To be or to want to be: how followers engage with NFTs, their communities and how it influences their identity journey

Non fungible tokens (NFTs), an acronym for nonfungible tokens, are digital files authenticated by a blockchain. As such, according to Nasdaq, they are digital assets, like cryptocurrencies or asset-backed tokens. They are among the most popular digital assets because they could authenticate images, video, audio, music and documents. Unlike cryptocurrencies, they cannot be duplicated or replaced (Chalmers et al., 2022; Hofstetter et al., 2022). While technically born in 2012 (Fazli et al., 2021) NFTs were brought to attention in 2017 with the CryptoKitties collection sale (Nadini et al., 2021). Even if NFT markets experienced a severe downturn since 2022, due to saturation of the market, cooling of the cryptocurrency market to which NFTs are linked, and the presence of scams and disputes (Rabaai et al., 2024) they remain a significant market (Truby et al., 2022). NFTs are strongly related to Web 3.0 and metaverses (Allen and Potts, 2023). They already have various marketing applications:

• in the gaming industry for certification and authentication of products and services around smart contracts;

• in terms of royalties and distribution (Chohan and Paschen, 2023; Gramlich et al., 2023); and

• for merchandizing and ticketing strategies (Nasdaq, 2023).

Marketing literature has rapidly explored NFTs, their markets and how they may complement or question traditional marketing practices. It is anticipated they can offer new ways to create innovation (Li and Chen, 2023) or a perceived scarcity, propose decentralized practices and open the market to new intermediaries, enablers and facilitators (Hofstetter et al., 2022). Still, understanding how potential consumers perceive NFTs and what they think they can do with them appears of much interest for the diffusion of NFT as a new technology and marketing tool (Alkhudary et al., 2023). If most engaged members of crypto-assets and their markets have already been studied (Sousa et al., 2022), research on NFTs actual and potential users remains scarce (Rabaai et al., 2024). Drivers of NFT adoption and purchase, notably psychological and emotional ones, remain to be explored (Yilmaz et al., 2023; Alkhudary et al., 2023). If several research consider NFT and cryptocurrencies users are the same, this postulate remains to be confirmed. As digital objects and authentications devices, NFTs relate to potential immaterial possessions. NFTs are strong candidates for the position of ubiquitous and safe digital assets needed to allow consumers to purchase, possess and assess possession or authenticity of digital objects (Chohan and Paschen, 2023). NFTs, as products of postmodernity, have created a paradigm shift for creation, authentication and exchange of digital assets, including artistic objects (e.g. Wilson et al., 2022). They may trigger or support potential evolutions of identity, identity projects and self-concept in a digital and more liquid world. Notably, there are many NFT followers, not clearly engaged in NFTs usage, but curious of the NFTs landscape. These followers account for the vast majority of future NFTs users and consumers (e.g. for France, 5% of purchasers vs 12% of people interested according to ADAN and KPMG, 2023). They help promoting NFTs. Yet, few research focused on their characteristics and perceptions of NFTs. This limited knowledge could hamper marketers to fully exploit the business opportunities NFTs could generate (Truby et al., 2022). This is why this research seeks to understand how people decide to follow and eventually buy or use NFTs. It focusses on the following research aim:

• who are the bulk of consumers interested in NFTs, i.e. NFTs followers; and

• how do NFTs interact with followers’ identity features and mechanisms.

To investigate these issues, we adopted a qualitative method conducting in-depth interviews with French (7), Italian (19) and Indian (8) NFTs followers, to explore why some consumers follow NFTs. We mobilized personal and social identity theory, specifically dialectical identity construction and dynamic model of identity development. We adopt the identity framework described by Schau (2018). Results show NFTs and their markets influence followers’ personal and social identity construction, specifically their identity projects and self-presentation. NFTs followers diverge from purchasers as regards their emotions, the role of communities and their economic perceptions. Communities play a significant part in this influence by driving knowledge and interest for NFTs among followers. Opacity and defiance emerged as major contextual dimensions for NFT followers as opposed to the potential magic of metaverses and NFTs. Emotions appear contrasted, and evolve during adoption and diffusion of NFTs, fear and anticipation emerging clearly, while hope and escapism support attractiveness of NFTs.

Several definitions for NFT have been proposed. In summary, NFT is an emerging digital asset class, based on computer code, either on-chain or off-chain, taking many forms. It is recorded on a blockchain ledger, and its basic purpose is to prove ownership or authenticity of an asset as being unique (Doan et al., 2021; Nadini et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2022). It is a transferrable cryptographic token (Frye, 2021). NFTs cannot be used to support transactions, for two reasons. Technically, they are not fungible, which is a major difference with cryptocurrencies, and by purpose, NFTs are intended as pure assets compared to cryptos. NFTs bring unique assets into the digital space and make ownership of these assets verifiable (Doan et al., 2021), i.e. secure and reassuring. NFTs combine a unique set of commercial, regulatory and legal considerations (Doan et al., 2021). Cryptocurrency markets and NFT markets’ participants are frequently considered to be identical (Dowling, 2022a), notably because you need cryptos and wallet to buy NFTs (Nadini et al., 2021; Dowling, 2022b; Wilson et al., 2022). Here, it is essential to recognize that digital economy, digital currencies and NFTs are distinct yet interconnected concepts. The digital economy refers to the overarching structure of economic activity enabled by digital technologies – ranging from e-commerce to data platforms (Bukht and Heeks, 2018). Digital currencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, function as decentralized monetary systems that facilitate transactions and value storage within digital infrastructures (Catalini and Gans, 2016). As assets, NFTs require digital currencies, specifically cryptocurrencies to be valued and to be exchanged. By being exchangeable they belong to the digital economy. More broadly, it is believed that NFTs, as products of postmodernity, create a paradigm shift for the creation, authentication and exchange of digital assets, including artistic assets (e.g. Wilson et al., 2022; Hofstetter et al., 2022). Until now, academic literature analyzed NFTs from a technical angle (Wang et al., 2021; Turchet and Ngo, 2022): blockchain (Bellagarda and Abu-Mahfouz, 2022a, 2022b), legal issues (Doan et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021; Kshetri, 2022), relationship with cryptocurrencies (Dowling, 2022a, 2022b), financial issues (Aharon and Demir, 2022) and pricing issues (Chalmers et al., 2022). Marketing research so far focused on how to use NFTs in marketing strategies and actions (Colicev, 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2022) and how they could impact business models by facilitating unique value propositions, enhancing customer engagement and enabling novel revenue streams (Li and Chen, 2023). It considered a limited number of NFT collections or a single market at a time (Nadini et al., 2021). Marketing may use NFTs in different ways, e.g. for brand strategy (Colicev, 2023; Sundararajan, 2022; Xie et al., 2023) or combining the launch of a product with support for a charitable cause (Dwivedi et al., 2022). Wilson et al. (2022) identified four groups of NFTs’ stakeholders:

1. creators;

2. related intermediaries;

3. ancillary, legal business entities; and

4. consumers, collectors, investors and speculators.

For consumers, NFTs add new digital collectibles and goods to collect, own and exchange, notably art-related goods. Simultaneously they offer an authentication solution for these goods (Wilson et al., 2022). Many consumers are supposedly ready to pay a premium for rare or high-quality digital items backed by NFTs (Wilson et al., 2022). Above all, the “token economy” could change understanding of money, and behaviors as regards possession and ownership, appropriation (Sunyaev et al., 2021). Even if several uses can be identified, few studies adopted a consumer’s perspective and many questions must be addressed (He et al., 2023; Alkhudary et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2022).

