NFT are Medieval Indulgences

Summary

The article compares the modern concept of NFTs to the historical practice of selling indulgences in the medieval church, suggesting both are based on belief-based exchanges and subject to corruption.

Abstract

The article draws a parallel between Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the medieval practice of selling indulgences, where the church granted remission of punishment for sin. It posits that both systems are built on the premise of exchanging something intangible for tangible benefits, such as reduced time in Purgatory or ownership of digital assets. The piece highlights the evolution of indulgences from minor penances to the ultimate 'get out of Hell free' card, mirroring the current hype and speculation surrounding NFTs. The author criticizes the systemic corruption that can arise from such practices, citing the church's use of indulgence funds for projects and crusades, and compares it to the modern enrichment of the already wealthy through NFT transactions. The article concludes by questioning the intrinsic value of NFTs, given that they are merely digital certificates, and suggests that, like the Reformation's impact on indulgences, a similar reckoning may be in store for the NFT market.

Opinions

The author, Jim Francis, explicitly states that NFTs are the modern equivalent of medieval indulgences, implying they are both based on a suspension of disbelief and have the potential for exploitation.
The article suggests that the concept of eternal damnation was introduced as a form of ecclesiastical law enforcement, paralleling the role of blockchain technology in enforcing the ownership and uniqueness of NFTs.
It is implied that the original intention behind indulgences was noble, aiming to guide the masses and limit state power, but was eventually corrupted, much like how the initial purpose of NFTs (to empower creators) may be overshadowed by their exploitation for profit.
The author points out the absurdity of indulgences reaching a point where they could absolve one from eternal damnation, drawing a comparison to the current inflated value of NFTs.
The article criticizes the lack of real-world enforcement behind indulgences and, by extension, the lack of intrinsic value behind NFTs, which are only worth what the community agrees upon.
A lesson from the Reformation is invoked, suggesting that just as the sale of indulgences was eventually curbed, the NFT market may also face a future correction or regulation.

Both are founded in belief based exchanges

Bishop with Iron Man arc reactor funded by indulgences. Photo by judit agusti aranda from Pexels

NFT are the modern equivalent of the “indulgences” sold by priests to rich people before the Reformation. — Jim Francis

It all starts with a small lie, a fib, a fabrication. The threads of the story grow stronger with each retelling and soon whole cloth is draped on an altar where virtue, sin, and penance are defined.

Law without enforcement renders it toothless and flaccid, thus the concept of eternal damnation was created as an ecclesiastical constabulary which instead of badge and baton, uses scripture and sermon.

Not a bad idea at its core. A philosophy to guide the masses and limit the powers of the state but like all human endeavors, subject to corruption over time. Just as a bribe is slipped to the bobby to avoid the penitentiary, so too the tithing given to the church will skirt a penance or two.

Formalized in the Middle Ages, the funds raised from the sale of indulgences were of such volume as to support church projects ranging from building cathedrals and hospitals to underwriting several Crusades. At first, the payments simply absolved the donor from small sins like eating butter during lent and were limited in duration to a few days off of Purgatory, that intermediate damnation with an expiration date.

By the late Middle Ages, professional alms collectors were selling indulgences for hundreds or thousands of years worth of penance until they arrived at the obvious conclusion of a get out of eternal damnation card.

A century before Martin Luthor came on the scene in 1492, Pope Boniface IX was grousing about members of the church basically selling VIP passes to the pearly gates. By 1567, Pope Pius V canceled all purchased indulgences (without refund or recourse).

Satan distributing indulgences (and NFT), an illumination from a Czech manuscript, 1490s. Janíček Zmilelý z Písku (?), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Here we are four centuries later stuffing the coffers of the rich with fiat currency with the belief we can buy that which cannot be owned. There is not a considerable difference between having a scrap of parchment guaranteeing less roasting time after death and having the private key to a blockchain URL pointing to where some binary data is stored.

Some will argue that any abstraction of value is only worth what is agreed upon communally, however, fiat currency is backed by the violence of the state and applied with a continuum of force starting with small claims court and ending with forfeiture and prison.

We can learn a lesson from the Reformation that brought an end to outlandish indulgences and we should expect the same for NFT.

Crypto Context

NFT are Medieval Indulgences

Both are founded in belief based exchanges