INTRODUCTION

On May 3rd, 2014, a man named Kevin McCoy minted the first ever Non-Fungible Token. It was called “Quantum,” and it was well ahead of its time (Ludel, 2022). Since then, the crypto market has expanded dramatically, and a part of this market that has recently exploded in popularity is Non-Fungible Tokens, or NFTs. BBC News defines NFTs as "’one-of-a-kind’ assets in the digital world that can be bought and sold like any other piece of property, but which have no tangible form of their own'' (BBC, 8). In order to fully understand what an NFT is, one must understand the prospect of fungibility. Something that is “fungible” has a fixed rate of exchange (for example, a one dollar bill is always worth $1.00, no more and no less). On the other hand, something that is non-fungible holds value only according to the beholder, such as artwork, an example being the Mona Lisa. NFTs are simply digital assets that have no fixed rate of exchange. As of late, NFTs have been brought into the public eye on a scale much greater than they previously had- through promotions, advertisements, and even a few SNL skits. On top of this, they have begun to make headlines with their massive sales. The highest selling NFT of all time is Beeple’s Everydays: The First 5000 Days, which went for a staggering 69 million dollars. This is only the top on a list of several NFT sales in the millions, which provides grounds to believe that they are bound to be an important part of the future of our economy, especially when considering cryptocurrency. However, they are still a very new concept to most, validating them as a general topic for research. 

LITERATURE REVIEW

    Many questions surrounding NFTs regard what gives them value to begin with. Some believe their value to be hype, blowing out of proportion for a short period but destined to fail in the long term. In an article by Raisa Bruner which describes the NFT market, it is stated that the early “bubble” of NFT popularity had burst, but what remained was a “steadily flourishing market for digitally-native art and paraphernalia” (Bruner, 2021). This idea that NFTs are simply a “bubble” is not, however, universal. Christian Catalini, professor and partner in MIT’s Digital Currency Initiative, is quoted as stating that “unlike gold, which is used for jewelry and has industrial uses, cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value. They derive and retain their worth from investor demand alone” (Blanton, 2017). This leaves an important question: where does this demand come from?

To answer this question, common themes in NFT value were identified in existing sources with the hopes of finding a gap in the literature which could be researched. The first common factor noted was that of scarcity. Arry Yu, chair of the Washington Technology Industry Association Cascadia Blockchain Council, was quoted as stating that “Essentially, NFTs create digital scarcity” (Conti, 2022). Scarcity being the low availability of a thing, it makes sense to assume that under the same principles that guide the ideas of supply and demand, a low supply or increased scarcity would make an NFT more valuable than it might be in a mass produced format. 

The second common theme found in preliminary research regarding high-selling NFTs was the significance of the creator. Throughout research, several creator names appeared frequently attached to high selling NFTs. This brought to attention the prospect that perhaps the creators of NFTs had an effect on their price. This was also tied to another common theme found in preliminary research which was best encapsulated in an article in which Gary Vaynerchuck, well known entrepreneur and avid NFT supporter, stated that NFTs are a type of “social currency” (Vee, 2021). Vaynerchuck makes the argument that much in the same way that an expensive car is perceived as a “flex” or a symbol of social status, NFTs perform as digital “flexes.” With this perspective in mind, it can be reasoned that ownership of an NFT created by a well known artist would attract more attention and therefore be worth more “social currency.” As such, more value may be attracted by NFTs with better known artists.

The third common factor noted in preliminary research was the idea of computer generated versus man-made NFTs. Several high selling NFTs are computer generated, a popular format being digital avatars with randomly generated attributes given to them by a computer algorithm. Each of these is unique unto itself. These are a common representation of NFTs in media, yet some of the highest selling NFTs of all time (including the highest of all time) are man-made. It can be reasoned that if one of these two formats (computer generated or man-made) consistently reflects higher sales than another, that format could be generally viewed as more valuable. 