Literature applies to NFTs the framework of analysis of consumer behavior developed for cryptocurrencies (Zhang et al., 2023). Part of the hype surrounding NFTs stems from their projected roles in metaverses and Web 3.0, specifically commercial ones as they are connected with the various business constellations that make it up, e.g. Meta, Sandbox, Decentraland. NFTs help reinforce consumer trust and engagement with luxury brands, leading to increased purchase intentions and brand loyalty (Sung et al., 2023). NFTs are strong candidates for the position of ubiquitous and safe digital assets needed to allow consumers to purchase, possess and assess possession or authenticity of digital objects (Chohan and Paschen, 2023). Potential uses for NFTs transcend possession and are linked to global movement labeled “token economy” (Lee et al., 2022). Prasad et al. (2024) investigated the psychological determinants of purchase intention for NFTs and called for future studies that explore NFTs with different theoretical frameworks and additional constructs. Uniqueness, entertainment and expressive values help to elicit consumers’ sense of status consumption and dispositional innovativeness for Gen-Z and Millennials (Xie et al., 2023). Consumers with higher levels of innovation adoption and digital affinity are more likely to perceive value in branded NFTs and to express purchase intention. In the consumer’s journey with NFTs, hedonic values are more important during first phase, while purchasing and possessing NFTs induce rather monetary values (Yilmaz et al., 2023). In the adoption resistance framework, usage barriers and value barriers are the most impactful (Rabaai et al., 2024). Alongside early adopters, NFTs attract many individuals who appreciate them, follow them on digital social networks, but do not necessarily purchase or collect them. Marketing theory postulate that followers are likely to become consumers and sometimes fans, thus we focus on influencers and fans (Yoshida et al., 2015; Inoue et al., 2019; Merten et al., 2023). Given that NFT buyers remain few in numbers (Kumar, 2025; doit.software blog, 2025; Statista, 2025), exploring followers appears crucial. They define followers in comparison to both categories, notably when investigating social media behaviors. From the influencers’ perspective, followers are those consumers aware of the brand, but who are not influencers and who regularly look for their content and posts, but with low engagement. From the fandom and the engagement points of view, followers are consumers that are not acting like other fans. Fans show greater engagement than followers, they identify with the object they cheer for and link their success to it (Wann, 2006; Merten et al., 2023). Followers are consumers who inform themselves on the brand and consult its content without taking further action such as liking, republishing or other engagement behaviors, i.e. passive consumers. Fans are usually more loyal to the brand they support and such fanhood helps them define themselves through self-categorization, cheering becomes part of their social identity (Yoshida et al., 2015). In contrast, followers are less involved as the “need to belong” is an antecedent of fan identification (Merten et al., 2023). From a commercial perspective, the follower situation is undefined: he/she may or may not be a consumer or a prospect. Besides, the statute of follower is expected to be transitory: “followers can come and go, but fans are long-lasting” (Park, 2022). The NFT ecosystem is designed or at least well-adapted for consumers to follow NFTs and their owners easily: NFTs are displayed in galleries, display often is mandatory for owners, NFTs are discussed and advertised on digital social media. While some NFTs fans and purchasers are certainly motivated by the perspective of financial success or by promoting an ideological agenda like many cryptos fans (Breidbach and Tana, 2021), NFTs followers can be interested into cocreating the NFT market and participating to it, at least being part of the trend, being there as observers and promoters. Recent research has shown that community engagement plays a central role in sustaining interest in NFTs, even when financial expectations are not met, highlighting the importance of social identity and belonging in NFT ecosystems (Brahmstaedt, 2025). Like some NFTs purchasers identified by Alkhudary et al. (2023), followers may use NFTs to structure or to develop their identity.

The token economy is likely to have a significant impact on aspects of financial identity (Sunyaev et al., 2021). Values associated with NFTs may be linked to personality traits (Zhang and Phang, 2023; Xie et al., 2023). NFTs are digital objects with social lives (Appadurai, 1986) and could serve as symbols of experience (Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988), carrying meanings and symbolic significance. As such, they can be leveraged by individuals to express or reinforce their personal and social identities.

Identity can be conceptualized as a combination of personality, self-concept, identity projects and self-presentation (Schau, 2018). Consumers engage in multiple identity projects, enacted through self-presentation, which are facilitated by marketplaces. By ensuring ownership of digital objects, NFTs enable collection practices, allowing collectors to document and authenticate their acquisitions. These digital assets support storytelling about how items were obtained, reinforcing self-presentation and identity narratives. Even without direct ownership (Belk, 1988), the practice of following NFTs allows individuals to express aspects of their identity, whether by signaling who they are, who they aspire to become (Belk and Costa, 1998), or who they seek to distance themselves from (Thompson and Arsel, 2004; Leonardelli et al., 2010). We intend to understand which identity projects are supported by following the NFTs market. As regards social identity, the obvious analysis would link interest in NFTs to the need for ostentation and financial success (Bagwell and Bernheim, 1996). Following NFTs can help position oneself as holding the social and cultural capitals needed to participate to the Web 3.0 revolution and access to new forms of consumption and possession. Consequently, it is essential to examine whether such followers perceive themselves as early adopters or as collectors and passive consumer of highly symbolic digital assets. Simultaneously, whether materialism is conceptualized as a set of personality traits (Belk, 1988) or as a system of values, following NFTs may facilitate the expression of a new form of materialism. Belk et al. (2022, p. 302) introduced the concept of “immaterialism,” a novel form of materialism to which NFTs are inherently connected, given their nature as “objects that we cannot touch, except virtually.” This perspective aligns with the second consumer cluster identified by Alkhudary et al. (2023), which embodies this shift. Values rooted in libertarian ideology are frequently associated with cryptocurrencies, and it is highly likely that such values extend to NFTs, given their intrinsic link to the crypto ecosystem. NFTs exist at the intersection of multiple dichotomies: they are both public (as they are displayed in digital galleries) and private (since nonfollowers or nonpurchasers may only access partial information, and some collectors prefer to engage in private acquisition, akin to traditional art collecting); they are digital yet often connected to the physical world. Still today the question remains as to whether NFTs primarily serve as tools for new materialists or classifiers. Beyond their social value, NFTs also hold emotional significance, influencing purchase intent in ways that extend beyond purely financial motivations. While economic benefits are relevant, they appear secondary to other drivers, such as group belonging, cooperation, goal achievement and discovery (Lee et al., 2022).

According to social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), self-concept is shaped and enriched by social identities that emerge from group memberships, fostering a sense of belonging and a desire for inclusion (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). These groups play a crucial role in fulfilling followers’ emotional attachment needs (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). Consequently, NFTs may influence social identity based on the type of NFT (e.g. images, music, real estate certificates, gaming assets) and the online communities with which individuals engage (Yoshida et al., 2015). In this perspective, the role of communities in shaping and promoting identity warrants further investigation, particularly in relation to the emotional responses of NFT followers (Alkhudary et al., 2023) While the focus has remained mostly on fans little is known about the role and characteristics instead of followers of the phenomenon (Lee et al., 2022; Vollero et al., 2025).

NFTs are perceived both as an investment tool but also as an emotion-evoking asset (Yilmaz et al., 2023) but the extent to which emotions drive NFT followers’ engagement remains underexplored. Thus, we explore the integration and identification dimension (Wang and Tucker, 2021) in relation to emotions related to NFTs (Valor et al., 2022).

