# What is the 'First NFT'?

Source: https://x.com/punk3606/status/1988685461808669034

## Summary

The article examines the contested question of which asset was the first NFT, arguing that the answer depends on whether one applies a technical or cultural definition and that records are incomplete. Its technical contenders include d/bitcoin, registered on Namecoin by David Parrish on April 21, 2011, and OLGA, minted by JP Janssen on Counterparty on June 12, 2014. Cultural candidates discussed include MyFirstCoin, the first name registered via Linagee's Name Registrar on Ethereum on August 8, 2015, and Etheria v0.9 tiles by Cyrus Adkisson from October 19, 2015. The article notes that each candidate faces objections, such as Namecoin names being treated as "burned" on expiration or Counterparty not being fully trustless.

## Article

That’s one of the most debated questions in NFT history, and for good reason. It has sparked countless discussions over the past few years, and it likely will for many more. But why?

First, because the records are incomplete, and rediscoveries keep happening. It’s inevitable, and that’s exactly what makes using the ‘first of’ label risky. In many cases, it’s about who was first to claim to be first, not who actually was. Or what received the most media attention. That’s a classic historical dilemma, not one specific to NFTs.

Secondly, and more importantly, because the definition of what an NFT is isn’t clean-cut, and historically was never clearly standardized. The term ‘NFT’ (short for ‘Non-Fungible Token’) only caught on late 2017, with CryptoKitties and the earlier introduction of the EIP-721 standard, both directly inspired by CryptoPunks. But the underlying concept goes back further. What we now call NFTs gradually emerged from a mix of ideas and descriptors used to define a new kind of digital asset; this article “Defining ‘NFT’ in historical context,” offers a particularly insightful analysis on the topic.

Over time, ‘NFT’ simply stuck, not because it was perfect, but because it was good enough and landed at the right moment. Among the terms considered during ERC-721 discussions were ‘deed,’ ‘title,’ ‘equity,’ ‘ticket,’ and even ‘distinguishable asset.’ Two earlier, incidental and isolated uses of the term ‘non-fungible token’ also appeared here in 2015 and here in April 2017. And even that came late. Back in 2013, a Colored Coins experiment used the term ‘token’ (just like Counterparty since 2014) to describe ‘custom coin-like assets’, while Vitalik Buterin referred to Namecoin names as “non-fungible assets” in Ethereum Whitepaper. The language evolved gradually and often retroactively, alongside the technology itself.

That’s why there is no strict universal definition. The term is everywhere now, but what it means depends on who you ask and the semantic lens applied. Still, two main lenses are generally considered when approaching the ‘first NFT’ question: technical and cultural.

For the purpose of this analysis, both perspectives will be considered:

Technically: A non-fungible (unique), non-divisible, and immutable blockchain-based identifier that can be owned and traded.

Culturally: A rare transferable blockchain-based asset (unique or limited editions), intentionally created with original creative or artistic meaning, and meant to be collected.

Based on these rationales, let’s examine the contenders for the title of ‘first NFT’, depending on how one chooses to approach it.

Technical contenders:

‘d/bitcoin’ by David Parrish (Apr. 21, 2011 — Namecoin)

d/bitcoin is the first name ever registered on Namecoin, by David Parrish, on April 21, 2011. Namecoin was the second blockchain after Bitcoin, and the first to enable the creation of custom non-fungible digital identifiers: names. As already mentioned, Vitalik Buterin, creator of Ethereum, referred to Namecoin names as “non-fungible assets” in early versions of the Ethereum Whitepaper in 2014. For these reasons, and viewed through a technical lens, d/bitcoin is for many a serious contender for the title of first NFT.

Several technical properties of Namecoin also make the long-term preservation of d/bitcoin notably robust: the plaintext nature of Namecoin’s on-chain data (with structure and meaning enforced directly at L1), the option for trustless trading, the security of a 400-600 EH/s Proof-of-Work hashrate resulting from merge-mining with Bitcoin, an easy to grasp name-based provenance model, and a renewal-based, L1-native ownership mechanism that avoids risks of permanent asset loss.