These themes explain the worth of NFTs, but one important gap remains: several factors of worth have been identified, but the discrepancy between those NFTs that sell for 20 dollars or less and those that sell for millions upon millions have yet to be identified. Take the example of cryptopunks, randomly generated 8-bit characters minted and made into NFTs. Some cryptopunks sell for millions of dollars, such values that several of the 10 highest NFT sales of all time are made up of cryptopunks, but others sell for significantly less. It is essential to our understanding of NFTs as a major player in the future of the cryptocurrency market that the causes behind this price differentiation are made known. The purpose of this research paper is to identify the following research question: what attributes are the most important attribute in contributing to NFT value? This will be achieved through analysis of the highest selling NFTs and trends in NFT properties and prices and assessment of the patterns involved in these trends. 

METHODOLOGY

Study Design

This study will identify common factors among the most valuable of NFTs that may prove to be relevant to their value. The goal of this study is to create an increased understanding of the pricing and value behind NFTs. This proves important because NFTs have begun to rise dramatically in terms of relevance, obtaining higher prices regularly and being referenced more often in pop culture than when they first appeared, and could (as they have already to some extent) become a major part of the economy going forward, and as such their value must be understood to as high an extent as is possible. 

For purposes of building a methodology, the researcher singled out studies surrounding NFTs or cryptocurrencies, which due to their relation to NFTs would be researched using the same methods. A study by Keagan Dingelstad intending to find potential uses and limitations of NFTs in the auditing profession was found to be particularly applicable. In this paper’s methodology section, the author states that the most effective method for their study was qualitative research. The researcher stated that “Qualitative research is based on people’s individual experiences and helps establish the underlying conditions that alter people’s choices and the outcomes of quantitative studies” (Dingelstad, 2021). He goes on to describe the main points of qualitative research, in which he states that a very large portion of qualitative research is based on observation, and that another is based on existing documents. This was deemed especially effective for research being conducted due to the relatively short time for which NFTs have existed, and the resulting lack of hyper-specific studies regarding them as a result of this short existence. Dingelstad’s design was simple: he isolated 5 main benefits of blockchain technology, and analyzed each individually, noting the most beneficial factors for the context of his research. It was largely Dingelstad’s paper that inspired this paper’s research design. Based on Dingelstad’s use and explanation of qualitative research, it was determined that qualitative research should be used for this paper. Upon a further search of existing qualitative research methods, grounded theory was selected as the method of choice due to its allowance for use of more generalized pre-existing research and qualitative method.

A grounded theory research method was used to find results regarding the value of NFTs. Grounded theory is defined as a research method “concerned with the generation of theory, which is grounded in data that has been systematically collected and analyzed,” used to “uncover such things as social relationships and behaviours of groups, known as social processes” (Noble and Mitchell, 2016). In this study, the relationship between certain qualities of NFTs and the height of price being paid for them was studied. This method was deemed applicable because it allowed conclusions grounded in the quantitative and qualitative data the researcher was met with in research, allowing an interpretation of the data that would best explain which attributes created the height of the prices of the most expensive NFTs. Data was gathered via scouring of publicly available listings and databases online to find the 15 most expensive NFTs, and then gathering basic data regarding the background of said NFTs. This data consisted of several factors. One of which was the creator, on the grounds that perhaps association to a particular name could raise the value of the NFT in question. Another was the date of sale. A high rate of high NFT sales in a particular time period could indicate a rise in their popularity, which would increase demand and explain the sales’ high mark. The type of NFT, in terms of computer generated (defined as having been generated using computer software) versus man-made (defined as having been entirely designed by a human from scratch) imagery, was also researched, because it is possible that man-made is more valued than computer generated or vice versa. Scarcity, the state of short supply in which each NFT may have been in, was then researched, followed by data on gimmicks presented by each NFT. The gimmick portion of the data is the portion of the data that would be considered qualitative, as this varies widely from NFT to NFT, and some come with no particular gimmick present, and each gimmick has the potential to be drastically different (for reference, a gimmick is defined as a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business). These data were then compared and contrasted, and consistencies among the data were noted. These consistencies were then analyzed, and the likelihoods of their having an impact on the NFT’s prices compared (this completed by searching for previous examples of the found consistencies and speculation regarding the effect presented by each), and a conclusion regarding what key elements create the most value in NFTs was formed based on this analysis.  It is worth noting that while there has been speculation into why NFTs fetch the prices that they do, no study has determined why certain NFTs are worth so much more than the rest, and no study has compared the highest selling NFTs to find common links between them. No living subjects, human or otherwise, were used in this study. 

