Skip to main content
NFTs (briefly)

NFT Speculation and Risks

Pomegra Learn

NFT Speculation and Risks

The NFT market's explosion from 2020 to 2021 created a speculative environment ripe for fraud, manipulation, and explosive boom-bust cycles. While earlier sections explored how NFT enthusiasm attracted creative innovation, this section addresses the darker reality: the mechanisms that have enabled deception, the structural vulnerabilities that invite manipulation, and the risks that retail investors have faced.

Speculation and the Greater Fool Theory​

NFTs became the quintessential speculative asset during the 2021 bull market. Speculative assets are purchased not for their intrinsic utility but in hopes that prices will rise so future buyers will pay more. Historically, speculation-driven bubbles follow a predictable pattern: discovery of an asset class, rising prices that attract retail enthusiasm, peak euphoria and explosive valuations, recognition of unsustainable fundamentals, and finally collapse as momentum reverses.

The NFT bubble fit this pattern precisely. In early 2021, digital art and collectible NFTs were obscure. By mid-2021, they were mainstream news. In August 2021, a single piece of digital art sold for 91 million dollars on the blockchain. Profile picture NFTs traded for hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey auctioned his first tweet as an NFT for 2.9 million dollars.

Every speculative mania rests on the Greater Fool theory: the belief that you can sell an overvalued asset to a "greater fool" before the bubble bursts. This works until it doesn't. When sentiment shifts, buyers disappear, sellers overwhelm demand, and prices collapse. NFT projects that reached peak valuations in May 2022 had lost 70 percent or more by 2024, in absolute dollar terms.

The structural problem is clear: if an NFT has no utility and its value depends entirely on continued price appreciation, it is pure speculation. The moment new buyers cease entering, prices must fall because the asset provides no income stream, utility, or fundamental value to support current prices.

Wash Trading and Price Manipulation​

In traditional financial markets, regulators prosecute wash trading—the practice of buying and selling the same asset between accounts you control to create the illusion of trading volume and drive up price. This market manipulation is illegal and carries criminal penalties under the Commodity Exchange Act.

NFT marketplaces operate on blockchains where transaction visibility is public but pseudonymous. An individual or organization can create multiple wallet addresses, buy an NFT from one address at a high price using another address, and then claim to have "sales history" proving the item is valuable. The transaction is genuinely recorded on the blockchain, making it appear legitimate even though both sides are controlled by the same actor.

Wash trading in NFTs is rampant. Academic research has estimated that a significant percentage of NFT trading volume on marketplaces like OpenSea involves wash trades. In one infamous example, an NFT sold for 10 million dollars—until investigation revealed both buyer and seller were controlled by the same entity, the project founder. The sale never represented real market interest; it was manufactured hype.

Beyond wash trading, NFT projects have engaged in coordinated price manipulation. A group of investors might buy a large portion of NFTs from a project, publicly hype the project across social media and Discord, drive prices upward, and then sell their holdings at inflated prices into the rising demand. This pump-and-dump scheme, discussed in detail in Pump and Dump Schemes, is particularly common in NFTs because the lack of regulatory oversight enables these strategies.

Rug Pulls and Project Abandonment​

A rug pull occurs when NFT project creators collect funds or volume, gain investor trust, and then suddenly disappear with the money. The name derives from the phrase "pulling the rug out from under" investors. In the NFT space, the process typically follows this pattern:

  1. A team launches an NFT project with compelling visuals and promises of utility, gaming integration, or metaverse development.
  2. Community members and investors purchase NFTs and contribute funds.
  3. The project raises millions in sales and potentially additional capital from investors.
  4. Project creators withdraw liquidity, move funds to personal wallets, and cease communication.
  5. NFT holders are left with tokens representing nothing.

Rug pulls were so common in 2021-2022 that the FTC and other regulators issued specific guidance identifying rug pull warning signs: anonymous teams, vague roadmaps, unrealistic promises, and sudden team departures. In one notable case, a project raised tens of millions of dollars, made grand promises about Metaverse integration, and then shut down with explanations so vague that community members remained uncertain whether it was an intentional rug pull or simple mismanagement.

The blockchain's pseudonymity makes tracing and prosecuting rug pulls difficult. Stolen funds can be moved across chains, converted to privacy-focused coins, or withdrawn to exchanges and cashed out. Law enforcement agencies have successfully recovered some funds, but the recovery rate remains low.

Scarcity Manipulation and Artificial Value​

True scarcity is a prerequisite for NFT value. If an item can be minted endlessly, it has no rarity. However, scarcity can be artificially managed to pump prices.

Some projects promise limited supplies—"only 10,000 NFTs will ever exist"—and then mint massive hidden supply reserves for themselves. When community members owned 10,000 NFTs and believed they held 0.01 percent of the total supply, managers could secretly own millions more. The announced scarcity was false.