However, since the Kevin McCoy’s Quantum provenance debates began in 2021 (covered later in this article), some argue that within the Namecoin model, it is not the name itself that constitutes the asset, but rather the “UTXO-chain” that controls it. From that specific perspective (which represents an alternative and retroactive interpretation to Namecoin’s original name-based consensus model, as covered in the article “Namecoin Expired Names and Provenance Misconceptions”), when a name UTXO becomes unspendable at expiration (i.e. the name becomes inactive because it was not renewed), the name must be considered “burned.” Therefore, if the name is re-registered, this view treats it as a new distinct version of that name, one whose provenance cannot be linked to its previous occurrence, meaning only the currently active UTXO-chain defines the asset.

If we follow that perception (which would also challenge Counterparty assets’ provenance, since their UTXO-chains have no continuity at the Bitcoin level), d/bitcoin’s UTXO-chain would represent the first NFT ever created, but the oldest NFT still active today would instead be d/ein’s UTXO-chain, which has remained continuously active since May 26, 2011.

Test Colored Coins (Oct.-Nov. 2013 — Bitcoin):

The concept of Colored Coins was introduced on March 27, 2012 by Yoni Assia, but to date, no verifiable record of a concrete implementation earlier than Keidom (Ascribe’s alpha in late 2013) has been established — except perhaps on the Florin protocol, a Colored Coin-like experiment independent from Bitcoin, launched the same year and still under investigation.

The Keidom idea was introduced by Trent and Masha McConaghy in the summer of 2013, and involved Vitalik Buterin (who committed his own implementation of the Colored Coin idea on September 28, 2013) and Yanislav Malahov as developers, during a period spanning from August to November 2013.

Early tests were conducted with the prototype, and these undocumented Colored Coins test transactions could be considered early NFT candidates by those who favor permanent ownership models as a determining criterion, in contrast to the earlier native ‘use-it-or-lose-it’ ownership system used by Namecoin names.

However, it remains unconfirmed whether these test Colored Coins are still verifiable, or which one occurred first. This is currently under historical review with the help of Yanislav Malahov.

‘OLGA’ by JP Janssen (Jun. 12, 2014 — Counterparty)

OLGA, created by JP Janssen, was the first Counterparty token issued with both a non-divisible and locked (immutable) supply of 1 — a unique token minted on June 12, 2014 as a symbolic digital gift to JP’s girlfriend Olga, including the message “One and Only”.

Counterparty was a stock market-like “meta” protocol built on top of Bitcoin (sometimes described as a Layer 1.5), introducing the ability to create custom economic tokens (similar in concept to Ripple Ledger in 2013) but with a more advanced feature set, user interfaces, and asset issuance logic. OLGA could qualify as a ‘first NFT’ candidate for those who prioritize the combination of: 1) a permanent ownership model over Namecoin’s renewable mechanism, and 2) a unique, meaningful identifier over the default UTXO-based structure of Colored Coins.

However, because Counterparty is not a base-layer protocol and relies on its own parsing rules, some argue that it does not meet strict definitions of full decentralization. Its data structure, ownership model, and provenance logic depend on off-chain interpretation and social consensus, and are not verifiable strictly at the Bitcoin Layer 1 level. For this reason, technically oriented observers sometimes question whether XCP tokens meet the criteria of being fully trustless assets, and therefore whether they qualify as ‘true’ NFTs in a rigorous technical sense.

Some people also consider OLGA a cultural candidate for the first NFT, largely due to the Base64 image associated with it. However, it is sometimes mistakenly assumed that this image was part of the original token, while the image was actually broadcast separately a year later, on August 11, 2015, and was not created as part of the collectible asset. The broadcast does not reference the token, and the token does not reference the broadcast, the indirect link being that both originated from the same address and mentioned the name “Olga” in Cyrillic. Therefore, the image is not properly tied to the tradable asset on-chain and cannot be truly considered ownable.

