I opened up X this afternoon and I saw a photographer tweet that he hadn't sold a single NFT in the last four months. His conclusion: The NFT market is dying, if not already dead. There are no collectors left. Damn.

I'm sure it probably feels this way to most. But the reality is that there are a lot of asset classes that feel this exact same way today. (I know that many of you will contest whether NFTs are actually an asset class.) There aren't a lot of buyers out there right now.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that the NFT market, in particular, is done with. In fact, if you look around, there are countless signs that point to the opposite.

I, for example, find it interesting that if you're an architect or a city planner in the US, and looking to check off some continuing education units, you can now register for a course at Harvard called From Crypto to the Metaverse: Blockchain Applications in Real Estate.

And if you look at the learning objectives, it includes things like demystifying how Blockchain technologies work, how they might impact real estate businesses in the future, and what opportunities they may create. This suggests we're still early.

Right now just feels like that time in the cycle that tests both your conviction and your discipline. It's easy to believe in something when everyone else does. But what about when most people don't?

AI is going to be very disruptive, right? At this point, I think it is pretty clear to most that the answer is yes, almost regardless of what industry you're in. But is it going to be really disruptive? Like disruptive in the Clayton Christensen sense of the word. (Christensen is known for coining the term "disruptive innovation", which he contrasted against "sustaining innovation.")

This is a good question, and I like how Ben Thompson thought about it in his newsletter this morning:

I tend to believe that disruptive innovations are actually quite rare, but when they come, they are basically impossible for the incumbent company to respond to: their business models, shareholders, and most important customers make it impossible for management to respond. If that is true, though, then an incumbent responding is in fact evidence that an innovation is actually not disruptive, but sustaining.

The point he is making is that given that the big tech companies (and of course everyone else) are all now responding to AI by incorporating it into their businesses, it, by definition, must not be a disruptive innovation. It's a sustaining one. This doesn't mean that AI won't have significant impacts on our economy; it just means that maybe it won't put a company like Alphabet out of business.

I thought this was an interesting way of looking at things because it is a reminder that "disruptive innovations" often start out at the bottom of the market. They start in a way that can feel innocuous to incumbents; that is, until they move upmarket. But this is not at all how AI feels. As soon as you play around with ChatGPT you immediately think to yourself, "holy shit, this thing can do my job."

That is obviously something very meaningful. But is it going to shake up the big tech world order? I don't know, if you follow Christensen's definition, crypto sounds like the more disruptive innovation.

When I was in grad school at Penn I was active in two clubs: the real estate club and some tech/entrepreneurship club (I can't remember the exact name). These were two areas that I was interested in and so I wanted to hang out with people who were also interested in these things and I wanted to hear from experienced people who were active in these fields.

At that time, which was before the Great Recession, the real estate club was bigger and more active than the tech club. I think it was something like 3 to 1. But I remember one of my professors telling me that participation across the various clubs generally ebbs and flows. Before the dot-com bubble, the tech club was where you wanted to be. But that asset bubble had burst, and so people had moved onto real estate, which, at that time, was in the midst of creating its own asset bubble.

What we students were effectively doing -- by way of deciding where to spend our time -- was chasing the next hot thing. They were chasing where they thought they'd be able to make the most money coming out of school. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this. The pursuit of profit is fundamental to capitalism. But at the same time, I think it's crucially important to have some conviction.

Right now we are going through another cycle. Real estate was hot last year and it is not right now. Tech was hot last year and it is not right now. NFTs were hot last year and they are not right now. The list goes on. But if you like these things and if you have some conviction, is it really the time to move onto the next club? You may find the opposite to be true. Now is actually the time to ramp up participation.