Instruments

Initial data regarding the highest selling NFTs was gathered from online databases such as those provided by Decrypt.co, Screenrant.com, and Medium.com. Because there is no official documentation collecting a list of the highest selling NFTs, these databases were cross referenced and fact checked to ensure that the NFTs used in the research were in fact sold for the prices listed. This ensured the reliability of the information found in the databases observed. In instances where cross-referencing was found to provide conflicting information, other individual sources regarding the NFTs in question were consulted to ensure their validity. Information about the individual NFTs’ elements comes from the researcher’s observation alongside information from articles (from news sources, etc.) regarding the origins and sale of the tokens, as well as buyer purpose in purchasing the tokens. The NFTs used were as follows: “Everydays: The First 5000 Days,” “Human One,” “CROSSROAD,” Ocean Front,” “This Changed Everything,” Stay Free,” “Save Thousands of Lives,” “Replicator,” “Doge,” and Cryptopunks #7523, 7804, 3100, 5217, 7252, and 2338

Procedures

After identifying the 15 highest NFT sales, research was conducted for each NFT to find more identifying information. Areas of information that were focused on included: creator, date of sale, scarcity, gimmick, and type of NFT. For NFT type, NFTs were separated into categories of man-made, which is defined as having been entirely designed by a human from scratch, and computer generated, which is defined as having been generated using computer software. These data were then coded for common factors and correlation, upon which it was revised or a larger context and identified correlations were used to form a theory grounded in the collected data, answering the research question.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

    Data was gathered for the 15 highest-selling NFTs in NFT history. Table 1 displays the results found for each one in terms of the 5 qualities researched. Following the table is an analysis of each individual type of data that was collected, including an explanation of what the category entails and a synopsis of the data that was collected. Finally, the results were analyzed to find the most important factors as supported by data produced by the research.

Name of NFT and sale price
Creator
Computer generated vs Man-made
Date of Sale
Gimmick
How many?
Everydays: The First 5000 Days

(69.3 million)
Beeple
Man-made
Mar. 10 2021
5,000 individual pieces of daily artworks pieced together as one NFT
1
Human One

(28.9 million)
Beeple
Man-made
Nov. 9 2021
Has physical component and will update at artist’s pace
1
CryptoPunk #7523

(11.8 million)
Larva Labs (Matt Hall and John Watkinson)
Computer Generated
Jun. 10 2021
Avatar with randomly generated features, one of a kind
1 

(One of 9 alien cryptopunks)

CryptoPunk #7804

(7.56 million)
Larva Labs (Matt Hall and John Watkinson)
Computer generated
Mar. 11 2021
Avatar with randomly generated features, one of a kind
1 

(One of 9 alien cryptopunks)

CryptoPunk #3100

(7.51 million)
Larva Labs (Matt Hall and John Watkinson)
Computer generated
Mar. 11 2021
Avatar with randomly generated features, one of a kind
1 

(One of 9 alien cryptopunks)
CROSSROAD (6.66 million)
Beeple
Man Made
Feb 5, 2021
Actual art piece was undetermined until the results of the 2020 election, with an alternate piece for either outcome. 
1
Ocean Front 

(6 Million)
Beeple
Man-made
Mar. 23, 2021
Proceeds go toward Open Earth foundation
1
CryptoPunk #5217

(5.44 Million)
Larva Labs (Matt Hall and John Watkinson)
Computer Generated 
Jul. 30, 2021
Avatar with randomly generated attributes, one of a kind 
1