‘MyFirstCoin’ by Linagee (Aug. 8, 2015 — Ethereum)

MyFirstCoin is widely regarded as the first non-fungible asset on Ethereum, and more specifically, the first name registered using the initial version of the Global Name Registrar contract (also known as ‘LNR’, or ‘Linagee’s Name Registrar’), created by Linagee himself. The smart contract was deployed just nine days after Ethereum’s launch on August 8, 2015, and allowed users to register unique, human-readable names, using a permanent ownership model, unlike Namecoin’s renewal system. Although it predates any Ethereum token standards, each name was designed to be non-fungible, globally unique, individually ownable, and transferable through the registrar’s smart contract, satisfying most of the core technical criteria for what we now consider NFTs.

Some view MyFirstCoin as a contender for the ‘first NFT’ title because, unlike earlier blockchain experiments, LNR’s logic was implemented directly via Ethereum smart contracts, offering early programmability and composability within the emerging Ethereum ecosystem. For those who view Ethereum as the “World Computer,” this level of on-chain programmability aligns closely with the conceptual foundations of what NFTs were meant to become.

However, because the contract did not fully leverage Ethereum’s programmability beyond basic ownership logic, some argue that MyFirstCoin does not embody the expressive or functional potential that later Ethereum NFT implementations introduced, and therefore should not be considered the first modern NFT.

‘Etheria’ v0.9 tiles by Cyrus Adkisson (Oct. 19, 2015 — Ethereum)

Etheria, created by Cyrus Adkisson in October 2015, is a map of 457 ownable, tradable hexagonal land tiles on the Ethereum blockchain. Version 0.9 is the first of four functional releases of the project’s smart contract (v0.9, v1.0, v1.1, and v1.2), while earlier versions (v0.6, v0.7, v0.8, and v0.85) suffered from broken ownership or transferability, which prevents them from being considered for this analysis. Etheria is the earliest documented project to introduce smart contract functions that closely resembles features later seen in CryptoPunks and ERC-721 in 2017, bringing a pioneering and forward-looking vision of unique digital objects. Etheria is also notable for being the first Ethereum project with its own marketplace, launched in 2015.

For these reasons, some consider Etheria v0.9 tiles to be strong candidates for the first NFTs in a modern technical sense, especially since Ethereum was designed to enable that kind of programmable digital ownership.

However, it’s worth noting that all 457 tiles were generated at contract creation, each initialized with a column, row, elevation, empty name, empty status, and an owner set to 0x000...0000. This means all 457 assets came into existence simultaneously, making any ‘first NFT’ claim based on this contract more complex and not attributable to a single unique item. Additionally, the fact that four different versions of the contract are active, and therefore four versions of each of the 457 tiles, adds complexity that some collectors find difficult to navigate.

A wrapper for complete tile sets across the four contracts could have provided a unified provenance structure, but the use of tx.origin instead of msg.sender in v1.1 and v1.2 prevents wrapping on those versions for now, unlike v0.9 and v1.0.

‘CryptoPunks’ by Larva Labs (Jun. 9-23, 2017 — Ethereum)

CryptoPunks, created by Larva Labs, is a set of 10,000 algorithmically generated pixel-art avatars inspired by punk culture and by the studio’s earlier Android app Androidify (released in February 2011), from which several accessories and visual traits were adapted. Technically, CryptoPunks did not introduce fundamentally new mechanisms compared to earlier experiments like Etheria, the concepts of non-fungible ownership and asset indexing had already been explored. However, their contract architecture and distribution model helped make the idea of digital collectibles accessible and compelling, directly highlighting the need for a standardized interface for non-fungible assets on Ethereum, which would soon give rise to ERC-721.

That said, the CryptoPunks case sits more somewhere between the technical and cultural categories. Today, they are not considered the first technically, nor the first culturally, despite some claims made until 2021. So they do not strictly qualify under either lens, which is why this article refers to CryptoPunks as a whole rather than focusing on the first claimed punk (which is #5056).

Still, CryptoPunks introduced a model that proved highly influential. They captured much of the essence of what would later define digital collectibles and helped establish many of the social behaviors around them. This success, combined with strong distribution mechanics, embedded scarcity, and cultural timing, made them one of the most emblematic and influential NFT collections. They were also the first NFTs purposely designed to be used as avatars (also known as ‘PFPs’), a format that surged in popularity from 2021 onward and cemented their place as iconic digital status symbols.

