryptocurrencies such as solana and polygon have seen their value rocket this year as the blockchain technology that underpins their networks is faster and cheaper than the second largest digital currency, leading them to be dubbed Ethereum killers.
But according to Warren Leow, CEO of Pixlr, which is launching Pixlr Genesis, a 100% decentralised NFT-based art gallery, with an inaugural collection of 10,000 AI-generated art pieces, Ethereum remains the blockchain of choice for NFTs.
Ethereum has early mover advantage
The Ethereum blockchain powers Pixlr’s NFT network and Kuala Lumpur-based Leow says this is because that is where the greatest concentration of both capital and community can be found.
“If you look at the marquee blockchains and cryptocurrencies, number one is bitcoin and number two is ethereum. So, because of their early mover advantage and the fact the greatest concentration of capital can be found in those two networks, that is where things will get preserved more in terms of value.
“Now you have other people who are also minting on other platforms and blockchains, such as Solana or Binance blockchain. But the important issue is where the community gravitates to, and where the potential buyers come from, and in the case of NFTs, the premium blockchain that everyone looks towards is Ethereum.”
Solana an emerging threat to Ethereum
Leow says that blockchains such as Solana are emerging threats to Ethereum because gas costs (the fee to complete a transaction) are much lower. Likewise, he points to Polygon as another blockchain where a greater proportion of NFTs will emerge in future.
“Over the next few years, we might see some fragmentation in terms of where different collectors, or different collections and communities, emerge from different blockchains and platforms, but as things stand right now, Ethereum is still the gold standard,” says Leow.
The first 2,000 pieces in the Pixlr Genesis collection go on sale for ETH0.3 (approximately $1,240.00) on 1 December, with the remaining 8,000 being released at different price levels in subsequent waves, each at a higher price.
Classical and contemporary inspiration
Pixlr Genesis’s art is generated by an algorithm that was given data sets spanning classical and contemporary styles and artists, including Impressionism, Cubism, Van Gogh and Warhol. Pixlr itself is one of the world’s most popular design and photo-editing ecosystems, and data is also drawn from its own in-house designs.
The Pixlr CEO says it is not just the NFTs themselves that are works of art.
“The visual art piece itself is all generated using our proprietary algorithm, which has been trained with the millions of data points that we have at Pixlr because of our years of history within the content industry.”
Creating a global art movement
“The proprietary nature of the algorithm to generate the art is also a piece of work by itself because it involves different algorithms, creativity and image processing.”
Leow declines to be drawn on the potential secondary market value of the artworks that Pixlr will release but says the firm hopes that the price of the artworks will trend upwards.
“We do believe in the value of the project and its scarcity. Pixlr has been doing a lot of community building because we really want to cultivate a group of collectors who then grow the project themselves because they share the same vision. This is to create a global art movement, one which is fully decentralised.”
AI will not replace traditional art
Despite the intention to create a new global art movement, Leow is confident that the role of the traditional artist is still safe.
“There will always be a demand for quality art. A demand for anybody who designs and creates something, out of his or her own efforts. AI-generated art is only one part of the equation but it is part of the overall art space.”
The difference between trading assets and CFDs
The main difference between CFD trading and trading assets, such as commodities and stocks, is that you don’t own the underlying asset when you trade on a CFD.
You can still benefit if the market moves in your favour, or make a loss if it moves against you. However, with traditional trading you enter a contract to exchange the legal ownership of the individual shares or the commodities for money, and you own this until you sell it again.
CFDs are leveraged products, which means that you only need to deposit a percentage of the full value of the CFD trade in order to open a position. But with traditional trading, you buy the assets for the full amount. In the UK, there is no stamp duty on CFD trading, but there is when you buy stocks, for example.
CFDs attract overnight costs to hold the trades (unless you use 1-1 leverage), which makes them more suited to short-term trading opportunities. Stocks and commodities are more normally bought and held for longer. You might also pay a broker commission or fees when buying and selling assets direct and you’d need somewhere to store them safely.
Capital Com is an execution-only service provider. The material provided on this website is for information purposes only and should not be understood as an investment advice. Any opinion that may be provided on this page does not constitute a recommendation by Capital Com or its agents. We do not make any representations or warranty on the accuracy or completeness of the information that is provided on this page. If you rely on the information on this page then you do so entirely on your own risk.