While the rise of NFTs has drawn widespread attention from media, investors and creators, as previously mentioned, the academic literature so far, focused primarily on their technological foundations, market dynamics and speculative behaviors. This focus, while valuable, tends to conflate NFTs with other blockchain-based innovations such as cryptocurrencies or broader trends within the digital economy. Despite their increasing presence in popular culture and online communities, NFTs have been underexplored in terms of the social, emotional and identity-related meanings they carry for individuals who engage with them. In particular, there is limited understanding of how users make sense of NFTs, how these digital assets shape personal identity and self-concept, and what role online communities play in this process. These aspects are critical to understanding the broader cultural implications of NFTs and their adoption beyond financial speculation. NFTs, represent unique digital assets used to certify ownership and authenticity of digital or physical content, often involving cultural, creative and symbolic dimensions (Nadini et al., 2021; Dowling, 2022b; Wilson et al., 2022). To address this gap, our study investigates the lived experiences and perceptions of individuals actively following NFT-related communities. Grounded in an interpretive qualitative approach, our research is guided by the following research question (RQ):

Due to the emerging nature of the phenomenon and the objectives of the research we decided to rely on a qualitative approach (Goulding, 2005) through semistructured interviews (Vichiengior et al., 2023). This approach aligns with the exploratory nature of the study (Schwaeke et al., 2025; Magnani and Gioia, 2023). To ensure both reliability and validity, rigorous procedures were implemented throughout the research process. A detailed and standardized research protocol was established. Two researchers designed a first draft of the interview guide in English. Both drafts were compared, and two researchers validated a final guide. Subsequently, this guide was tested and amended to optimize the understandability of the themes. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and then translated in English, to ensure accuracy of the analysis, verbatims, in fact, were analyzed by all authors. All correspondence with potential participants, including invitations and reminders, was carefully crafted to provide clear and consistent information, reducing the risk of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The interview guide and themes were designed based on academic literature and aimed at addressing the objectives of the analysis. Interviews were recorded and transcribed in English to ensure accuracy of the analysis, and verbatims were analyzed by both authors. All correspondence with potential participants, including invitations and reminders, was carefully crafted to provide clear and consistent information, thus reducing the risk of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. To enhance participation rates, contact attempts were made with each potential participant using different channels.

Rather than pursuing superficial breadth, the study focuses on a theoretically relevant and information-rich core sample, consistent with the goal of generating contextualized insights (Gioia et al., 2013). Hence, a purposive sampling method was used with a well-defined rationale for country selection. The purposeful sampling strategy (Patton, 2014) was used to ensure that the participants selected could provide valuable information relevant to the study. This approach aligns with established qualitative research practices in management and organization studies, which emphasize depth, meaning-making and theoretical contribution over statistical generalizability. This method allowed us to deliberately target communities and individuals with knowledge and experience in the NFT space, facilitating the inclusion of units that are critical for theory development by focusing on individuals who could illuminate key aspects of the phenomenon under investigation (Maxwell, 2013). To allow for generalization, we did not focus on a specific community or operator. And we interviewed NFT followers from three different countries: France, India and Italy. While, sociocultural environment, notably national culture, influences people perceptions and behaviors (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011; Cleveland et al., 2015), it was not considered in early NFT research. NFTs are mostly related to financial investments, art, brands, sports and entertainment, whose perception maybe significantly impacted by national culture. National culture also influence the concept of self (De Mooij and Hofstede, 2011). The rationale behind choice of these countries was guided by economic, cultural and regulatory considerations: attention to sustainability, purchasing power, nation’s digital stage and NFTs attention as different fanship culture. For example, all three nations use sport as a medium for identity formation and social cohesion, but the Italian context emphasizes a deeply ritualistic form of support, the French model exhibits a more balanced and civic engagement and the Indian experience is marked by a dynamic synthesis of traditional passion with the immediacy of digital communication (Chaturvedi et al., 2021). These variations underscore the complex interplay between local cultural traditions and community phenomena, inviting further interdisciplinary inquiry into their socioeconomic and political implications. Furthermore, we selected Italy and France as they represent two significant European markets for NFTs. Italy and France have both adopted legislation allowing NFTs to be considered as works of art and offered at auction, thus institutionalizing art-related NFTs (PR Newswire, 2023). Moreover, both countries have active digital economies and established blockchain ecosystems that make them relevant contexts to study NFT engagement. But Italy’s art scene and rich cultural heritage make it a privileged market for art NFTs, and their artist “Italy, a pioneer in the generation of NFT artists, has witnessed a strong adoption of digital crypto art and NFTs, helping the country to achieve the title of ‘Crypto Art Renaissance’”. Furthermore, Italy ranked third globally for total gross sales in the core NFT market’ (Business Wire, 2022a, 2022b). France has a larger art market (Statista, 2025) but Italians appear much more interested in crypto-assets than French (56% vs 37% – ADAN and KPMG, 2023). In terms of financial investments, French consumers prefer more secure assets (Brooks and Williams, 2024) ^[1]. To introduce a non-European perspective and explore NFTs within a different socioeconomic and technological context, we included India. India represents an ideal field of investigation for understanding the determinants influencing NFT adoption considering that is one of the first four countries for NFTs passion in Asia (Zhang, 2023). Chainanalysis (2021) ranks India as the second highest country globally in terms of cryptocurrency adoption, and the State is in the process of developing its own cryptocurrency. This burgeoning interest in cryptocurrencies provides a foundational understanding of blockchain technology, which is fundamental to NFTs. NFT adoption seems limited, but the familiarity with cryptocurrencies suggests a readiness to explore and engage with NFT activities. India’s digital economy is expanding rapidly. The Indian digital economy is expected to reach US$1tn by 2025 (IBEF, 2022). This growth creates a large market for NFTs, where NFTs are mostly considered as investments. In each country, we interviewed exclusively nationals. We selected followers based on marketing and brand strategy literature, which emphasizes the importance of influencers and fans (Yoshida et al., 2015; Inoue et al., 2019; Merten et al., 2023), Thus, participants were recruited based on their engagement with NFTs. The purposive sampling criteria are to include people that come from the selected country in terms of nationality, demonstrate potential interest in NFTs as active participation in digital communities focused on NFTs, cryptocurrencies and blockchain. A plus criterion was having created or bought NFTs or being an NFT community manager.

Announcements of the project were published on Facebook – Instagram, LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter), targeting specific NFT-related communities with the aim of recruiting knowledgeable and interested participants. Posts and direct messages were shared with groups focused on NFTs, Web3 and digital art. A detailed list of all communities and platforms we reached out to is now provided in Table 1, indicating the number of members/followers and the outcome of each contact attempt (i.e. successful recruitment, no response or access denied).

Although substantial persuasion efforts were made, particularly toward Indian and French communities, strict moderation rules and low responsiveness posed challenges. Some communities did not approve our membership requests, while others remained unresponsive despite repeated contact attempts. Thus, sample was completed using a snowballing approach prioritizing depth over breadth by strengthening data triangulation within the selected countries and conducting a second interview round (May–July 2024).

Participant familiarity with NFTs was assessed using a two-step process. First, we considered membership in NFT-specific communities and the act of expressing interest in our study as a preliminary indicator of NFT awareness. Second, each interview began with a short screening in which participants were asked to report their degree of interest and familiarity with NFTs (e.g. low vs high), and to describe their level of engagement as if they own or even created an NFT. This allowed us to verify and categorize participants’ NFT literacy levels before proceeding with the full interview.

Still, while we acknowledge the influence of communities on NFTs’ followers, our objective was to neutralize as much as possible attitudes and values specific to each community. However, due to community rules restricting promotional content and a low response rate in some regions, we supplemented our recruitment with snowball sampling to enhance participant diversity (Gummerus et al., 2024). Thus, participants were encouraged to suggest or invite others who met the necessary criteria and could provide valuable insights. We contacted them before interviews to ensure that they met the selected requirements (Bell and Bryman, 2007). This multistep recruitment strategy (Gummerus et al., 2024) allowed us to balance the challenges of direct recruitment while ensuring representation across our targeted regions.

Interviews were conducted online between June 2022 and October 2022. When recruiting potential respondents, we verified their engagement behavior, ensuring that they demonstrated cognitive, behavioral or emotional involvement in NFTs, such as discussing NFTs online, researching their workplace applications, creating/buying NFTs, or considering doing so within six months. The average duration of interviews was close to one hour (55 min). Interviews were conducted until data saturation occurred (Hennink et al., 2017; Saunders et al., 2018). To strengthen our findings, we conducted a second round of interviews from May 2024 to July 2024, aimed at triangulating our data and confirming our saturation point (Fischer and Guzel, 2023). While defining saturation remains debated, it is commonly determined by the realization that additional interviews yield minimal new insights (Hood, 2007, p. 161; Tight, 2024). In qualitative research, data and theoretical saturation occur when additional samples no longer reveal new thematic insights, indicating that the existing codes sufficiently capture the range of information in the data set (Saunders et al., 2018). Saturation is considered a “gold standard” in determining sample adequacy and data quality (Guest et al., 2006). The final sample consisted of 19 Italian interviewees, 7 French interviewees and 8 Indian interviewees (Table 2), making it the largest qualitative sample on NFTs to date (Brahmstaedt, 2025; Vega and Camarero, 2024). Limitations in time and resources prevented further international extension. Selection bias was mitigated by contacting potential respondents via different channels. Cultural and geographical considerations were explicitly accounted for in our sampling design, ensuring that our European and Indian samples provided meaningful comparative insights. In terms of gender, most of our respondents identified as male, which is reflective of the current demographics of NFT markets. Furthermore, to limit cognitive and reflexivity biases of the authors (Berger, 2015), two interviewers conducted the interviews. According to the literature, saturation in empirical studies is frequently found to be in the range of 9–17 interviews (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). Although there are no definitive strategies for defining sample saturation, it was easily assessed as only one author carried out the interviews for each national subsample.

