top of page

STOP Measuring NFT Collections by Floor Price (FP)


In one sentence:

Using Floor Price as a primary metric for evaluating NFT collections is fundamentally flawed and can lead to misinformed purchase decisions due to its failure to account for factors such as rarity, utility, and market manipulation.


In one paragraph:

This article critiques the widespread reliance on Floor Price (FP) as the primary metric for assessing NFT collections. It highlights numerous limitations, such as susceptibility to market manipulation and failure to account for rarity and utility. It argues that FP often leads to misleading perceptions of a collection's value and can result in poor investment decisions. Proposing a more comprehensive approach, incorporating metrics like developer engagement, community activity, utility value, trait rarity, historical sales data, and influencer interest to provide a holistic evaluation of NFT collections. This nuanced approach aims to foster more informed and sustainable investment decisions in the NFT space.


Intro


NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) have revolutionized the digital landscape, offering a new way to own, trade, and value digital assets. With the rise of NFTs, various metrics have emerged to gauge the value and potential of these digital collections. Among them, Floor Price (FP) has become a prominent measure, often used as a quick reference to assess the minimum entry price for a collection. However, despite its widespread use, FP is a flawed and frequently misleading metric. It fails to capture the true essence and value of NFT projects, leading to misinformed decisions by buyers and investors alike.


In this article, we'll explore why using Floor Price as the primary metric for evaluating NFT collections is a misguided approach, analyze the limitations and dangers of focusing solely on FP, and propose more comprehensive and accurate metrics for assessing the value and potential of NFT projects. By understanding these nuances, investors and enthusiasts can make more informed decisions, avoiding the pitfalls of overreliance on a single, often superficial, metric.


*Quick note: I'm approaching this holistically and not web3 gaming-centric.


Understanding Floor Price

Floor Price is the lowest listing price of an NFT from a particular collection on the open market. This price point is prominently displayed on major NFT marketplaces such as Magic Eden, OpenSea, and others, making it a go-to metric for quick assessments. Many people interpret FP as an indicator of an NFT collection's overall health and value, assuming that a higher FP signifies a more valuable and desirable collection.


However, this assumption is fundamentally flawed. FP only reflects the lowest asking price for an NFT in a collection at a given moment without accounting for individual tokens' rarity, desirability, or utility within the set.


Also, FP can be skewed by various factors, including market manipulation and individual seller listing behaviors. The widely accepted behavior of "sweeping the floor" involves purchasing all cheap NFTs of a collection to raise its floor—more on that later!


Limitations of Floor Price


Misses Rarity Strata

One significant limitation of Floor Price is its inability to account for the rarity and uniqueness of individual NFTs within a collection. Rare attributes or unique features can make certain NFTs far more valuable than the collection's FP suggests. By focusing solely on FP, potential buyers might overlook these unique aspects and undervalue the true potential of their investments.


Market Manipulation

Another issue is FP is highly susceptible to market manipulation. Whales or large holders can artificially inflate (or deflate) FP by strategically listing and buying NFTs at specific prices. This manipulation can create a false sense of market value, misleading investors into making poor decisions based on inaccurate data. FP is inherently volatile, fluctuating with market trends and sentiment, which means it can change drastically in short periods, offering little stability for long-term assessments.


From personal experience, community members openly demand that project owners sweep the floor to artificially raise entry prices to a collection.




More Psychologically based

Another factor is the psychological impact on NFT holders, which can be significant. When FP drops, holders might panic sell, driven by fear and uncertainty, exacerbating the price decline and market instability. This panic can lead to a vicious cycle of declining prices and eroded confidence in the project, even if the underlying fundamentals remain strong—misleading potential buyers and investors about a collection's true value and potential.


A low FP might suggest a lack of interest or value. At the same time, the collection might have high long-term potential due to other factors like solid community support or innovative utility.


Arms Length from Primary Sale

One last issue is that it is fundamentally a secondary market metric and misses important information on purchase habits. For example, in mobile games, players use soft and hard currencies. Soft currency is the primary measure of economic supply/demand and progression, whereas hard currency is the proxy of dollar value in the game bc you can only accumulate it by purchasing. So, players spend $$ on in-app purchases to gain hard currency and use that to purchase a loot box that contains NFTs. How could you account for primary purchases if they are obfuscated through less direct measures?


Better Metrics for Evaluating Collections


To evaluate NFT collections accurately, it's crucial to go beyond basic metrics like Floor Price. On par with FP are simplified "glance" metrics like ownership distribution, percent of NFTs listed, and total volume. While these are useful starting points, they often do not fully capture an NFT's potential value and longevity. Advanced metrics and qualitative assessments provide a more nuanced understanding of the collection's worth and future prospects.


Developer and Community Engagement

Active and consistent engagement from both the development team and the community can significantly influence the value and longevity of an NFT collection. Metrics to consider include:

Development Activity: Look at the frequency and quality of updates from the development team. Projects with regular updates, transparent roadmaps, and active bug fixes tend to have higher long-term potential. Platforms like GitHub can provide insights into the development activity for blockchain-based projects.


Community Participation: High levels of engagement on social media platforms can indicate a strong and active community. Metrics such as the number of unique contributors, frequency of discussions, and the sentiment of conversations can provide a deeper understanding of community health. BUT... The King of this metric is engagement with the core product (if the digital asset offers that).


