There was a time, not so long ago, when the word NFT was synonymous with easy money, digital status, and a revolution that was going to decentralize art, entertainment, and the very way we conceive property.
It was 2021, and celebrities, investment funds, and first-time creators embraced the technology as if it were the elixir of Web3. Simply attaching an image to a non-fungible token was enough for collections to emerge overnight with trading volumes in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But the house of cards crumbled as quickly as it inflated. Volume dropped more than 90%, floor prices collapsed, and the narrative of “scarce digital art” became trapped in a bubble from which many have yet to escape.
Yet, on the ashes of that speculative casino, something far more relevant—though infinitely more complex—is being built: the shift from NFTs as collectibles to instruments of intellectual property, utility, and the representation of tangible assets. The inevitable questions are: where are we really headed? What are the phases already on the horizon? And, above all, how will the average investor react to a change that demands patience, legal knowledge, and a radically different mindset?
Before projecting the future, it is worth dismantling a misunderstanding that still poisons conversations on social media and secondary markets: acquiring an NFT does not equal owning the underlying intellectual property of the linked work.
During the collecting frenzy, most buyers assumed that by paying thousands of dollars for a token on the blockchain, they automatically became owners of the rights to reproduce, distribute, or commercially exploit that image. The contractual reality—when it existed—was radically different.
Many collections granted, at best, a limited license for personal use or the right to display the piece on social media. Yuga Labs marked a turning point by granting Bored Ape holders the ability to commercially exploit their character up to a certain revenue threshold, but even that gesture, praised as revolutionary, left open questions about collective IP management, coexistence of thousands of simultaneous licensees, and the absence of a robust legal framework that gives security to the holder.
The true phase of intellectual property inevitably requires building bridges between code and the traditional legal order, something that makes purists of decentralization just as uncomfortable as speculators who only want to sell high.
That said, what are the phases that will shape the new stage of NFTs? The first, already underway albeit imperfectly, is that of tokenized memberships and access. The NFT ceases to be an end in itself and becomes a key: access to private communities, VIP passes for in-person events, exclusive discounts, or pre-sales of physical and digital products.
This is the phase of basic utility, in which the token acts as a dynamic identifier of the user’s commitment to a brand and grants tangible advantages. Yet, a short-term logic still predominates: if the price of that pass does not rise, the holder loses interest. The challenge here is for projects to learn to deliver experiential value and not mere expectation of price appreciation.
The second phase, far more disruptive, is that of productive intellectual property. Let’s imagine a scenario where each NFT represents a miniature franchise. The holder can not only license their character to appear in an animated series or an energy-drink brand’s advertising campaign, but also receives automatic royalties, settled in real time via smart contracts, every time that asset is used commercially. Projects like Nouns DAO have already explored the digital commons, placing their IP in the public domain or under collective governance, allowing anyone to build derivatives.
The productive IP phase forces us to solve complex structural problems: how are conflicts managed among thousands of co-owners? What happens if a licensee damages the asset’s reputation? How are royalties taxed across jurisdictions? These are not minor technical questions; they represent the true collision between Web3 and traditional legal systems.
The third phase shaping the horizon is that of on-chain identity and reputation, where NFTs take on a more accounting-like nature. Soulbound tokens—non-transferable and permanently linked to an identity—can record academic degrees, professional certifications, and participation history in decentralized communities.
The CV becomes a set of cryptographically verifiable credentials. The value here is not resale price, but the ability to unlock opportunities, such as jobs, uncollateralized credit, or governance roles. This phase challenges the short-term mindset of the average investor, shifting value toward social capital and trust, assets that compound over time rather than spike in price.
Finally, the fourth phase is the convergence with real-world assets (RWAs). NFTs evolve from digital artifacts into representations of real estate, contracts, certificates of authenticity, and tokenized debt instruments. The token becomes an intelligent legal wrapper capable of facilitating ownership transfer and programmable cash flows.
The regulatory implications are significant, but so is the market potential. A real estate title tokenized as an NFT could be fractionalized and traded globally, provided legal frameworks allow it. At this stage, the line between traditional finance and cryptoassets becomes increasingly blurred.
Now then, how is the average crypto investor going to react? The dominant profile from past cycles is typically short-term, reactive, and narrative-driven. Decisions are often based on expectation rather than structural analysis. As soon as collections promise royalties or IP monetization, many will enter positions assuming passive income streams, without understanding the underlying demand dynamics. Disillusion follows when reality sets in: royalties depend on real market demand, not token mechanics. This leads to frustration, complaints, and legal disputes.
When faced with functional utility—access, memberships, discounts—the same investor often disengages if price appreciation is absent. Projects delivering real-world value but not speculative upside are labeled as failures. This reveals a core limitation: value is still measured almost exclusively in short-term price action.
As complexity increases—legal frameworks, identity systems, RWAs—these investors tend to migrate toward simpler, high-volatility narratives, such as memecoins or emerging tech hype cycles.
Paradoxically, this exit of speculative capital is precisely what signals the maturation of the NFT ecosystem. A new participant profile begins to emerge: long-term investors, IP-focused funds, and informed collectors who understand that sustainable value is built, not hyped. The focus shifts from chasing exponential returns to developing durable economic models around tokens.
The unresolved question is whether the crypto industry is prepared to handle the legal, fiscal, and operational complexity that this evolution requires, or whether it will continue reverting to simplified speculative cycles because they are easier to sustain psychologically. The likely outcome, at least in the medium term, is a dual ecosystem: one side focused on real utility and structured growth, and the other continuing to operate as a speculative environment disguised as innovation.
For the investor aiming to navigate this transition, the key adjustment is conceptual: replace immediacy with time horizon. The most promising phases of NFTs—intellectual property, identity, and real-world integration—are not measured in weeks, but in years of execution, regulatory clarity, and cultural adaptation.
