This week’s featured collector is Rubot
Rubot has large collection of pfps. Check it out at lazy.com/rubot
Last week’s poll was basically a referendum on what you think blockchain is for. The top two choices tied: a single artwork (33%) and a living generative artwork (33%)—which says a lot. Half of you want to preserve a masterpiece, the other half wants to preserve a machine that keeps making masterpieces. That’s a pretty perfect split between “art as object” and “art as system,” and it’s exactly the tension that makes onchain culture different from the traditional art world.
What surprised us most was the 0% for a full provenance trail. For a technology that loves to sell itself on provenance, nobody chose the receipts. Instead, you picked the thing the receipts are supposed to serve: the work itself, and the living process behind it. Even “the culture itself” (22%) outranked provenance—memes, Discord lore, and communal mythmaking beat transactional history.
And then there’s creator intent (11%), the sleeper pick. It’s the closest answer to a “Rosetta Stone”: if someone opens the time capsule in 2126, the artifact they’ll struggle to recover isn’t the JPEG—it’s why it mattered at the time. This poll basically says: preserve the magic, preserve the engine, preserve the vibe… and let the spreadsheets rot.
NFT 2.0: The Comeback
NFTs have become one of those cultural punchlines that everyone thinks they already understands. The story is tidy: absurd hype, JPEGs with price tags that felt like satire, and then a crash that made the whole thing look like a fever dream we collectively snapped out of. In that version of events, NFTs are a dead trend—interesting only as a lesson in how fast online attention can inflate and evaporate.
But there’s another reading that’s harder to compress into a meme: what if the hype cycle was just the loudest, messiest on-ramp to a technology that keeps trying to find its real use?
That’s the provocation behind the “NFT 2.0” framing making the rounds again: not a promise that the old mania returns, but an argument that the underlying concept—verifiable ownership of unique digital items—never actually went away. It just lost its most visible wrapper. The question isn’t whether profile pictures will moon again. The question is whether NFTs were ever mainly about collectibles in the first place, or whether collectibles were simply the easiest, fastest, most internet-native way to test a new ownership primitive at scale.
In the first wave, NFTs were mostly static objects. Their value depended heavily on social momentum, scarcity narratives, and the micro-economies of attention that form around online tribes. That made them culturally powerful but financially brittle. Once novelty wore off, the system’s weak points became obvious: oversupply, copycats, scams, market manipulation, and an overall dependence on constant new demand. When demand dipped, prices didn’t just drift down—they collapsed, leaving a long tail of disillusionment that still defines how most people hear the word “NFT.”
The thoughtpiece by Stephanie Bouserhal is worth considering because it argues that this might be exactly what early infrastructure always looks like: chaotic, over-financialized, and culturally ahead of its safety rails. In other words, NFT 1.0 may have been less a failed product and more a failed first draft—an experiment where the market rushed ahead of the technology, and speculation substituted for utility because utility wasn’t ready yet.
The “2.0” version tries to flip that. Instead of NFTs as tradable collectibles, the claim is NFTs as a more general tool for ownership, verification, and transaction workflow—especially when paired with improvements in blockchain infrastructure. The piece that sparked this reflection points to developments like Layer 2 scaling as a key enabler: when transactions become cheaper and faster, “onchain proof” becomes more realistic for everyday uses. And when “onchain proof” becomes realistic, you start seeing experiments that don’t look like NFT culture at all—tokenized deeds, supply chain records, identity credentials, membership passes, and other systems where “unique digital object with verifiable ownership” is a feature, not the whole product.
That’s why you’ll see names like BlackRock and JPMorgan show up in these discussions. It’s not that they’re nostalgic for 2021. It’s that the underlying idea—programmable ownership records—could reduce friction in how assets are issued, transferred, and settled. Real estate is the most common example because it’s easy to grasp: tokenize a deed, record ownership changes transparently, make transfers more efficient. Whether any given implementation works is a separate question. The bigger point is the direction: NFTs being repositioned as infrastructure rather than a collectible trend.
For NFT collectors and creators, this can feel both validating and unsettling. Validating because it suggests the “NFT” idea wasn’t pure nonsense—there’s something here that keeps reappearing in serious contexts. Unsettling because if NFTs get their second life through back-office tokenization, the cultural energy that originally drew many of us in may not be the main driver. The future might be quieter, more enterprise-shaped, and less fun.
And yet, there’s a potential upside hidden in that boringness. If NFTs become less dependent on hype, the space has room to become more intentional. Collecting could shift from “flip culture” to fundamentals: creator track record, contract design, provenance integrity, rights clarity, and long-term distribution. Building could shift from “mint and pray” to products where tokens have real function—access, identity, interoperability, patronage, or participation.
None of this is a clean redemption arc. NFTs are still volatile, and “utility” is often marketing-speak until it survives contact with real users. The scars of 2021–2023 are real, and skepticism is healthy. But the “NFT 2.0” argument is useful precisely because it reframes the conversation away from nostalgia and toward design: what would it take for NFTs to earn trust again, not through hype, but through usefulness and credibility?
That’s why Stephanie Bouserhal’s editorial is worth reading in full. Even if you disagree with parts of it, it captures a shift that matters: the center of gravity moving from collectibles-as-casino to NFTs-as-infrastructure. If you want the full version of the argument—and the examples it uses to make the case—go read the original and decide whether “NFT 2.0” feels like a real evolution, a rebrand, or a bit of both.
Poll: One year from now, what would make you say “NFT art is back”?
We ❤️ Feedback
We would love to hear from you as we continue to build out new features for Lazy! Love the site? Have an idea on how we can improve it? Drop us a line at info@lazy.com