However, as with Etheria, the existence of multiple contract versions introduces complexity to the historical understanding of CryptoPunks. The v1 contract, which contained a critical flaw in its trading function, was deployed on June 9, 2017, and the issue was identified shortly after launch. This prompted Larva Labs to release a corrected v2 contract on June 23, 2017, and airdrop all corresponding punks to v1 holders. As a result, v2 has been treated as the canonical and officially supported version of CryptoPunks since 2017.

Discussions around v1 re-emerged in 2022 with the introduction of a community-made retroactive wrapper, enabling their safe tradeability on modern marketplaces for the first time. Approximately 50% of v1 Punks have since been wrapped, attracting renewed market interest due to their lower entry price relative to v2. In certain narratives, v1 has been positioned as the ‘original’ version based on chronological precedence, though this interpretation is often associated with market-driven incentives. This new attention has generated ongoing debate within the collector community, leading some provenance-focused collectors to hold both versions when possible in order to maintain complete historical continuity and avoid these debates.

‘Genesis’ CryptoKitties by Axiom Zen (Nov. 23, 2017 — Ethereum)

CryptoKitties, created by Dapper Labs (then called Axiom Zen), is a blockchain-based game centered around breedable, collectible digital creatures. The project was directly influenced by the CryptoPunks vision, and for good reason: Dieter Shirley, co-founder and CTO of Dapper Labs, authored the EIP-721 proposal on September 20, 2017, to formalize what he called “Non-Fungible Tokens” on Ethereum, explicitly citing CryptoPunks as a reference. CryptoKitties became the first project to implement this emerging standard, which would soon lead to the widespread use of the term “NFT.” For this reason, and due to its clear structural definition of uniqueness and ownership, some consider the first kitty minted — Genesis (token #1) — to be the first NFT in a modern technical framework.

However, while CryptoKitties launched on November 23, 2017, it was built on the second draft of EIP-721 (released November 9, 2017), not the finalized ERC-721 standard, which was only accepted as an ERC on January 24, 2018 and finalized on June 21, 2018, with refinements informed by the CryptoKitties implementation itself. As a result, the project is not fully compliant with the final ERC-721 specification as it exists today. For this reason, some researchers do not consider the ‘Genesis’ CryptoKitties to be the first NFT in a strictly standards-based interpretation.

‘Su Squares’ #1 by Su & William Entriken (Mar. 20, 2018 — Ethereum)

Su Squares, created by Su and William Entriken, is a virtual billboard project composed of individual squares that people could purchase and customize with images and website links for promotional purposes. William Entriken joined Dieter Shirley’s EIP-721 discussions on January 14, 2018, and later became one of the lead authors of the final ERC-721 standard, officially finalized on June 21, 2018.

During the ERC-721 drafting process, Su Squares was deployed to Ethereum Mainnet in March 2018 and began selling squares commercially. However, because the ERC-721 specification was still evolving, each time a backward-incompatible change was introduced, the smart contract needed to be redeployed to maintain compliance, which is why seven versions of the contract exist.

The first version with tokens minted was the second contract, deployed on March 19, 2018. The fourth contract, deployed on March 20, 2018, was the first to pass the ERC-721 validator, and within it, the first three tokens minted (Squares #1, #2 and #100) were reminted in that order. For this reason, Square #1 is widely regarded as the first officially ERC-721-compliant token, which is why some consider it a strong candidate for the first NFT defined under a modern token standard, a position that places it a step beyond “Genesis” CryptoKitties in terms of formal standardization.

However, further adjustments were made before ERC-721 was fully finalized on June 21, 2018. The final (and currently adopted) contract version was deployed on November 5, 2018, with Square #169 being the first token minted under the finalized spec. Because ERC-721 compliance evolved across multiple contract iterations, determining which Su Squares token qualifies as the ‘first’ fully compliant depends on whether early validator-passing versions or the final post-standardization version are used as the criterion.