Utility and Real-World Applications

An NFT's utility and real-world applications are critical factors that can drive its value beyond speculative prices. Consider the following metrics:


Utility within the Ecosystem: Evaluate how the NFTs are used within their ecosystem. For example, NFTs that serve as access tokens to exclusive content, events, or services tend to have higher intrinsic value. For gaming, the bare minimum is usage within the game itself, but it can cover several dynamic applications in and out of the game.

Interoperability: Assess whether the NFTs can be used across multiple platforms or ecosystems. Interoperable NFTs in various virtual worlds or applications can maintain and increase their value through diverse coverage.

Revenue Generation: Consider whether the NFTs enable revenue generation for holders. This could include opportunities in a product, royalties, staking rewards, or other forms of income.


Rarity and Trait Analysis

Understanding the rarity and desirability of specific traits within an NFT collection can provide valuable insights into potential value:


Trait Rarity Tools: Use tools that analyze the rarity of traits within a collection. Rare traits often command higher prices, and understanding their distribution can help make informed purchase decisions.

Market Trends for Traits: Track market trends to see which traits are currently in demand. Historical sales data can reveal which traits consistently fetch higher prices and which are less desirable.


Here's an example of rarity and traits using a collectible medium that's been around for over a century: sports cards. Some of the most expensive cards sold at auction have very low FPs.


Here is a list of the most expensive sports cards, along with the FP of their collection.


The point of this example is that each card's rarity and general collectability are highly subjective and variable. Attributes like age, rarity, condition, and demand based on the popularity of a specific player drive the price dynamics.


For example, another 1952 Topps Micky Mantle sold for $5.2m with a PSA (condition rating) of 9, whereas the $12.6m had a PSA of 9.5, the highest in existence. PSA is just another conditional attribute from which pricing is derived, although it is not directly applicable to digital products.







Historical Sales Data and Price Trends

Analyzing historical sales data and price trends can offer insights into the collection's performance over time:


Price Momentum: Look at the momentum of price changes over time. Steady price appreciation is often a positive indicator, while frequent sharp declines may signal volatility or underlying issues.

Sales Volume: Consistent sales volume indicates sustained interest in the collection. Sudden spikes or drops in volume can provide clues about market sentiment and potential future movements.

Holding Periods: Analyze how long NFTs are held before being sold. Longer holding periods can indicate confidence and satisfaction among holders, while short holding periods might suggest speculation.


Influencer and Institutional Interest

The involvement of influencers and institutional investors can be a strong indicator of a collection's potential, BUT be careful. The majority of the rich and famous have jumped into crypto for a quick buck and ended up screwing their community. At this point, influencer interest is an inverse metric; the more rich and famous people promote something random out of the blue, the more likely it's for a quick buck.


Influencer Endorsements: Track endorsements and partnerships with well-known influencers in the NFT and crypto space.

Institutional Investment: Analyze any institutional investment in the project. Institutional backing can provide significant capital and resources, enhancing the project's development and reach.


Combine Metrics for a Holistic View

Using the high-level metrics above, you can create your own advanced metrics, giving you a much deeper analysis of a project compared to its competitors. For example, imagine using each of the above to create the following:


Developer Engagement Score (DES): This score measures the level of activity and engagement from the development team, including code commits, updates, and transparency using sources like Github, product platforms, and more.

Community Activity Index (CAI): This index evaluates the engagement and participation levels within the project's community on social media and forums.

Utility Value Score (UVS): This score assesses the practical applications and uses of NFTs within their ecosystem and their interoperability with other platforms.

Rarity and Desirability Index (RDI): This index analyzes the rarity and market demand for specific traits within an NFT collection, reflecting their desirability.

Historical Performance Metric (HPM): This metric examines historical price trends, sales volume, and holding periods to gauge the collection's market performance over time.

Influencer and Institutional Interest Index (III): This index tracks endorsements from influencers and investments from institutions to gauge external interest and support.


Combining these advanced metrics provides a more comprehensive evaluation of NFT collections. Instead of relying solely on Floor Price, integrating developer activity, community engagement, utility, rarity, historical data, market activity, and influencer interest can offer a robust understanding of an NFT's true potential. This multi-faceted approach ensures that individuals make informed decisions based on a collection's intrinsic and extrinsic factors, ultimately leading to more sustainable and rewarding investments in the assets they purchase, whatever their motivation may be.


But don't take my word for it... I suggest creating and testing your advanced metrics if you are serious about collecting digital assets, especially given the clear subjectivity in valuations.


Conclusion


While Floor Price provides a quick snapshot of the minimum entry price for an NFT collection, it is an inherently flawed and limited metric that can mislead investors and enthusiasts. Overreliance on FP can result in misguided decisions, overlooking NFT projects' value and potential. By recognizing these limitations, consumers can avoid common pitfalls and make more informed investment choices.


A holistic approach, including average sale price, community and developer activity, utility, and trait rarity, offers a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of NFT collections. Educating oneself on these advanced evaluation metrics is crucial for making sustainable and rewarding investments in the ever-evolving world of NFTs. This nuanced strategy ensures a deeper understanding of digital assets' true worth and potential, leading to more thoughtful and more confident decision-making.


Kommentare


bottom of page