Coding analysis was sorted manually after that we arrive to the “saturation point.” The Gioia method (Gioia et al., 2013) was adopted as it is particularly suited to investigate theories and identity studies (Garnelo-Gomez et al., 2022). Gioia method aims to produce a model that accomplishes several objectives:

• affirming existing concepts and relationships (as an emergent model must align with some known findings;

• extending existing knowledge by broadening known frameworks; and

• introducing new concepts or perspectives on the phenomenon, goal is to develop substantive theory, which explains processes, actions or interactions related to a specific topic at a broad conceptual level and not only inspires innovative ideas but also helps define relevant categories, properties and integration methods.

In fact, most grounded formal theories are rooted, at least partially, in substantive theories (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). The analysis began with an open coding of the raw data (opening up the data, identifying patterns), Gioia’s methodology emphasizes the importance of connecting first- and second-order interpretations to build a grounded process model that explains the phenomena of interest (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). In the first stage, each author independently identified first-level concepts by thoroughly analyzing the data. A second round of coding was then conducted to organize these initial findings, identify cross-code patterns and detect similarities and differences among the codes according to a constant comparison (identifying variation, looking for links between categories across all interviews). At this stage, categories were created and labeled to represent emerging themes (engaging with a core category) (Demunter and Bauwens, 2023). Subsequently, the authors shared their respective categories and findings, engaging in discussions to reconcile interpretations. A new round of analysis was carried out collaboratively and iteratively to refine the results while minimizing potential biases (Magnani and Gioia, 2023; Garnelo-Gomez et al., 2022). Care was taken to mitigate risks of “corruption” or unconscious biases stemming from the authors’ prior experiences and personal influences (Sobh and Perry, 2005). This iterative process ultimately led to the identification of core categories and aggregate dimensions (Koponen and Julkunen, 2022; Tienken et al., 2023; Corley and Gioia, 2004) and allow to “depict theory-based understanding” (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). To strengthen and refine these dimensions, additional interviews were conducted with a new sample of participants from Italy and India, for France we receive a declination. These subsequent interviews provided further data, which confirmed the saturation point and reinforced patterns and connections between the emerging concepts (Fischer and Guzel, 2023). Emotion can affect behavior and marketing choice to buy or adopt a product (Valor et al., 2022). To analyze emotions most frequently associated with NFTs, Plutchick’s (2001) emotion wheel model was adopted. Coding procedure is presented in  Appendix.

To answer our research questions, we find the present final codes: general perception of NFTs (4.1), Emotions (4.2), NFT sustainability issues (4.3), economic and business reflections (4.4), identity perceptions (4.5) and communities (4.6).

Followers’ overall perception of NFTs is extremely diverse. Most of the interviewees associate them to identification devices, both on a commercial side such as a membership card, for royalties and on an administrative side as identification services, for example a passport or another Identificative, including proof of property.

Some transcend it and see uses more linked to the investment and speculation, e.g. collateral product; some see it as nothing more than an accessory to gaming or as new forms for art and the reporting of artistic value or contract. NFTs, as new “Digital assets,” make up the NFT ecosystem but they can be, components of some other ecosystems, like cryptocurrencies and Metaverse (Vidal-Tomás, 2022).

NFTs “could be something” but they already are “not something” Int.16. NFTs are proposed, advertised, sold, marketed, by or in ecosystems. Ecosystems members work together to push followers and buyers into becoming more active and involved. Possibly, NFT ecosystems are herding (in the Zuboff, 2019, meaning) followers and users toward specific actions and behaviors. Strikingly, none of interviewees seems to mention this possibility. These ecosystems are very similar to the exclusive sneakers micro market explored by Dolbec and Fischer (2015). NFTs lend themselves to various uses. Two major “Risks” perceived by NFT followers are: speculation, that is NFTs having too much success; wallet theft, scams related to anonymity and other crimes:

Opinions converge on NFTs high potential and the multiple possibilities they offer, “They are an empty box” IT6R2 and all agreed on the “Uniqueness” and their intangible, almost abstract nature “they are an abstraction of an abstraction” IND2. Thus, one can consider NFTs are at the heart of a general semantic ambiguity about what they are and can do. Five major themes were identified concerning NFTs, their interactions with NFTs and the NFTs’ ecosystems.

Emotions play an important role in the act of consumption (Watson and Spence, 2007) and can affect behavior and decision-making (Lerner et al., 2015). To analyze the emotions most frequently associated with NFTs, Plutchick’s (2001) emotion wheel model is the most suitable. NFT followers express multivalent emotions toward the phenomenon depending on their trust in NFTs. The most frequent emotion is fear and caution toward NFTs:

Followed by anticipation and disgust:

Joy is the fourth most frequently reported feeling:

Less frequently, followers express positive feelings related to novelty and curiosity that attract NFTs followers. Trust, anger and sadness are the least reported or identified emotions. Emotions appear related to new technologies and change during adoption and diffusion of NFTs, fear and anticipation emerging clearly, while positive sentiments as joy, escapism support attractiveness of NFTs and are related to the opportunities that followers see in NFTs: “personal fulfillment, creativity, and empowerment” IND4.

Emotions perfectly reflect sentiments toward NFTs. They can be an obstacle to their adoption. The perceived emotions of NFTs followers vary depending on the elements related to NFTs that are being analyzed. It can stem from their polysemic nature, usefulness and potential as well as to the critical issues regarding their security. The most negative feelings are often linked to speculation on NFTs and the hype that is generated around them, especially in untrustworthy communities. Joy is connected to epistemic and creative act and are related to possession or creation of something capable of satisfying the soul both in an aesthetic and in a hedonic way. NFTs are strongly linked to freedom and to the need to feel. Fear stems from the sentiment of anticipation as many of interviewees associate the NFT phenomenon with the possibilities of redefining their opinion of themselves as innovative persons and hopes that NFTs will bring benefits and allow people to change their status. In this respect, the strength of emotions triggered by NFTs underlines their importance for NFTs followers.

Economic issues are very frequent in the interviews. As NFTs are related to cryptocurrencies, several respondents, notably Indian ones, first and foremost see them as financial investments, despite they frequently do not have money resource to buy them. NFTs are economic and business objects. Among these economic and business reflections on NFTs three subthemes are of interest:

• “Cryptocurrencies”;

• “Economy Reconfiguration”; and

• “Artist or Brand preference.”

First subtheme may seem obvious for less informed consumers. Above all, it is a technical and logistical imperative as NFTs need blockchains to exist and crypto wallet to be purchased. NFTs and cryptos thrive on security issues. Respondents consider opportunities and concern related to the to the anchoring of NFTs to cryptocurrencies. For instance, a NFT value and its volatility are impacted by the blockchain it uses. As many NFT followers have expectations of a transparent and perfect market, NFT price volatility and irrationality are perceived more vividly. Still, for many NFT followers, there is “no coincidence between the two”: cryptos are perceived as currencies, NFTs as unique tokens.