Cultural contenders:

‘Fuckyea’ v1 by Ryan Bell (Jan. 20, 2012 — Namecoin)

Created on January 20, 2012, Fuckyea v1 was rediscovered in late 2022 and formally reconnected with its creator, Ryan Bell (a digital artist active since 2008), through the assistance of former 2011 Namecoin lead developer Khal in May 2025. The work stands as a fully on-chain pixel-art derivative of the well-known 2010 4chan “Fuck Yea” meme. The meme was widely adapted across the internet during that period as part of the Rage Comics trend that many users, including Ryan, remixed and shared on platforms like 4chan and Reddit. As documented in his 2025 correspondence, Ryan created a custom hand-remixed version of the meme and crafted it specifically for the blockchain, embedding steganography as part of its conceptual design. The piece was meant to fit into a single Namecoin name transaction using two-way Base64 encoding, allowing anyone to decode it directly from the Namecoin blockchain without any external dependencies.

R0lGODlhIgAgAPEAAEpKSr29vYODg////yH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAAiACAAAAKrnI85ccEKowJACBDsk3xdSwnOEHbRFaJhaiYBtlTgs27mC9kvBd8AkrEINYNhqxfbBEGHXyfzXDpFHWrLYCnaINZrUVsVeBHOTnl8lmTH0Nb62jUhn2nTuz3Zuiv87Uv/NATCZ+T1EUeC4QAo8ddYMdbEaLAU+RaBU8eBY1ekGTEnAXPhJub2cDFpEPrYUMF4KefymnBoqJdBm8jUgqeQ+yc2crSZEls1iVIAADs=

Ryan attached this hash to two distinct Namecoin names, making it a two-version artwork (first version attached to d/fuckyea on January 20, 2012, and second version attached to d/gif-fuckyea on January 21, 2012).

It appears to be the earliest documented case of a fully on-chain image (and, more importantly, an original creation) attached to a tradable, non-fungible asset meant to be owned. This early decentralized appropriation of a meme subtly prefigured later cultural movements such as Rare Pepes (2016), which helped embed internet iconography into blockchain culture.

Another notable point is that, unlike Kevin McCoy with Quantum (created on May 2, 2014, also on Namecoin), Ryan Bell still recognizes the Namecoin name itself (which he no longer controls, having let the ownership expire) as the original asset, despite the expiration mechanism, aligning with Namecoin’s name-based provenance consensus.

Much more context about Fuckyea and Ryan Bell (who remains an active crypto artist today) is provided in “Fuckyea, 2012 — A Brief Echo into the Void of Crypto Art”.

For these reasons, and despite its recent rediscovery, Fuckyea v1 is now widely regarded as the earliest example of original, ownable crypto art by those aware of its existence, and therefore a major contender for what can culturally be considered the first NFT. This interpretation is further contextualized when contrasted with Quantum (created over two years later on the same blockchain), yet commonly referred to as the ‘first NFT’ largely due to its $1.47M Ethereum re-mint sale in 2021 and the media narrative that followed.

However, since Fuckyea v1 is a Namecoin name, custody remains technically complex. Namecoin GUIs remain relatively archaic, and ownership must be manually renewed every 9 months (though indefinitely renewable). As a result, some collectors prefer not to collect these types of assets, while others see them as a more involved, cypherpunk-leaning custodial experience — at least until more user-friendly Namecoin tooling eventually emerges.

‘MOTHERSHIP’ by Jonathan Monaghan (Nov. 18, 2013 — Bitcoin)

MOTHERSHIP, created by Jonathan Monaghan (also an active digital artist since 2008), is the first known original artwork minted as Colored Coins (three editions tied to three distinct coins) using the Keidom system in November 2013.

Keidom was the genesis alpha of Ascribe (imagined by Trent and Masha McConaghy) a Colored Coins-based protocol officially launched in January 2015 and shut down in January 2018. While the assets minted on Ascribe are now unverifiable due to its use of a non-deterministic AWS hashing system, Keidom did not use that system in 2013. Instead, Keidom used a custom hashing scheme: a file hash and a metadata hash, both generated using RIPEMD160(SHA256) to fit the 20-byte Bitcoin address format. These hashes were Base58Check-encoded, and decoding plus concatenation reveals the original metadata structure.

In the summer of 2013, Trent and Masha McConaghy approached Jonathan by email with what they described as “a Bitcoin+art project — more specifically, a secure means to establish, affirm, and transfer ownership of artworks.” Jonathan agreed to participate as the first artist in the experiment and used a digital piece he was already preparing for exhibition at the Moving Image Art Fair in London (October 17-20, 2013): MOTHERSHIP.

