Currently, non-innate icons are an important topic of discussion in the crypto space as creators and collectors alike are jumping up and down.

However, Litecoin (LTC) creator Charlie believes the hype is misplaced. In a tweet on Monday, he told me that, unlike “real art,” creating an NFT requires “zero cost.”

According to Lee, real artists are limited in time and effort, and they compared that limitation to a work manual. For me, this limitation creates a scarcity and therefore value of works of art created by famous artists.

“NFTs, on the other hand, create artificial scarcity,” Lee tweeted, adding, “Due to the cost of creating a near-new NFT, the market will eventually be flooded with NFTs from artists trying to make money. Supply will exceed demand, and prices will eventually fall. ”

Reed’s comments are a common NFT criticism of the right-click and save method. However, there is evidence that the art scene – the real and digital world – is rife with transcription. However, the value of a work often depends on the artist, and collectors pay attention to the creator of the work of art and thus distinguish it from other copies.

In fact, the ability to sign works of art in encrypted form is another feature often attributed by NFT, allowing artists to include metadata, file links, and other necessary copyright elements.

With NFT, scarcity becomes an expression of consensus, which is why the extremely rare alien CryptoPunk was sold in January for 605 ETH. While this rare item can be recreated, it will not be part of the collection Larva Labs created in 2017.

Hashmasks, another NFT group, created 16,384 “cards” that Cointelegraph previously reported were sold for over $ 10 million in the first four days.

Lee’s criticism also seems to restrict NFTs to art objects rather than broader holdings with items such as in-game assets and digital land. Earlier in February, nine digital plots of Lunasia’s virtual world sold for nearly $ 1.5 million.