Respondents refer to the fact that there may be a poor perception of the monetary value linked to NFTs:

It is difficult for NFT followers to assess their value and to link it to the monetary dimension:

NFT buyers believe that traditional monetary value only partially explains their price, creating a sense of uncertainty and resistance to adoption according with the idea of a “Reconfiguration of the economic system” where disintermediation, decentralization and perceived freedom of transactions and monetary power are often emphasized:

This economic reconfiguration is associated to the need for more “transparency.” Finally, respondents evoke the preference between NFTs of “Artists or Brands.” If several respondents express a preference for NFTs art pieces, most of them do not spontaneously differentiate categories of NFTs. Still, NFT followers clearly distinguish perceived advantages and disadvantages of artist and marketing or brand NFTs, as described in Table 3.

Companies and professionals in these ecosystems are actively shaping them and defining rules. Unfortunately, these actions are compared to “Ponzi scheme,” inducing negative feelings:

The success of marketing ideas through NFTs depends on how they are executed, but the association with marketing may diminish their appeal for NFT enthusiasts. Some marketing professionals still view NFTs as separate from their field, similar to Kozinets’ (2002) observations of Burning Man participants. NFTs in marketing are seen as attempts by large companies to infiltrate new areas, with marketing and finance viewed as potentially corrupting forces. However, some consumers may embrace marketing and use NFTs for personal or “higher” purposes, signaling that NFTs are digital objects that can shape their identities.

No respondent spontaneously evoked sustainability. When their opinion is requested, followers mostly perceive NFTs sustainability at an environmental and governance level. Three second order themes related to environmental, social and governance – ESG emerged. “Environmental” subtheme is articulated in the following sub concepts – second order themes: “Energy consumption” which largely depends on the second sub concept: “Blockchain protocols” and the last sub concept albeit the need to find new “Alternatives solutions” to reduce the environmental impact, e.g. resorting to countries with an energy surplus and opting for renewable energies:

When acknowledged, sustainability problems are deemed temporary and caused by cryptos and blockchains, not NFTs. Some respondents also express “non-mortality of data” and NFTs “perenniality.” All respondents react negatively to this issue, using a wide array of neutralization techniques (Nelson, 1995). Following and potentially purchasing NFTs is important to them. Then, sustainability dimension appears irrelevant to their willingness to follow NFTs, but it may threaten their expectations around them.

Respondents stress the challenges of the current government system and regulations them for individual and companies to arrive to a regulation “in and between countries” (Indian Int.8). It may stem from the “disintermediation” and “decentralization” concept linked to Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (or DAO) and the requirement for a new “responsibility”:

Sustainability also leads to a concern for the “reconfigurations” of jobs, such as that of the notary and art galleries, replaced by individual NFTs. They are also many links to creation and sales of NFTs with charity initiatives for social causes. Overall, it is possible to interpret these conflictual, contradictory opinions and reactions as highlighting the importance of NFTs and their ecosystem to our respondents’ identity, whose is detailed in the next paragraph.

NFTs are rooted in “New digital worlds,” such as possible metaverses and Web 3.0 applications. But this connection is not systematic. NFTs act as a bridge between the different realities: NFTs will be needed for the “dissemination of the Metaverse” (IT1R2). Feelings and opinions regarding Metaverses and NFTs still are conflicting as Metaverse(s) did not happen so far:

That constitutes a “loophole” (IT9). This discourse is associated to the word: “trick” as several respondents think it will be very similar to a circus with different performances, everyone can perform. The boundary with magical experience (Arnould and Price, 1993) is as unclear as humor is vivid: “If we all lived in the metaverse, in one generation we would be extinct” IT3

Still NFTs will be exhibited, traded or used to play games or as identity markers in metaverses. Magic items and skins in videogames and virtual realities, represent the archetype of such NFTs. Related subthemes are: “avatars,” “metaverse” and “games and play to earn”:

NFTs allow you to dress your own Avatar in the Metaverse. The sense of uniqueness prevails, of “Being globally recognizable” (FR3), as well as having NFTs and particular attributes in order not to lose status even in the new reality. With NFTs, most of the appeal revolves around connoting digital objects creations with digital scarcity:

NFTs support individuals’ administrative digital identities by securing objects that enhance them, translating the physical logic of possessions into the digital realm. They contribute to the articulation of both digital and physical identities. Instead of acting as virtual collectors or classifiers, individuals can expand their materialism and consumption into the digital space.

In detail, to better understand the relationships between NFTs and their followers, we explored three questions related to identity and NFTs: What is their role in terms of identity? Do consumers reorient their identity to align with the NFTs they follow? How do NFT followers classify themselves to relevant others (Alkhudary et al., 2023)?

The desire for “self-affirmation” is tied to the aim of confirming one’s identity both in the physical and digital dimension, as well as not wanting to lose status in both dimensions (Jeong et al., 2024) NFTs directly allow for this:

The concept of self-expression is embodied both at creative level, and on the artistic side as profit expectations guide many artists in experimenting with NFTs. Artistic lovers or followers should help their favorite artists and confirm his/her interest in art:

Overall, it seems identity projects are not always much structured. Thus, we identified two concepts associated to basic dialectic and categorization of the identity building process (Leonardelli et al., 2010): “inclusion” and “differentiation”:

But identity building process highlights the role of one’s “social identity.” The construction of one’s own individuality is reconsidered through the confirmation of being part of a particular community, social group or under a particular role such as that of the technology expert or innovator:

Discussing NFTs and their built-in authentication capabilities induce elaborate anticipations of how people will demonstrate their identity, developed in “authentication,” the second subtheme. Most participants anticipate that NFTs may become a proof of identity or even a ubiquitous official personal identification device, offering new tools to develop one’s social identity:

They can also allow for recognition of objects and, interestingly, life events:

Interviewees develop many beliefs in relation to NFTs. Identity authentication also operates through the issue of “anonymity” that is linked to NFTs and their “recognition”: NFT operators can remain anonymous. For the most part, anonymity appears as a negative topic: “Anonymity preserves but for us as users it is a danger, you can’t trust it” IND6.

Unsurprisingly, “Communities” is one of the most frequent dimensions. To explain how NFT ecosystems are working, most interviewees evoke the importance of communities. They express several dimensions related to communities, notably the “Role” they have for NFTs followers: an individual dimension, a collective one and a professional sphere. Another theme is the presence of “Bright and dark side of communities.” Finally, there is the issue of the “Channels” where these communities do develop. Respondents identify two major functions of communities: (a) to create an environment favorable to knowing and supporting NFTs followers and (b) as promotion and expression channel for creators and traders:

As collective spheres, communities are compared to “clubs” and “circles” to which one can belong or not, voluntarily or because they are excluded. For some communities in fact, the access is not free, or it is opaque, limited. Communities, especially for creators and investors/speculators are mostly a strategic business support tool. They are “places” where one’s promotes oneself or one’s projects. The members of the community are the audience capable of creating advocacy and to spread such projects. Their role is to provide their members with an economic advantage. For example, in the art market, the quotation frequently is the result of outstanding vibrant development and appreciation of the artist and marketing dimension (Hernando and Campo, 2017). Thus, the presence of an identity with high reputation could lead to intention to purchase NFTs (Xia et al., 2022):

Communities also provide a social utility and create a very strong sense of belonging:

For some respondents, a community is a kind of reassurance against potential risks and a way to demonstrate a personal status symbol, prestige. NFT thrill, based on gamification and complexity is simultaneously accentuating potential risks or threats. It is particularly true when NFT is considered as a financial investment with a potential herding behavior, and lack of confidence in counterparts. The communities cited by our respondents are based on curiosity, a personality trait often associated to geeks. People interested into NFTs are getting close to communities to have more knowledge on the NFT ecosystem:

Interviewees distinguish the “bright and dark side” of communities. Especially for those who are learning to use NFTs, who would exchange and create them, communities are available at every hour and days and most of them are international, they facilitate knowledge, collaboration, creation and knowledge sharing. There is also a perception that smaller, vertical communities will remain “healthier” than communities with many participants:

Conversely, most participants refer to community messages that fuel discomfort. The dark sides of some communities are those where is a lack of dialogue, as fanatism practices. Scams, crimes, bullying also occur in them. To answer Colicev (2023) research question, depending on the media used, communities change in their behaviors, interactions and intentions. Perceptions and interactions change, with the communities and within them:

For instance, Discord remains a more speculative channel, while Instagram, Facebook or classical social media due to their control policies, remain less speculative and more adapted for self-promotion (Instagram) or education (Facebook, LinkedIn). Most of the time, these communities are structured around nonofficial media, in accordance with Granovetter (2016) weak tie theory. For most respondents, community participation is not strong and the attractiveness of each community is balanced by the will to remain free from influence. While NFT followers know that communities exist, probably understand how to become members, in the end most of them do not apply for membership:

Instead, if passion about NFTs is present, the involvement or engagement of most followers is best described as intermediate. They mostly display that they belong to the vast group of NFT lovers. Most interviewees are mostly connected to friends or family members who may have initiated them into the field of NFTs.