Because Keidom represents the earliest documented attempt at a decentralized digital art market (what would become a key cultural component of the NFT industry years later), some consider MOTHERSHIP Ed. 1 a candidate for the first NFT in the cultural sense. It was tokenized digital art intended to be sold, collected, and traded — conceptually similar to what NFTs would later become.

However, the artwork itself was not originally created for a blockchain context, but rather integrated into Trent and Masha’s experiment after its conception. As a result, some argue that its cultural intent is partially retrospective. In addition, the three Colored Coins associated with the editions have not yet been fully verified.

While the Bitcoin addresses representing the artwork editions’ metadata have likely been identified, the original metadata hash has not yet been decoded, meaning the exact 2013 registration data is still being recovered. This verification effort is currently ongoing with the help of Yanislav Malahov, and Jonathan Monaghan has been actively supporting the research since 2023. He has since issued Ethereum voucher tokens as a commitment to compensate holders with the original Colored Coins if they are ever retrieved — a scenario that remains theoretically possible since the private key of the Keidom wallet still in controls of the Colored Coins were likely preserved and the custom hash structure can be reverse-engineered.

‘Dorian’s Lament’ poem (Mar. 9, 2014 — Namecoin + Bitcoin)

Dorian’s Lament is an original poem written by an anonymous artist. On March 6, 2014, journalist Leah McGrath Goodman published an article in Newsweek claiming to reveal the identity of Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto — a Californian man named Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto. Despite his denial of any involvement, Dorian quickly became a notable public figure and, to this day, remains a symbolic representation of Satoshi Nakamoto within crypto culture (for example, in RAREPEPE card).

Three days later, on March 9, 2014, the anonymous artist registered the Namecoin name doc/dorianslament, embedding several Pastebin links in the name’s value. The first link points to the poem itself, written in response to Dorian’s sudden media exposure. The second link leads to a “Cryptographic Proof of Ownership & Timestamp” document authored by the poet, explaining their copyright method, the notarization process using Bitcoin, the reason for reinforcing it with Namecoin, and their thoughts on the recently announced Ethereum project. The final link outlines the licensing terms of the poem, which closely resemble a CC0-style dedication.

Because it is the earliest known example of licensed crypto art, and was intentionally created for the blockchain like Fuckyea, some consider Dorian’s Lament a cultural contender for the first NFT.

However, like Fuckyea, it is attached to a Namecoin name, which means custody remains technically complex due to the limitations of current Namecoin GUIs and the need for manual renewals every 9 months.

‘Quantum’ by Kevin McCoy (May 2, 2014 — Namecoin)

Quantum is an animated GIF artwork created by Kevin McCoy, who has been active in digital art since the 1990s. It was used as the first proof of concept for Monegraphs (short for Monetized Graphics) on May 2, 2014, via Namecoin, during the one-night Seven on Seven hackathon in New York City — just before the concept was publicly demonstrated with Anil Dash (whom Kevin had announced teaming up with on April 5, 2014) at the New Museum conference the following day. Monegraphs was conceptually similar to Keidom’s 2013 vision, using blockchain-based records to establish authorship and transferable ownership for digital artworks.

Until 2023, before MOTHERSHIP (2013) was further documented and Fuckyea (2012) rediscovered, Quantum was widely regarded as the first original crypto art, and often cited as the first NFT in a cultural sense. Today, Quantum is a concrete example of how rediscoveries can reshape historical understanding, and can no longer reasonably be considered the first NFT in the cultural sense. That said, Monegraphs was a pioneering and influential experiment (arguably more so than Keidom at the time) and Quantum remains a significant historical artifact. However, contrary to popular belief, the artwork was not featured or traded during the May 3, 2014 Monegraphs presentation: only Cars and Primordial Loop were shown, with Cars, created by Jennifer McCoy, being the asset actually exchanged on stage.

