We still spend much of our lives in the material world, and that’s why there is immense value in connecting NFTs with real world objects in a meaningful way.
Naturally at this early stage of the technology cycle, we mostly see skeuomorphic approaches like redeemable NFTs. Yes, this model will probably make the most sense for the majority of consumer products, but there’s an alternative approach that has the potential to unlock a whole different category of products. One that is digitally native, and takes advantage of the decentralised infrastructure it is built on - and that’s where it gets interesting.
The most common way to link up physical objects with NFTs is using the redeemable model. This is where a token could be redeemed for a physical good, - popularised by the Unisocks model. Having a tokenised “Digital Twin” allows them to be traded digitally in the open market, and be redeemed whenever the token holder wants the IRL thing.
Although built on top of a decentralised blockchain, the true value is still stored outside of the blockchain and requires support from centralised entities.
The NFT in this case is nothing more than a glorified digital certificate of authenticity; that still relies on a few centralised entities to uphold its value. So instead of merely storing a receipt of what is valuable (the physical object), what if we store the very thing that makes the object valuable in the NFT?
Most types of artwork have their value embedded in the physical work itself. E.g. Mona Lisa or Michelangelo's David. However, there are physical artworks whose value is not attached to the objects themselves, but instead, to the concept and design.
Conceptual art like the Basel Banana (Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian) is such a category. The banana can rot, be eaten, or replaced, and it is still the same artwork. The concept is captured in the form of instructions attached to a certificate of authenticity. Many conceptual artworks are experienced and enjoyed physically. They can be torn down at the end of one exhibition and rebuilt in another location, without destroying the value of the underlying asset. The work of art is valuable not because the touch of the artist makes them so, but the captured idea, supported by proper execution.
In the world of NFT art, digital artists offer museum-grade prints for their collectors, because these masterpieces deserve to be enjoyed and admired in a professionally framed print. These are physical manifestations of the original digital art, which some artists consider to be a key component of the work.
Yet these physical prints are not redeemables, where you need to burn or swap the NFT to claim. Printing a physical does not syphon value away from the NFT, rather, it adds value on top of the NFT, as a complementary element. This means that the physical object can be stolen, lost, damaged in transit and burned; yet have no effect on the value of the underlying art; because the NFT is the true original.
I believe this concept can also be applied to objects. We can record the design using a 3D CAD model, blueprint or manufacturing instruction, and then use this information to digitally fabricate the object IRL. NFTs give us the ability to ascribe provenance, ownership and scarcity to this digital asset, and in doing so, the core attributes of what makes an object unique and valuable is now captured digitally.
Being digitally native allows the asset to take advantage of a decentralised infrastructure: immutable, transparent, true ownership and composability. This becomes even more interesting when there is an added physical component.
We can now provably own a genuine item as an NFT. The physical object does not have to rely on an NFC chip or another technology to prove its authenticity. Having a replica/counterfeit object without the NFT will be equivalent to “Right Click Save”. I would argue that this approach actually democratises the design, and allows more people to enjoy it, without diluting the value of the underlying asset/brand.
Digitally native physicals can be traded without 3rd party escrow, authentication, p2p shipping, disputes over physical conditions, and all the other frictions associated with trading of traditional goods. The new collector will always have the option to order another physical from their preferred manufacturer.
This also decentralises and opens up manufacturing to localised, on-demand production. With the coincidental rise of rapidly improving 3D printing technology and the maker movement, this could develop into an entirely new value proposition.
There are many other use cases that we have yet to touch on: Fully on-chain generative objects 👀, forking of designs, permissionless and trustless connection between designers and manufacturer; but this will be a topic of exploration another day.
These digital native objects are not without their limitations:
I am a glass-half-full kind of guy, so I tend to see this more as a feature than a bug. Limitations are sometimes useful in focusing our creativity on finding solutions within a set framework, shaping even more unique creations.
I believe that NFTs secured on a public blockchain is probably the best mechanism for ensuring true ownership, provenance and scarcity. But the security of a system is only as good as the weakest link, and at the moment, the link between physical and digital is pretty weak. That’s why I think there is value in making physical objects more digitally native with this approach.
With this in mind, I created Hash Inc. as the first step to testing this thesis. I have designed a limited series of small objects with their digital assets linked to the NFT; and like artists that offer museum-grade prints, we will be bringing these designs into the physical world with digital fabrication.
The category of digitally native physical objects is only possible because of the recent convergence of technology like CAD, digital fabrication and NFTs. I believe the rapid development of these technologies would only amplify their value and enable creations that are beyond our imagination.