Obviously, some identity-related differences stem from differences between generations. The younger generations are more inclined to experiential and unique consumption, while older generations usually prefer more mundane consumption (Bhattacharjee and Mogilner, 2014; Xie et al., 2023). Still, we observe several intergenerational results as regards identity issues. To address our research questions on identity and NFTs, we explore further the following subjects: profile, emotions and identity issues of NFTs followers, NFTs extended-self and possessions, NFT communities as expression and support of identity, the rise of defiant financial digital society, two adverse approaches to conformity.

Our findings offer interesting insights to answer our research question. To address RQ1, emotions reflect sentiments toward NFTs and obstacles to their adoption and diffusion. Perceived emotions vary depending on the NFT aspects being analyzed. There is significant uncertainty and caution, stemming from their polysemic nature, their usefulness, their potential and security issues (Kshetri, 2022; Chohan and Paschen, 2023). Negative feelings often relate to speculation and hype, especially with untrustworthy communities. Joy is linked to the creative act and the possession or creation of something aesthetically and hedonically satisfying. NFTs are associated with freedom and the need to feel. Fear is born from anticipation, as interviewees see NFTs as a means of redefining themselves as innovative and hope these products, despite their issues, will bring benefits and changes in status: innovator, wealthy, expert acting. They are like the Pandora’s box: despite negative emotions attached to this new technology, if correctly used, there is hope in new digital world possibilities. Emotions triggered by NFTs, shaping their embedded values, highlight their importance and influence on their diffusion. Hope and freedom were two of most frequent terms among those who follow NFTs. It can be related to optimism about the future. Despite monetary and functional values, the apparent innovation, the desire to feel free and empowered, to share one’s discoveries, creations and have fun, recognitions, pleasure with others are other leading values emerged. It confirms the impact of technology on consumer imagination (Schau, 2018). These four affections attributes projected onto NFTs both reinforce followers’ personal identity and boost their social identity. Here NFTs adopters and purchasers act like an aspiration or reference group (Leonardelli et al., 2010; Merten et al., 2023). Such values can also justify the less positive economic and social landscape that is envisioned. NFTs followers may believe or feel NFTs support a very harsh and individualistic society, but it is the price to pay for innovation, modernity, freedom and the possibility to share achievements and moments with others. NFT followers do not reorient their identity to align with NFT. Instead, they search in NFTs what they perceived is missing to have an ideal identity: remaining a technophile, belonging to an elitist, prestigious or outsider group or simply functionality and monetary benefits. Basing on the different multidimensional definition of NFTs and connected values and perceptions, Figure 1 describes the matrix of the possible characteristics that could guide the different followers and the NFTs key profile dimensions as per Floch (1990) semiotic square. The presented semiotic quadrant relates directly to the theory of Floch (1990), who distinguishes four modes of valuing products and consumer choices. In the hedonistic and serious quadrant are the Idealists/Artists, who value symbolic expression, creativity and authenticity. In the hedonistic and playful quadrant emerge the Gamers, for whom value is linked to entertainment, sensory experience and lightness. On the functional and serious side are the Materialists, consumers oriented toward efficiency, practicality and durability for example in terms of the certification nature of NFTS. Finally, in the combination of the functional and playful we find the Speculators, who see consumer choices as opportunities for gain and strategic advantage. This structure highlights how different value types influence the way consumers perceive and choose products or brands, and how marketing strategies can adapt to each of these categories.

Nonetheless, NFT followers, and in this there is one of the main differences with buyers, may also try to escape the unfavorable aspects they perceive in the NFT markets (Rabaai et al., 2024), by not entering them and only observing events unfolding there, in very complex environments. To answer RQ2, NFTs followers share with NFTs purchasers or fans the interest or fascination for these objects and their environment. But with regard to sustainability nobody shows any major problems than the same as other high-polluting products. They give great importance to digital communities and projects allowed by Web 3.0. They appear to look for balance between purely financial goals and creative objectives. Obviously, followers share innovation, freedom and at large economic values conveyed by NFTs and cryptocurrencies with purchasers or fans (Yilmaz et al., 2023). But for Followers, NFTs appear less central in defining their identity. Specifically, they evoke or develop less structured identity projects. Their self-presentations are more limited. Their emotions toward NFTs are more contrasted between positive and negative feelings. Notably, they are concerned with the dark sides of communities developed around NFTs. It is unclear whether these perceptions explain their more limited engagement compared to fans and purchasers, or if their personality and personal journey make them inherently less inclined to fully immerse themselves in the NFT space.

The interplay between identity facets and following NFTs occurs in a renewed perception of economic and social relationships. One of the themes we identified: “Reconfiguration of the economic system,” relates to the goal of achieving a new order that does not rely on central authorities. It is mostly based on neoliberal and libertarian ideas of eviction of central banks and institutions from the government of money. Libertarian ideas promote the need for a very limited central state (Dhali et al., 2023). Through their connection with cryptos, NFTs are strongly associated to the free market or, more precisely, to the idea of economic free will. However, respondents do not explicitly identify who or what threatens this financial freedom within digital markets. At the same time, many express concerns about the lack of fair opportunities in traditional financial systems, believing that individual investors have limited prospects for profit compared to “initiates” – financial experts, industry gurus and corporate entities. According to this perspective, profitable opportunities in financial markets are primarily reserved for these insiders, who belong to the so-called dominant order. This skepticism toward traditional financial institutions fuels their confidence in NFT ecosystems.

Followers exhibit highly optimistic views of NFTs, particularly regarding their potential for security and authentication. Some interviewees even suggest that NFTs could authenticate life events, reinforcing a broader belief that we live in an increasingly individualistic world where trust is scarce beyond one’s close social circle. As a result, many NFT followers prefer to rely on proven systems – such as algorithms and blockchain ecosystems – rather than traditional human relationships when engaging in economic or social interactions. Despite recognizing the security challenges within NFT systems, followers emphasize the democratization of financial participation that NFTs facilitate. In theory, NFTs allow anyone to invest and potentially profit, regardless of social status or economic background. This opens up new possibilities for monetary innovation, but paradoxically, many of these innovations recycle traditional conservative financial structures rather than creating radically new ones.

Thus, while some followers see NFTs as part of a transformative economic shift, others remain skeptical about whether this emerging system is truly superior to the current one. The critical flaws of cryptocurrencies and NFT markets often remain unaddressed, and not all NFT followers are convinced that this “new order” will lead to a fairer financial system. In reality, this envisioned market structure does not yet exist, leaving its promises unfulfilled and its future uncertain.