In early 2021, amid renewed interest in NFTs like CryptoPunks and Beeple’s Everydays auction, Kevin McCoy resurfaced the story of his 2014 hackathon prototype and introduced a new Ethereum-based version of Quantum, embedding Namecoin references as on-chain proof of authorship. By that time, the original 2014 Namecoin name ownership had expired and been re-claimed by another party. McCoy publicly stated that the Ethereum remint should be considered the canonical version of the work, arguing that expiration had invalidated the Namecoin asset.

This position sparked controversy and resulted in a legal dispute with the current owner of the original Namecoin name, after Sotheby’s auctioned the Ethereum remint for $1.47M in June 2021.

The plaintiff highlighted that the original 2014 Namecoin record contained a message from McCoy himself: “Title transfers to whoever controls this blockchain entry.” They argued that this ‘Title’ declaration tied to the name should prevail; that the term “entry” is central to that declaration, referring to the set of information contained within the name and its metadata (as suggested by McCoy on stage in 2014 at 16:58 in the presentation video); that McCoy was aware of Namecoin’s expirable ownership model at that time; and that the declaration contains no reference to expiration that would invalidate the ‘Title’.

However, in 2023, the court ruled in favor of Kevin McCoy, stating that the Namecoin expiration event removed the artist’s control over the entry, and that code alone is not law in determining authorship or ownership. Unless McCoy changes his position (which is unlikely, since the Ethereum remint of Quantum sold to a collector for a seven-figure price) or a future appeal alters the outcome, the 2014 Namecoin version of Quantum remains a disputed asset that is no longer recognized by its creator as the canonical version of the work.

‘FDCARD’ by EverdreamSoft (Mar. 11, 2015 — Counterparty)

FDCARD, issued on March 11, 2015, is a Counterparty token with a total supply of 299 (burned from 300), and is regarded as the first blockchain trading card.

The card, titled “The Healing Formula” and illustrated by Alejandro Hurtad, originated as a promotional crossover for EverdreamSoft’s 2009 mobile TCG Moonga (crowdfunded in 2013). It was airdropped freely over seventy-five days to FoldingCoin contributors as a reward for providing hash power to a medical research initiative, and became fully usable in-game on April 27, 2015. Later, it became an official playable card within Spells of Genesis (launched a few months afterward) and established its legacy as both Moonga’s pioneering blockchain experiment and the official starting point of the Spells of Genesis collection.

Spells of Genesis can be viewed as an evolutionary continuation of Moonga. Its creator, Shaban Shaame, who had already experimented with technology integration in Moonga through NFC and also implemented an internal trading feature allowing players to exchange cards using an in-game soft currency, noticed that many users were informally conducting real-money trades through PayPal or external means, often requesting support to reverse transactions or report alleged hacks. Shaame envisioned a more secure system enabling players to truly own and trade their cards autonomously, which led to the adoption of blockchain technology as a trustless foundation for ownership and exchange. The Spells of Genesis application remains active today, and a total of 289 cards have been released over the past decade as of now.

Because FDCARD is often viewed as introducing an entirely new digital asset class, one that foreshadowed later blockchain-based games such as CryptoKitties, it is perceived by some collectors as the first asset embodying the interoperable and collectible nature of NFTs, often seen as the ultimate use case for such assets. Moreover, as the inaugural token of a blockchain project centered on crypto-themed illustrations, featuring early archetypes such as SATOSHICARD and ETHEREUMCARD, it occupies a foundational place in the visual and cultural genealogy of blockchain art, which directly inspired later experiments such as Rare Pepes.

However, while the Counterparty token unlocked the exclusive card within the game, the associated image was not hashed or referenced on-chain at the time of creation. Its preservation was ensured later through a retroactive broadcast by community member JP Janssen (creator of OLGA, mentioned earlier in this article) on November 11, 2015. Some consider this a limitation in the asset’s provenance, while others view it as inconsequential, given that the asset purpose was to function across multiple games, with its visual representation expected to differ in each implementation.

‘RAREPEPE’ by Mike (Sep. 9, 2016 — Counterparty)

RAREPEPE is a Counterparty token with a supply of 298 (burned from 300), representing the very first card of the Rare Pepes project, created by Mike on September 9, 2016. The artwork of the card uses the Magic: The Gathering Cardmaker template and depicts the portrait of Dorian Nakamoto, who was mistakenly identified as Satoshi Nakamoto in Newsweek on March 6, 2014.