(One of 24 ape punks)
This Changed Everything

(5.43 Million)
Sir Tim Berners-Lee
Man-made
Jul. 30, 2021
A representation of the original source code for the internet, a reflective letter from Time Berners-Lee
1
CryptoPunk #7252

(5.3 Million)
Larva Labs (Matt Hall and John Watkinson)
Computer Generated
Aug 24, 2021
Avatar with randomly generated attributes, one of a kind 
1

(One of 88 zombie punks)
Stay Free

(5.27 Million)
Edward Snowden
Man-made
Apr 16, 2021
Sale goes towards Freedom of the Press Foundation 
1
Save Thousands of Lives

(5.1 Million)
Noora Health
Man-made
May 8, 2021
Raised funds for Noora Health, a program that teaches caregivers how to take care of their children after they leave the hospital.
1
CryptoPunk #2338

(4.4 Million)
Larva Labs (Matt Hall and John Watkinson)
Computer Generated
Aug 6, 2021
Avatar with randomly generated attributes, one of a kind 
1 

(One of 88 zombie punks)
Replicator

(4.1 Million)
Micah “Mad Dog Jones” Bowbak
Man-made/ Computer Generated hybrid
Apr 2021
Creates its own “generations” of NFTs 
1
Doge (4 Million)
Atsuko Sato
Man-made
June 11 2021
Early sale, and NFT of a legendarily popular meme that has been around for years. Price is in part a product of meme culture. 
1
(Results of research)

Creators

    It was found that there were two creators who were frequent among the top 15 NFT sales. The first of these was Larva Labs, responsible for creating 6 of the listed NFTs, which equates to 40% of the 15 highest NFT sales of all time. The second was Beeple, who created 4 of the listed NFTs (including the highest selling of all time), which equates to roughly another 27% of the 15 highest NFT sales of all time. Other creators did not appear more than once. 

Man-made vs Computer Generated

    There was a relatively even divide between man-made and computer generated NFTs. It was found that 8 NFTs were man-made, 6 were computer generated, and one, namely “Replicator,” was considered a hybrid of the two on the basis that it was man-made initially but created computer generated NFTs as time progresses. This was not considered a significant divide. To ensure that the data was not further divided than it appeared to be at first glance, the top 10 and top 5 groups were analyzed, to find that 5 of the top 10 were man made and the other 5 were computer generated, and 2 of the top 5 were man-made and 3 were computer generated, proving the data remained fairly consistent in its division no matter what range of cost was chosen. However, it was noted that all computer generated NFTs were a part of the CryptoPunks line, perhaps implying that not all CG NFTs have equal value added by their CG status. 

Date of Sale

    In researching the dates of NFT sales, it was discovered that 100% of the researched NFTs were purchased from February to November 2021. This is possibly indicative of an overall rise in prices during this time period, caused potentially by a spike in news regarding NFTs or awareness of them. If this is the case, it could be a major factor in why the NFTs sold so high at this time. Gimmick

    Not initially one of the categories planned for study, it was found gimmick is such an important factor that it would not be fair to leave it out of the study. While researching, it was found that most of the studied NFTs had some unique selling point that made them different from the rest. For example, Beeple’s “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” was a collage of 5,000 days’ worth of day-to-day individual digital artworks put into one NFT. ‘Mad Dog Jones’’ “Replicator”  creates its own “generations” of NFTs in sets of 6, including “printer jam” NFTs that are bizarrely unique. “Save Thousands of Lives” was a charitable NFT, with all the profits going to Noora Health’s programs to help people learn how to take care of children. The only case in which there was no significant outlying factor regarding the NFTs was in the case of Cryptopunks, which are a line of NFTs that have randomly generated attributes but the same basic structure. It could even be argued that this fits under the umbrella of a gimmick. These stand out from the less expensive NFTs that are simply single art pieces, or perhaps the common “movie ticket bonus” style of NFT that can be found easily and among many people. These gimmicks appear to be a key factor in raising the value of the NFTs.