In response to RQ4 regarding identity, while some NFT followers primarily focus on personal identity, most engage in a dialectical process of identity construction, using their association with NFTs as a mechanism of opposition or differentiation. Leonardelli et al. (2010) posit that individuals have two fundamental and competing needs: the need for inclusion and the need for differentiation. Our findings suggest that most NFT followers articulate social identity processes rather than emphasizing personal identity formation. NFTs support followers’ self-presentations and identity projects. Our evidence strongly supports the notion that the needs for inclusion and differentiation influence self-categorization. These needs shape perceptions and judgments of both the self and others, as well as the nature of intragroup and intergroup relations. For instance, the exclusivity of owning rare NFTs can enhance social status within a community while simultaneously fostering competition and distinctiveness among members. Understanding these dynamics provides deeper insights into the motivations behind NFTs acquisitions and the emerging social structures within digital communities. However, most NFTs projects remain relatively unstructured, revolving around traditional, materialistic aspirations. This is due either to the complexity of NFTs and their environment, which makes them difficult for consumers to navigate, or to the excessive breadth of meanings that NFTs can embody. Although we did not attempt to establish a strict typology of NFTs followers, a dialectical perspective helps distinguish two primary groups. The first related to NFT followers who develop identity through opposition try to present the profile of consumers not much subject to materialism and they define themselves by what they do not consume. They do not adopt NFTs to underline they are in control of their consumption: they do not succumb easily; thus, they stand out. The second relate to other group of followers use NFTs and their early adopters as an aspirational group (Inoue et al., 2019; Merten et al., 2023). Proximity to NFTs convey modernity, technology, high value, to help them differentiate from the average consumer. Both groups leverage materialism and its signifiers in their identity construction. In a world of gaseous identities (Timossi, 2020), simultaneously multiple identities fight and seek expression and opposition through multiple means. The individual now proceeds in his/her ongoing digital identity quest from the synergy of these dimensions. In the digital universe, the self can be liberated and find expression through a multiplicity of objects. It is possible to “truly” be oneself, acquire new facets and make personal idealizations real. Here, NFTs support individual identity expressions through two features: (a) their versatility allows for indefinite variations of individual expressions, (b) NFTs allow people to certify and capitalize their identities, thus giving them salience. In this frame, the low positive symbolic relevance and the frequently negative connotations associated to NFTs are potential obstacles to their purchase by followers. The mode of consumption influence consumer relationship, values, preferences and desires tied to products or services (Chen, 2009). Increasingly, consumption is driven by identity rather than ownership (Bauman, 2007; Belk, 2013), and the process is becoming more virtual. Contrary to Reed II et al. (2012), there remains a necessary distinction between the self and society, with a persistent need for a filter between personal identity and social identity (Dunn, 1997; Leonardelli et al., 2010).

At least two possible paths emerge from these evolving patterns of consumption. In recent years, the concept of ownership significantly evolved. The need for possession is questioned. Sharing and real access to products redesigned the way of using, paying and conceiving consumer objects (Eckhardt et al., 2019) and the way they contribute to the self. This shift also influences how possessions contribute to one’s sense of self. Digitalization has further attenuated the role of ownership while amplifying the role of shared experiences, commonalities, cocreation and reaffirmation. Belk et al. (2022, p. 203) refers to the concept of immaterialism “If we can become possessive, stingy, and envious when it comes to non-material things, we might more aptly call it immaterialism.” But maybe the adequate analysis revolves around the well-known “phygital society” (Vergine et al., 2019). Thus, we shall refer to “phygitalism,” a situation where digital and material are expressions of one and the same reality, and where measures of materialism find new redefinition in the light of the connected digital reality. Hence the centrality of acquisitions becomes the centrality of access. Possession-defined success and acquisition in pursuit of happiness remain, but recognition becomes more significant. This could correspond to the rise of a new conceptualization of materialism (Fox and Alldred, 2019), in which the most relevant of its three dimensions remain happiness and centrality. The alternative is to consider digital possessions are fully belonging to extended self, thus enriching and influencing one’s self concept. Consumption is usually aimed at satisfying the hedonic pursuit of pleasure, the desire for consumption remains and even negative emotions find recognition in this act as opposition and self-definition (Wilk, 1997). NFTs align with postmodern consumer culture, where the personalization of objects fuels identity complexity. Simply following NFTs can be enough to establish a new identity project, as NFTs provide convenient, ready-made identity components.

Identity is in a constant state of flux, uncertainties, breaking down and reassembling in response to new collections and identity projects. As NFTs are considered as conveying versatile meanings, they fully embrace a postmodern view or stance of identity and identity projects. Following some NFTs remain a commitment easy to stop and free of charge. Simultaneously, digital worlds endow us with a “digital body,” whose boundaries and appearance still escape us by lack of habit. It is not a coincidence that one respondent refers to NFTs as “tattoo.” What was identified for tattoos by Pentina and Spears (2011) can be applied to NFTs as they are the new tattoo of the digital world. So, to adopt NFTs, it is necessary to negotiate between private and public, social parts of self and above all between conformity and differentiation. The advantage of NFTs compared to tattoos is that they can be easily detached from oneself, and their meaning probably are more diverse. The tattoo-like aspects of NFTs also relate to authentication. This property supports a dual purpose: commercial and social. Commercial purpose of authentication helps to assess possession, notably digital or modern possession, simplifying psychological ownership. Social purpose helps people assess what we label as digital truth, i.e. offering a way to check if someone truly – or rather most presumably – participated to an event or is related to an object or to an event, helping this person to obtain prestige and recognition.

While questioning the authenticity of objects and events, and being defiant toward others in general, our respondents appear to rely significantly on communities to best navigate the complex NFTs’ markets. To answer RQ5, all NFTs followers rely significantly on NFTs’ communities to access educational material, to get information, discuss news and technical issues as share their tastes. Potentially, NFTs communities help proving and broadcasting followers’ identity. However, some communities hide toxic and potentially dangerous sides. Consequently, digital communities are in competition with circles of relatives and close friends as reference groups: today, the role of NFT communities in followers’ identity appear limited. Hence, psychological ownership does not seem to work at group level for NFT followers. As digital extensions of individuals, NFTs allow for the extended self to compose itself (Belk, 1989). Identity confirms itself with language. NFTs, as for emojis, compose a visual language useful to build one identity. The extended self may not, however, be shown to everyone, but it apparently finds value through conversations with other followers or those well-disposed toward Web 3.0 ecosystem. For some followers, NFT communities are classical consumer communities which offer them a status and a proof they are NFT followers. They contribute to identity construction (Kim and Manoli, 2023) and are often referring to an intimate sphere like family, team, group. Simultaneously, a majority of followers limit their interactions with the community to people they already know as friends or family, and listen to experts for advice. Here, it seems, digital involvement effectively precludes digital engagement. In addition, in communities, especially healthy and safe communities, there are never large enterprises or large interference by brands. Finally, online communities or networks that are created enable and facilitate the diffusion of a technology and its innovation when they are “safe/healthy communities” (Muller and Peres, 2019), there are in fact positive communities and fertile ground for constructive exchange and potentially more negative communities with some distortions. Distinguishing healthy communities from toxic ones is strategic. We are also moving toward a self-construction process that is more shared. People develop a “sharing self,” that will have elements in commons, shared, between the multiple identities and identity projects of an individual. A shared self-building process doesn’t mean that it is less individualistic. Today, in a collaborative economy (Ertz et al., 2022), where we are connected for personal and professional reasons, being part of a network that has its own logics has much more relevance. Algorithms in search engines influence how we are and how we are not. They help us hide some elements and highlight others. The social media we interact with and especially WhatsApp-like groups where we share, with peer groups mostly, what happens to us almost instantaneously and constantly appear on live streaming platforms (Zhou et al., 2022). Hence, NFT followers may prefer very close communities, mostly made of friends or relatives. As highlighted by Yilmaz et al. (2023), besides social dimensions, NFTs followers appear subject to several emotions, even if they do not necessarily acknowledge it.

