When Jack Butcher introduced his Checks project to the NFT space, he did so with a single sentence: “This piece of art may or may not be remarkable.” From initial tweetit has become clear that not only are the checks remarkable, but the collection marks a major shift in NFTs for the first time in nearly a year.
Though still complicated for some, Checks has become a darling of the newly launched open editing (OE) craze, as well as a timely commentary and critique of the Twitter check under Elon Musk’s property From the Platform As the project continues to take on a life of its own (inspirational community, social status conversations, and countless spin-offs), the one-off effort has entered its second phase, taking the NFT space for a spin once again.
The unique check burning mechanism
On February 12, after weeks of anticipation and the introduction of check migrationButcher kicked off phase two of the project by introducing a burning mechanism. A common feature among OEs, burning refers to the destruction of an NFT or multiple NFTs through which a new token is created or the user whose token was burned grants a different incentive or reward.
Burn dynamics often create conflicts between those who find it difficult to decide between burning or saving their NFTs. But considering the check cashing originally totaling over 16,000 pieces, it seemed like the holders were more than happy to enter phase two once open. Furthermore, a significant amount of fanfare it came from the fact that by recording an NFT check, users would receive a unique piece of art on the chain in return.
It all starts with the holders of multiple Check issues. The butcher himself theorized which, given the total supply of NFTs versus the number of unique owners, most collectors would probably have around six NFTs, with 80 checks per NFT. From there, he settled on a system that would allow two original pieces of 80 checks to be burned to create an NFT with 40 checks. Then, by burning two 40s, users could create a 20 check piece, and so on, reaching the lowest potential numbers of 10, five, and four checks per NFT and finally culminating in a single color check. But it doesn’t stop there, as Butcher described in a massive Twitter thread that led to the burning.
Since there could only be 250 individual checks (thanks to Butcher for doing the math), given the number of holders in the collection, Butcher added incentives that went beyond the initial burn. If a holder can buy and burn 64 pieces of individual checks, he can produce a new masterpiece of individual black checks, of which only three can never exist. While some wealthy collectors may endeavor to follow the rabbit hole to the bottom, doing so will likely only add to the scarcity of original 80 check pieces.
Additionally, Butcher aims to ensure that holders retain a significant amount of agency during phase two by allowing recording participants to dictate their NFT’s color palette and token identification. By burning two pieces, users can choose which of the two token IDs to keep and transfer to the new on-chain NFT created as a result. Similarly, because the color of this new NFT is affected by the tokens burned to achieve it, holders are incentivized to strategize, according to their visual preference, which pieces to collect and burn to match.
Check burning, what’s next?
In the NFT space, copycat often goes well beyond flattery, often resulting in a lot of low-quality copycat efforts. We have seen it happen time and time again after the popularization of CryptoPunks, Bored Apes, Loot, Azuki, Goblintown… and the list goes on. But interestingly, although some derivatives emerged to get cash, imitation checks have mostly been the product of prominent builders in Web3 and have subsequently been hailed as successes.
Perhaps this is due to the importance of the underlying themes that Butcher has instilled in his project, which center around criticism around social media verification. Or maybe it has more to do with respect than Butcher and his brand display value have accumulated in recent years. Whatever the reason, it’s hard to view the success of checks, the subsequent OE boom, and the corresponding increase in NFT sales during the first quarter of 2023 as independent of Butcher.
Given the enduring awe surrounding Checks, it’s hard to say when his popularity might wane. Add in the fact that Butcher appears to honor a build policy in public, with his long and dense Twitter threads chronicling the development of each project as testament to this, it’s possible he could maintain his dominance in the NFT market for months to come. . And this might not be a bad thing, considering that alongside his highly-hyped collections, Butcher has also released NFT’s philanthropic efforts building on the success of checks.
If there is to be one major takeaway from all that has happened with Checks in its first month of existence, it might be that user engagement is most important. From keeping collectors in the loop, encouraging community building, and promoting the collector agency as a means for future development, whether or not its complex mechanics result in large-scale collector exploits, the lessons Butcher’s will surely be implemented in the future and will certainly have got a Web3 seal of approval.