Scarcity 

    Scarcity was found to be another key factor in NFT value, advocated by previous studies to be important on a massive scale. In the study of these 15 NFTs, it was found that all 15 were as limited as possible: only one of each NFT existed. This supported the preexisting data, as well as displaying a clear correlation between scarcity and value. There is one limitation to this part of the data, that being that CryptoPunks, while each one is individually different, are still considered to be a line of NFTs and have some very similar qualities. However, two lines of reasoning find the Scarcity argument to be held valid even among cryptopunks. Firstly, each one is different: no two have the same attributes. Secondly and more importantly, upon researching the Cryptopunks further, it was found that there are subcategories of Cryptopunks with different base layouts. 3 of these were found in the top 15. The first was Zombie punks, of which there are 88 total and 2 in the top 15. The second was Ape punks, of which there are 24 total and 1 in the top 15. The last subcategory of Cryptopunk that was found in the top 15 were alien cryptopunks, of which there are only 9 in total and 3 in the top 15 highest selling NFTs. This was found to be even more important when it was found that the price of the NFTs was correlating in ascending order of rarity (IE: Zombie punks were below the Ape punk in terms of price, and the Ape punk was below the 3 Alien punks). This demonstrates a scarcity within the Cryptopunks besides their individual differences, lending still more credibility to the concept that scarcity is key in NFT price. 

Data Recap

    In review, it was found that:

2 creators made up for 67% of the top 15 NFT sales, or a total of 10 NFTs.
The man-made to computer generated ratio in terms of NFTs was roughly even.
100% of the top 15 NFT sales occurred in 2021.
All of the 15 top-selling NFTs had some form of “gimmick,” or unique selling point.
All of the 15 top-selling NFTs were entirely unique, the only of their kind.
Analysis

    Upon investigating the results of the data, it was found that three of the five studied NFT attributes were important in terms of adding value to the NFT. These were Creator, Gimmick, and Scarcity. It was determined that whether the NFT was computer generated or man-made was not impactful upon the price, as the ratio between the two was not significantly different among the studied NFTs. Upon reviewing the data regarding the sale dates of the NFTs studied, it was at first noted that the dates were all in 2021. Initially this may seem to be an indicator that date can be important, but it is unreasonable to determine that the date can have a significant impact on the price of an item. Rather, it was reasoned that the dates were likely associated with a rise in NFT awareness and popularity that may have resulted in an increased interest in purchasing them. With this in mind, the researcher decided to look into the popularity of the search term “NFT” and the topic “Non-Fungible Token” over time, according to Google Trends. It was found that both terms had a popularity score of 0, meaning there was insufficient search data for the term to be listed on the popularity scale, until January 2021, at which time both terms began to rise drastically. They fluctuated, both peaking at the maximum score of 100 in January 2022. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that a rise in NFT popularity occurred around the time of the purchases, indicating that NFT awareness is a key factor in NFT price. 

(Google Trends analysis of search term “NFT” popularity score)

Importance of Scarcity

    It was determined upon analysis of the research that scarcity plays a key role, not as an additive of value, but more as a prerequisite to higher value. In studying the 15 selected NFTs, it was found that all 15 were one-of-a-kind, never replicated in any way. However, prior research displays a caveat: NFTs are “Generally one of a kind” (Conti, 2022).  In other words, the individuality of an NFT is not an uncommon thing, and there are many NFTs that fetch low prices despite their scarcity. However, this could not be ejected as an important factor, as it was a 100% occurrence in the 15 studied tokens. Therefore it was determined that while scarcity does not create value in an NFT, an NFT cannot have great value unless it is the only one of its kind, as a result of supply and demand economic tendencies of those purchasing the NFTs. Therefore it was found that NFT scarcity is absolutely key in valuable NFTs, though it may not add any value in and of itself as a factor. 

Importance of Creator

    It was found in reviewing NFT value that Beeple and Larva Labs were responsible for creating a combined two-thirds of the NFTs researched. This implies that certain pieces are given value by virtue of their creator, most probably due to previous success of the creator and the publicity that success comes with. This ties with ideas previously noted regarding NFTs as a “social currency:” a more successful artist would attract more attention, therefore the sale of the NFT would attract more attention and it would therefore be a bigger social “flex.” With this in mind, it makes sense that owning an NFT with a successful creator attached to it would be worth more than owning an NFT with a creator of no great significance historically. On these grounds it can be concluded that the creator of an NFT can have an important and significant impact on value.