The Rare Pepes project drew inspiration from the 2014 “rare Pepe” meme phenomenon — an online trend where thousands of user-made variations of Matt Furie’s Pepe the Frog circulated across forums like 4chan, often named or marked with captions such as “RARE PEPE DO NOT SAVE” to suggest scarcity. The meme’s virality turned Pepe into a symbol of internet subculture, even attracting mainstream attention from figures like Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj.

By 2015, people were trading Pepe images like collectibles, with a prominent auction being taken down by eBay in April 2015 while the highest of 126 bids was $99,166. Around the same period, EverdreamSoft introduced its blockchain-based trading card experiments through Moonga and Spells of Genesis, embedding crypto culture into their art — most notably SATOSHICARD, which achieved record sales around $3,000 in mid-2016, pushing its scarce 200-unit supply to a market cap of roughly $600k! Mike’s RAREPEPE card, titled “Nakamoto Card,” directly parodied that SATOSHICARD success. His core idea was to make rare Pepes “truly rare,” taking inspiration from what Spells of Genesis had achieved with its blockchain-based collectibles, and in doing so, turning the “rare Pepe” collective internet meme into a decentralized art experiment with its own collectibility and economic dimension.

The success of the Counterparty-based Rare Pepes project, which took off on Telegram in late 2016, is often regarded as the first large-scale, community-driven digital art initiative built on a blockchain. It led to the creation of the Rare Pepe Directory in early 2017 (a community-curated registry ensuring authenticity and rejecting counterfeits) alongside a dedicated wallet and marketplace, and even its own trading currency, PEPECASH, airdropped to early collectors on September 22, 2016. Over the next two years, 1,774 cards were issued by hundreds of independent artists across 36 series, with thousands of trades taking place.

Because the Rare Pepes project established a functioning economy and launched an early, community-driven cultural movement — a collective experiment merging memetic art, collectibility, curation, and scarcity — some observers consider its genesis card, RAREPEPE, to be the first blockchain asset to best embody the cultural spirit often associated with modern NFT ecosystems.

However, comparable to FDCARD, the artwork of the Nakamoto Card was never directly linked to the RAREPEPE token itself. Its description only contained a JSON link on the original myrarepepe.com domain, created by Mike and pointing to a favicon version of the card’s image. When the Rare Pepe Directory was established in early 2017, the artworks were migrated there, and the original URL lapsed, leaving the token’s metadata with a broken link and no online archive. So technically, the RAREPEPE token holds neither a hash nor a direct image reference, prompting debate about its provenance. Some see this absence as a limit to verifiability; others interpret it as part of the project’s meme logic, where “the token is the art.” This balance between on-chain verifiability and cultural intent remains central to how Rare Pepes are understood today.

So, what is the first NFT?

As seen throughout this analysis, there is no definitive answer to that question — it depends on multiple parameters and the lens through which one chooses to approach it.

My personal stance is to pay tribute to the chronology of things, even if earlier use cases were less elegant or less technically refined than what came later. Under that logic, through a technical lens, d/bitcoin can fairly be credited as the first NFT ever created, and it is the one I have personally referred to as such over the years.

Through a cultural lens, Fuckyea v1 (especially now that the creator’s testimony about its intent and craft has recently been documented) is considered by many to be the earliest example of original, ownable crypto art, and therefore a strong contender for the ‘first NFT’ title as well.

Ultimately, all of these early assets are relevant candidates and carry important historical significance, and there cannot be a strict or final answer to what the first NFT is, because there is still no strict or final answer to what an NFT even is. New discoveries will continue to emerge, preferences will vary, and the topic will likely remain more complex and open to interpretation than commonly assumed.

From a canonical perspective, it makes sense for collectors and historians to acknowledge and preserve each of these assets, since each contributed — in its own way — to defining and shaping the foundations of digital ownership on the blockchain.

Rather than seeking a single definitive ‘first,’ it may be more meaningful to recognize the full historical spectrum that led to what NFTs eventually became.

This article is subject to change based on future discoveries and evolving perspectives. Last updated on May 21, 2026.