NFT

CryptoPunks' Aura Fading? Practicality and Copyright Disputes Persist as Holders Sell for $10 Million

share
CryptoPunks

Since the development of NFT technology, CryptoPunks introduced by Larva Labs has been one of the most iconic projects in this field, accumulating over $1.75 billion in trading volume to date. However, due to copyright and utility issues, holders of CryptoPunks are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Larva Labs.

CryptoPunks Quietly Fading Away

Although the NFT craze since mid-year has been sparked by CryptoPunks, its random feature combinations, early project value, and holders' status have given it an unimaginably high price. However, this simple PFP project has emerged and fallen rapidly like mushrooms in the past few months, with everyone trying to replicate CryptoPunks' success but no project meeting its successful conditions.

However, the market is evolving and learning, with more projects transitioning to practical value and additional functionalities, no longer just a single image. Take Bored Ape Yacht Club (BAYC), which has also garnered significant attention this year, for example. In October, it rewarded Bored Ape holders with Mutant Ape NFT airdrops and recently announced a partnership with sports brand adidas and game developer Animoca Brands to develop play-to-earn blockchain games.

All these actions have brought numerous additional value and appeal to the Bored Ape project, with its floor price on OpenSea leaping from 30 ETH to around 52 ETH, approximately $200,000, in the past month. In contrast, CryptoPunks, which has had almost no additional features since its launch, has seen a decrease in market attention and preference, with its floor price dropping from 80 ETH to 68 ETH, around $230,000. Naturally, CryptoPunks holders are gradually becoming dissatisfied with Larva Labs, the issuer.

CryptoPunks Copyright Issues

In addition to maintaining silence on CryptoPunks' development, Larva Labs has not explained the copyright and commercial use issues of the NFTs to CryptoPunks holders, and there is no article on CryptoPunks' copyright and commercial use on Larva Labs' website.

To trace related issues, in January 2008, lawyer Eric Adler, who registered the CryptoPunks copyright license, published an article mentioning the copyright transfer issues of CryptoPunks. In the article, Larva Labs co-founder John Watkinson expressed hope that CryptoPunks owners would also be copyright holders. However, the article has been taken down, with only archived versions available.

Although indifferent to their own project, Larva Labs has requested takedowns from several CryptoPunks derivative projects this year, notably CryptoPhunks, which spelled CryptoPunks with an extra "h" and was delisted from OpenSea after Larva Labs' complaint.

Furthermore, in August this year, Larva Labs signed an agency agreement with Hollywood agency UTA United Talent Agency to represent the NFT project CryptoPunks, giving UTA control over the publication and exposure opportunities on various film and entertainment platforms.

CryptoPunk #4156 Sold for $10 Million

Like many CryptoPunks holders, the owner of CryptoPunk #4156, known as 4156 on Twitter, used this NFT to create a personal brand, attracting tens of thousands of Twitter followers. They even collaborated with renowned artist Beeple to release NFTs and launched the Nouns NFT project.

In February this year, 4156 sought advice from John Watkinson on CryptoPunks' copyright issues but received no response. After Larva Labs signed an agreement with UTA and repeatedly requested takedowns from other derivative projects, 4156 gradually lost confidence in Larva Labs. Last week, they sold their CryptoPunk #4156 in the market for 2500 ETH, approximately $10.25 million.

"I am well aware that I may never have the rights to what I am building. It is illogical to continue building a brand around something I do not ultimately own." 4156 stated.

Although this decision was tough, with the development of NFTs and Web3 concepts, Larva Labs' actions indeed seem out of touch with the times. The differences in behavior and ideology led 4156 to part ways with CryptoPunks.

"This is not about ownership, but about making these pixel CryptoPunks as censorship-resistant as NFT technology. If NFTs and their images cannot have the same rights, what's the point of perpetually binding them together on the blockchain?" 4156 wrote on Twitter.

NFT