Importance of Gimmick

    In research, it was found that each of the 15 studied NFTs had a gimmick. Gimmick is defined by Oxford Languages as “a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.” Common themes among these were changes to the NFT over time, pieces of series done by the creator, and in the case of cryptopunks, randomized characteristics in the avatars. Other more unique gimmicks included physical components, self-production of further NFTs, donation of sale revenue to humanitarian or environmental causes, letters from the creator and gathered collections being sold as one. These gimmicks, though in no significant order, were found in all of the NFTs studied, whereas many lower-selling NFTs are merely images with no particularly unique selling point. This indicates that a uniqueness in the properties of the NFT can make it attractive to buyers, allowing a more lucrative price range to be reached.

Importance of Date of Sale

    As stated previously, it was found that all 15 studied NFTs were sold in 2021. It was reasoned that the actual date is very unlikely to impact sale price, and that a more likely cause for the similarity in dates was due to a rise in popularity of NFTs at the time of the sales. Upon looking into the Google Trends search results for the terms “NFT” and “Non-Fungible Token,” it was found that the terms had a popularity score of 0 until January 2021, at which point they rose, fluctuating somewhat over the course of the year and peaking at the maximum possible score of 100 in January 2022. This presents a likelihood that while the actual date that an NFT is sold is likely unimportant in impacting its price, the popularity and awareness surrounding NFTs has had significant effect. It stands to reason that this would apply to individual NFTs as well, and that the more well known an NFT is, the more likely it is to sell at a higher price. Therefore while it was found that date of sale was irrelevant in creating NFT value, awareness and popularity were key factors. 

DISCUSSION

Findings

In coding the common themes presented by the data collected regarding the individual studied attributes, one was particularly prevalent. This was the theme of public awareness increasing value. For example, in regards to the creator of the NFTs, it was found that more popular artists tended to have higher sales. When it came to computer generated vs man made NFTs, it was found that all the computer generated NFTs present in the top 15 highest selling NFTs of all time were cryptopunks, one of the earliest and most well known computer generated lines of NFTs by far. Within the results gathered from studying gimmick, it was found that all NFTs presented were unique or outstanding in some way, meaning they would stand out from most NFTs and attract more attention. In the data studied regarding the date of an NFTs’ sale, it was discovered that all 15 NFTs were sold during a period of rapid increase of awareness and popularity regarding the industry. All of these factors followed the theme of public awareness being very important during the transaction of a high-selling NFT. 

With the data collected and coded, the final step in the process to formulate a theory. From preexisting literature, a common theme found amongst the data was used, that being what Gary Vaynerchuck referred to as “social credit” or what Robyn Conti and John Schmidt called “digital bragging rights,” in other words the idea that owning an NFT is a form of social “flex” - in the same way that a nice car or watch is seen as a sign of social status, NFTs are as well. Alongside this, a frequent theme among the data of public awareness was noted: NFTs that sold high had several attributes that contributed to awareness and attention being brought to them. With these in mind, the researcher formulated a grounded theory, which was the following: Rather than any one specific attribute, it is attributes which create awareness surrounding NFTs generate the most value for them, due to their addition to the perceived “social credit” that comes with having one’s name attached to the sale and ownership of said NFT.

Fulfillment of Gaps in Research

    This study addresses two key gaps in previous speculations regarding the topic. The first is in that it identifies which attributes are most important in contributing to NFT value - something which had never been directly evaluated - and the second being that the study incorporates evidence from specific NFT sales to validate sources of NFT value. Previous statements on the topic that the researcher found were not backed up by legitimate evidence, rather on a poorly defined and often speculative, unsubstantiated basis. This study utilized documented data and specific examples to define definite correlations between high-selling NFTs and characteristics they hold. 