Other projects manipulate scarcity through burn mechanics—destroying NFTs to reduce supply and theoretically increase remaining value. However, burn mechanics often backfire. When project creators need to generate excitement, they sometimes offer NFT holders the opportunity to "burn" their holdings to claim future rewards. But if those future rewards materialize as token airdrops with no real utility, the burn was merely a psychological lever to encourage participation rather than a genuine scarcity mechanism.

Additionally, NFT floor prices can be manipulated through minimum bid placing. A wealthy entity can place large bids at artificially high prices, signaling demand and encouraging others to list at higher prices. Once prices rise across the marketplace, the entity withdraws its bids. This creates the appearance of demand without converting to actual sales.

NFT projects operate in a regulatory gray zone. Whether an NFT constitutes a security, collectible, commodity, or something entirely novel depends on jurisdiction and the NFT's specific characteristics. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has indicated that NFTs with investment contracts embedded in them (rights to future profits, governance, etc.) should be registered as securities. However, many projects proceeded without registration, exposing themselves and investors to regulatory action.

Several high-profile NFT projects received enforcement actions from the SEC. The agency charged that certain NFT sales violated securities laws because the NFTs granted rights to future value appreciation. Additionally, the FTC has pursued NFT project creators for deceptive marketing—claiming utility, technical capabilities, or value guarantees that never materialized.

Buyers face tax complications as well. The IRS treats NFTs as property, not currency. Buying and selling NFTs triggers capital gains taxes. If you purchased an NFT for 10,000 dollars and sold it for 100,000 dollars, you owe capital gains tax on the 90,000 dollar profit. However, many NFT traders failed to report these transactions, creating tax compliance issues that could result in penalties or prosecution.

Furthermore, some jurisdictions are restricting or considering restrictions on NFT sales. South Korea, for example, has tightened regulations around NFT trading to protect consumers from speculative excess. The regulatory landscape remains in flux, creating uncertainty about future compliance obligations.

Technical and Security Vulnerabilities​

NFT security extends beyond fraud and manipulation to technical vulnerabilities in the systems hosting them.

Smart Contract Bugs. NFT projects rely on smart contracts—code that automates transactions and rights transfer. Bugs in smart contracts can inadvertently lock NFTs, enable unauthorized transfers, or create exploitable vulnerabilities. Several NFT projects have suffered security exploits resulting in mass theft of NFTs from users' wallets. The blockchain is immutable, but that immutability cuts both ways: legitimate owners cannot recover stolen NFTs even if theft resulted from a code bug.

Marketplace Security. Even if you hold an NFT securely in your own wallet, centralized marketplaces where you list for sale may suffer security breaches. If an exchange is hacked, your listed NFTs could be sold without authorization. Additionally, marketplaces can simply shut down or disappear. Several early NFT trading platforms ceased operations, leaving users unable to access or trade their NFTs.

Wallet Compromise. If you store NFTs in a hardware or software wallet and your private key is stolen or compromised, attackers can drain your entire collection. Unlike traditional banking where fraud can be disputed and reversed, blockchain transactions are final. Numerous individuals have lost millions in NFTs to phishing scams, malware, or simple negligence in key management.

The Survivorship and Hype Cycle​

A subtle risk in NFT investing is survivorship bias. Stories about investors who bought early-stage NFTs and became millionaires are celebrated, while stories of thousands who lost money are dismissed as sad but inevitable. Media coverage focuses on outsized gains, creating the impression that NFTs are a wealth-building opportunity rather than a high-risk speculation.

The hype cycle amplifies this. Celebrities, influencers, and thought leaders promote specific NFT projects, creating a perception of inevitability and institutional legitimacy. A celebrity endorsement of an NFT project serves as a social proof mechanism—if a famous person is involved, the thinking goes, the project must be legitimate. In reality, celebrities may have been paid to promote projects, may not understand what they are promoting, or may sell their holdings as soon as the project begins trending.

Additionally, projects with sustained marketing budgets can maintain hype far beyond their fundamental utility. An NFT project that spends millions on advertising, community management, and influencer partnerships can generate sufficient trading activity to appear successful. But if those marketing efforts are the only driver of demand, prices will collapse the moment the marketing budget ends.

Due Diligence and Risk Assessment​

For anyone considering NFT investment, due diligence is essential. Key questions to ask:

  • Does the NFT have utility beyond speculation? What prevents the issuer from removing that utility?
  • Is the team identifiable and does the project have a legitimate history?
  • What percentage of NFTs are held by the project team, and could they dump holdings to crash the price?
  • Are there audits of the smart contract code, and what have auditors found?
  • Is there a detailed roadmap with specific, achievable milestones, or just aspirational language?
  • What are realistic worst-case scenarios, and am I comfortable losing my entire investment?

NFT projects that pass these questions are rare. The overwhelming majority exhibit red flags that should deter investment unless you are explicitly treating the purchase as entertainment rather than investment.

Understand the mechanics of pump-and-dump schemes in Pump and Dump Schemes, investigate rug pulls specifically in Rug Pull Explained, and see the broader NFT market collapse in The NFT Market Downturn.

External References​