Why did the 1st Gen NFTs have to be so damn Ugly?

[AltLord]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

[1715273404]

1715273404

[1715273404]

1715273404

[1715273404]

1715273404

[1715273404]

1715273404

[cryptoaddictchie]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

Whats your point? If you hear some first generation nft being minted or offer, it really doesnt mean good looks or art cause many users purchased it for potential rewards from partners or certain airdrop token if they launch one.

As of now, thats its use case and I can confirm it as I am also joining some projects 1st gen nft and their value is not based on looks but on the level of rarity.

[Hispo]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

I believe it could have something to do with the fact the first generation of Non fungible tokens were created by using templates or partial parts of each NFT which were changed in order to create a new one which was different from the previous one.
Many of the first generation NTFs were not intended to be a piece of art on its own but rather several pieces of individual parts placed together. It was a easy way for the creators of those NTFs to offer a high quantity of those in the market with relatively few effort.

Though, not all the generation 1 projects were ugly of poorly drawn, I recall a collection called "Waifu Project" which offered very well drawn anime girls inspired in crypto currencies, they actually hired professional artists to do each NFT. The catch is that those of those NTFs were more common than others the animated ones would be as scarce as only having 3 copies in existence.

[DaveF]

Because nobody was taking them seriously so they were 'whatever' once they took off and got popular that is what they kept running with.
At least that's how I see it.

The other option was lets see if people are going to buy whatever we put up there because of 'Influencers'

-Dave

[batang_bitcoin]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

It is the community that drives the value of it but AFAIK, there's now 80% cost less from what it is used to be. Just like the meme coins, they're driven by the community that builds hype on it and that's why many of the influencers that have bought at the peak are now in total loss. There are some utility on it depending on the NFT that you're going to buy, I've seen some in the sol network that they're giving some dividends and for the BAYC, it's most likely the exclusiveness of its club to the owners of it when they've got events and passes for yacht parties.

[nelson4lov]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

Are you talking about the same crypto where more than 50% of users are actively engaging in shitcoins and memecoins despite knowing fully where that such tokens have little to nothing to contribute to the space? If yes, happy to let you know that most people don't care. To some, those bored apes nfts you just criticized are one of the best arts in the space. In this space, a lot of people don't care about the art as long as they can sell it for more money than they minted or purchased in on secondary marketplaces for.

[electronicash]

when the NTF started, they were actually selling nice art on a blockchain, celebrities like snoopdog buying some of them. i remember the "disaster girl meme" cost more than $400k in ETH but now all we see are monkeys and doge memes, prices is not really high but i guess it's acceptable just to have an NFT.

i have a few of these dog memes, sometimes it takes awhile to remember why i took them  

[Pidgeon]

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

You don't have an eye for art just as those morons don't have the budget for a real artist or for the fees to inscribe something that is not 1 kb in size.

[poodle63]

well you might consider it as ugly as it can get when it comes to the first gen NFT but i think they made it that way purposefully, surely the holder of those first gen NFT that are valued really high could afford freelancer artist to make an art thats realistic, probably better than most of art but they don't want that, they want the ugliest NFT there is so that people can remember and I think that works as a marketing stunt too, the fact that they are still valued quite high these days means they succeed.
though if we are talking about the first gen NFT we usually just talking about hypes there's no underlying fundamental backing most of the NFT back in the days its just pure speculation just like how people speculate on meme coin right now, you never know what the intention of those whales pumping the meme coin, never know what motivate people to bag these meme coin, but they doing it anyway and you can only be left wondering.
at least the latest gen NFT have purpose.

[asriloni]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness.

True, it's also questioning me why ugly NFT like bored ape yacth being valued with non sense price. Even justin bieber lost millions caused by this ugle NFT.

I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

I think that the creator was taking non mainstream idea. using ugly NFT to be created probably a non mainstream idea at that time. I think that it doesn't really matter a lot whether that was non or ugly NFT.

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

No utility, probably only FOMO and hype from the creator of this ugly NFT.

[avikz]

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

NFTs are useless! So it really doesn't matter whether they look good or ugly. They are just the most useless thing ever happened in the world of cryptocurrency. I have noticed that the first generation NFTs were mostly pixel based images which got sold for million dollars to some unfortunate investors.

The entire NFT madness is pointless. So it is okay to not find any point at all!

[Yatsan]

Things are subjective when it comes to Art. It might be 'ugly' in your point of view but to others they are great. Proof? Check the price of those 1st Gen NFTs. They won't be paying that much for no reason. Maybe this assumption is simply because of the compaison with real life artworks but I think same thing goes with it. What increases the value of an artwork are who the artist is, concept, meaning, and more. Same thing is with NFTs; for example is with APE wherein many alike projects of the same concept followed.

To be honest, there are many things i will probably never understand about NFTs cos I couldnt understand the inspiration behind its ugliness. I think it was odd how the first generation NFTs, especially this ape club, were ugly as hell. Sure, the whole nft idea was bewildering really, but why was it all so ugly as well?

is there a hidden utility in ugliness or am i missing something?

NFTs are useless! So it really doesn't matter whether they look good or ugly. They are just the most useless thing ever happened in the world of cryptocurrency. I have noticed that the first generation NFTs were mostly pixel based images which got sold for million dollars to some unfortunate investors.

The entire NFT madness is pointless. So it is okay to not find any point at all!

But it is profitable to those people who invested on it, so I think it is not that useless. As long as it is being appreciated by some people in that industry, then that serves its purpose already. No one's forcing us to invest on it in the first place.