Implications

    The results of this research present new and more direct evidence regarding what it is that gives NFTs value, information which can be put to use by NFT investors to further their gains, and as a result, further the industry as a whole. This could lead to new expansions within the NFT industry, and further the success of artists that use NFTs as a platform for their art. It also presents legitimate evidence to back the preexisting research that theorizes about the factors that give NFTs value, which had previously been backed by little to no documented evidence. 

Areas for Future Research

    The theory created through the researcher’s grounded theory method created grounds for future research. There were three noted areas in which research could expand. The first was the social media aspect of NFTs: it is a popular practice to use NFTs as social media profile pictures, giving a lane of reasoning which would defend research regarding how people promote purchases of NFTs on social media to analyze the extent to which they think of NFTs as a social currency or flex. The second was the environmental aspect. NFTs and crypto in general have an adverse impact on the environment, and it could be researched how news surrounding this controversy impacts their values. The third and most viable option for future research was the differences between various lines of computer-generated NFTs, in which researchers could analyze differences to identify what distinctions cause NFTs from certain lines, such as cryptopunks, to be frequently more valuable than others, such as bored apes, which is perhaps the second most popular line in this format of NFT production. 

Limitations

Lastly to be discussed are the limitations of the research. The first limitation is that NFTs are relatively new. A later research paper would have more opportunity to identify patterns in the NFTs’ sales that could provide more definitive information than that provided here. To add, certain artists, such as Beeple, believe that NFTs are currently a “bubble-” that the hype surrounding them will eventually die down and they will diminish greatly in value (BBC, 2021). If this is the case, the short time for which NFTs have existed could be particularly detrimental to the long term viability of the results of the research conducted.

The second limitation was sample size. A larger sample size could provide more detailed results. This was particularly applicable in the case of computer generated vs man made NFTs, in which no significant skew was found- but it is possible that with a larger sample size a clear skew could be present. 

References

Bruner, R. (2021). Teen Artists Are Making Millions on NFTs. How Are They Doing It? Time.Com, N.PAG.

         BLANTON, T. H. (2017). Know the Risks of Cryptocurrencies. Kiplinger’s Personal Finance, 71(12), 10.

BBC. (2021, September 23). What are nfts and why are some worth millions? BBC News. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from bbc.com/news/technology-56371912

Christies. (2021). Beeple (b. 1981). Christies.com. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from onlineonly.christies.com/s/beeple-first-5000-days/beeple-b-1981-1/112924

Christies. (2021, October 27). Beeple gets real: Christie's. Christie's Auctions & Private Sales. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from christies.com/features/Beeple-gets-real-with-human-one-11940-7.aspx

Conti, R. (2022, April 19). What is an NFT? non-fungible tokens explained. Forbes. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/nft-non-fungible-token/

CROSSROAD. Nifty Gateway. (2021). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from niftygateway.com/marketplace/item/0x12f28e2106ce8fd8464885b80ea865e98b465149/100010001

orporatereportingjournals.com. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from corporatereportingjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AJCGR-2021-VOL.-3-NO.-1-SPECIAL-STUDENTS-ISSUE.pdf

Godfrey, B. (2021, March 23). Beeple's NFT 'Ocean Front' sells for $6m, proceed to be donated to charity. Coinspeaker. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from coinspeaker.com/beeple-nft-ocean-front-charity/

Gompertz, W. (2021, March 13). Everydays: The first 5000 days - will gompertz reviews beeple's digital work ★★★☆☆. BBC News. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56368868

Google. (n.d.). NFTs - google trends. Google Trends. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=NFTs&geo=US

Jha, P. (2021, March 23). NFT News: Tron founder Justin Sun Buys Beeple's ocean front NFT for $6M. CoinGape. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from coingape.com/nft-news-tron-founder-justin-sun-buys-beeples-ocean-front-nft-for-6m/

Johnson, E. (2016, August 3). Full transcript: Serial entrepreneur Gary Vaynerchuk on Recode Media. Vox. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from vox.com/2016/8/3/12364244/gary-vaynerchuk-garyvee-startups-recode-media-podcast-transcript

Larva Labs. (2021). Cryptopunks: Details for punk #7804. CryptoPunks: Details for Punk #7804. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/details/7804

Larva Labs. (2021). Cryptopunks: Details for punk #7804. CryptoPunks: Details for Punk #5217. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/details/5217

Larva Labs. (2021). Cryptopunks: Details for punk #7804. CryptoPunks: Details for Punk #7252.  Retrieved April 22, 2022, from larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/details/7252

Larva Labs. (n.d.). Cryptopunks: Details for punk #3100. CryptoPunks: Details for Punk #3100. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/details/3100

Larva Labs. (2021). Cryptopunks: Details for punk #7804. CryptoPunks: Details for Punk #2338. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from larvalabs.com/cryptopunks/details/2338

Liscia, V. D. (2021, June 11). "first ever NFT" sells for $1.4 million. Hyperallergic. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from hyperallergic.com/652671/kevin-mccoy-quantum-first-nft-created-sells-at-sothebys-for-over-one-million/

Ludel, W. (2022, February 6). Sotheby's and artist Kevin McCoy sued over sale of early NFT. The Art Newspaper - International art news and events. Retrieved April 28, 2022, from theartnewspaper.com/2022/02/04/sothebys-kevin-mccoy-lawsuit-quantum-nft

Martin, B. (2021, December 2). What is grounded theory? finding insights in qualitative research – method in madness by Dovetail. – Method in Madness by Dovetail. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from dovetailapp.com/blog/what-is-grounded-theory-qualitative-research/

Noble, H., & Mitchell, G. (2016, February). (PDF) what is grounded theory? - researchgate. Researchgate.Net. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from researchgate.net/publication/294424440_What_is_grounded_theory

OpenSea. (2021). Save thousands of lives - noora health save thousands of lives. OpenSea. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c248420045cb7b5e/96773753706640817147890456629920587151705670001482122310561805592519359070209

Oxford languages and google - english. Oxford Languages. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

Phillips, D., Graves, S., & Hayward, A. (2022, February 21). The 15 most expensive nfts ever sold. Decrypt. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from decrypt.co/62898/most-expensive-nfts-ever-sold

Replicator by mad dog jones. Mad Dog Jones. (2021). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from maddogjones.com/prints/1

Rosenblatt, K. (2021, June 11). Iconic 'Doge' meme nft breaks record, selling for $4 million. NBCNews.com. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/iconic-doge-meme-nft-breaks-records-selling-roughly-4-million-n1270161

Shaurya Thapa (736 Articles Published) Shaurya Thapa is an Indian freelance journalist who mostly dabbles in writings on cinema. (2022, April 14). 20 most expensive nfts sold (so far). ScreenRant. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from screenrant.com/expensive-nfts-sold-so-far/

Solomon, T. (2021, February 25). Beeple NFT artwork sells for $6.6 m. ahead of Viral Christie's auction. ARTnews.com. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from artnews.com/art-news/news/beeple-nft-artwork-nifty-gateway-sale-1234584701/

Sotheby's. (2021). Cryptopunk 7523. Sotheby's. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from sothebys.com/en/search?query=CryptoPunk+7523&tab=objects

Stay free (Edward Snowden, 2021). Foundation. (2021). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from foundation.app/@Snowden/foundation/24437

Tech Desk. (2022, February 5). From beeple to the merge, here are the 5 most expensive nfts sold to date. The Indian Express. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from indianexpress.com/article/technology/crypto/from-beeple-to-the-merge-here-are-the-5-most-expensive-nfts-sold-to-date-7752788/

This changed everything: Sothebys.com. (2021). Retrieved April 22, 2022, from sothebys.com/en/digital-catalogues/this-changed-everything

Vee, G. (2021, May 13). What is NFT? non-fungible Token Guide. GaryVaynerchuk.com. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from garyvaynerchuk.com/what-is-nft-non-fungible-token-guide/