The desire for conformity of NFTs followers also emerges. Most respondents interpret conformity today as trying to follow trendsetters by adopting NFTs. They want to be perceived as innovative or skillful traders in using, possessing or exchanging NFTs. These followers probably wait for the right opportunity or deeper knowledge of NFTs markets to cross the digital Rubicon. However, some interviewees opposed NFTs by wanting to affirm they are rational and not reckless in the expenditure of monetary resources, or in having other more traditional interests. Some appear disenchanted. And they do not want to be “just digital numbers” (Wang and Tucker, 2021). They will consider themselves responsible and cautious nonconsumers by not purchasing NFTs but only following them, such as the “not-me identities” expressed in Reed IIet al. (2012). Some features of NFTs markets can encourage them to be cautious. Notably, several NFT-based communities display worrying elements, and NFTs’ versatility of use restrains the possibility of giving them the label (Reed IIet al., 2012) that would enable them to be useful identity tools. More simply, being a NFT follower can be interpreted as a not being a consumer of NFTs (Thompson and Arsel, 2004; Leonardelli et al., 2010). From an identity point of view, it shows an individual exerts full control on his life as this individual did not succumb to the latest trend (as per Baudrillard view of the elitist consumer, 1970). Followers are different from fans and could potentially turn into adopters or the worst rivals of a new technology. Here, we can distinguish: followers who want to rebel and emphasize new forms of freedom; followers who are influenced by social movements, Very Important Persons or other famous or less famous artists and the desire to own a specific collection to signal belonging to a certain group; and those who do not want to be associated with this group as they remain satisfied with the present world values and its functioning, while not being necessarily nostalgic or traditionalist. The category most closely associated with the private person dimension is cultural symbolism. Interviews and projective analysis reveal that NFTs attract individuals drawn to fashion, social distinction and technological innovation. This aligns digital art with luxury goods, fueling a strong desire for possession (Sung et al., 2023). Unlike Xie and Muralidharan (2024), NFT buyers prioritize artists over brands. Consumption is driven both by desire and purpose-seeking.

When asked about representative NFTs, many cited Bored Apes, which reflect society – unique yet similar individuals navigating identity within fleeting communities (Bardhi and Eckhardt, 2017). They seek a future but remain trapped in instantaneity, risking obsolescence (Danaher, 2022). While NFTs symbolize individuality, they may also be linked to loneliness and mortality salience (Gobrecht and Marchand, 2023), serving as tools for self-affirmation and existential reassurance (Sedikides and Hart, 2022).

The research helped identify why some consumers follow NFTs and how they perceive and integrate them in their identity building and evolution process. These elements can help NFT marketing strategies in persuading NFTs followers to adopt them. What emerged was an interpretation and conceptualization of NFTs partly different from definitions in the literature and linked to the various perception and uses of NFTs especially on the side of fans (Lee et al., 2022; Vollero et al., 2025). For followers, NFTs are complex digital objects, sometimes too versatile to be safely purchased. NFTs communities and the economic ideology associated to NFTs contribute to this definition. Followers associate NFTs with values, emotions such as fear because of the uncertainty and disgust as a desire to distance oneself from NFTs’ world, and the expression of identity (Schau, 2018). The most enthusiastic followers expressed eagerness for freedom and search to reconfirm their status. Our respondents integrated some of the distinctive features of NFTs such as aesthetic refinement and uniqueness, as well as the desire to confirm themselves as innovators and bold experimenters. But they refrain themselves to purchase NFTs. Usefulness of NFTs appears as a less vivid issue, perhaps because of the reduced expendability of such tools to date. The metaverses might be the place where NFTs will be most used tomorrow, however it is not exclusive. These issues appear to hamper followers’ adoption as they induce three significant uncertainties: (i) NFT usages today are too versatile, and the market does not provide clarification. Followers envision many roles for NFTs: assets, contracts and certificates, tokens, collectibles, art objects or authentication tools. Confronted to a NFT, they like to understand first the NFT creator’s purpose, especially with marketing NFTs whose objectives maybe multiple. The related absence of a real, regulated market where NFTs can be used, narrows their perceived usefulness; (ii) Followers are much concerned with separating positive from negative or even toxic communities. This perception depends on the social media used, but overall, positive communities facilitate adoption by reducing perceived risks, encouraging collaboration, awareness and support from other members; (iii) NFTs are often linked to the theme of the de-financialization of the economy and the dream of more democratic markets. By comparison with Kozinets’ (2002) Burning Man participants, NFTs followers, like purchasers and users try to escape a market that they perceive as too unfavorable to them.

NFTs may provide individuals with identity supports whose meaning can evolve when their identity projects change, NFTs facilitate such projects, specifically their narrative. In this scope, the possibility to authenticate experience embedded in NFTs – thanks to blockchain – is of particular importance. Objects such as NFTs may contribute to an interpenetration of personal and social identity. At the moment, we cannot discern such a pattern. Identity theories need to adapt to both evolutions. Besides high-profile NFTs and economic value, our research uncovered other potential adoption levers: new materialism, distinctiveness and broadly speaking identity expression and development. NFTs are potential enablers of new digital skills that can be applied in different ways on the labor market and for creators to monetize and partly protect their works. But contrary to many claims, today they appear to many followers as adaptations or evolutions of the classical economic systems, generating disappointment among them. As regards self-concept and identity, NFTs give evidence to three transformations in motion: (a) development of a phygital identity, (b) an increasing role of a sharing identity building process (c) legitimization of systematic or at least frequent authentication.

But while these technologies open up new spaces for self-expression, they also impose a constant demand for self-definition. Identity today is no longer just liquid, as Bauman described, but unstable, gaseous, pressured by algorithms, expectations and the accelerated rhythms of digital life. The self becomes a project in permanent beta, shaped and reshaped through NFTs, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and performative platforms. These tools promise individuality, but often amplify stress. The need to maintain visibility, coherence and distinction across contexts can be exhausting. While tools like AI and NFTs promise individuality and creative freedom, they often amplify the pressure to remain coherent, distinctive and algorithmically relevant. In this landscape, the self is not just expressed but calculated, filtered and ranked. What emerges is not a more liberated self, but a more exposed and fatigued one. The demand for constant presence across fragmented publics, and the need to perform within systems of real-time evaluation, turn selfhood into a form of labor. Expression is continuous, but so is its cost. The individual is no longer simply becoming but always being measured. Yet, paradoxically, in scrolling through feeds and engaging with AI-curated content, NFTs, social media and algorithms, individuals often retreat into comfortable bubbles. These technologies simultaneously facilitate identity performance and lull to sleep the inherently fluid and “gaseous” nature of identity, compressing it into more stable, predictable forms. By offering reassurance through repetition and conformity, they both enable and constrain, shaping identities that feel safe but may lack genuine transformation or challenge. In this tension lies the complexity of digital identity today: a space of endless possibility shadowed by the comfort of predictability.

At a managerial level, this research provides insights for artists, business managers, marketplaces and organizations looking to use NFTs for promotion and certification strategies. Marketing strategies should aim to maximize traffic and visibility of NFTs and NFT galleries. To encourage adoption and purchase, the uses of NFTs must be clarified and brands should clearly state their objectives with NFTs to reduce their perceived versatility. Marketing managers must attenuate the uncertainties and fears by creating specific services and communities, and leveraging actions based on epistemic values and status seeking strategy. Industry labels can help users feel safer in unfamiliar NFT communities. The community manager plays a central role in maintaining online community safety. Regulation shall also be enforced to limit opportunistic, criminal and fraudulent activities, while reassuring genuine participants and facilitating cross-country exchanges. However, followers have ambiguous attitudes toward regulation, preferring market self-regulations like joint brand initiatives. Artists and creators can use to build direct relationships with their audience and support personal branding. Companies should highlight the economic benefits of such regulations, proving NFTs create a fairer market. Strategies must align with the brand and target audience, ensuring initiatives are genuine and not superficial. NFTs should be integrated into a chain of products and events to maintain customer loyalty. Collection of “authentic” experiences may be developed to certify experiences or moments in the life of consumers, hence assessing major elements of their identity and life. Associating NFTs with elaborate experiences can help followers develop stronger bonds with them. Strengthening brand reputation and transparency, reframing NFTs as complementary products, fostering partnerships and enhancing accessibility and functional benefits can help NFTs become valuable identity markers. Even skeptics who define themselves by not purchasing NFTs may be persuaded through these strategies. But taking always in mind that the choice to not consume is often “more frequent, more obtrusive, and more important in forming personal and social identity than choices to consume” (Wilk, 1997, p. 181). The follower phenomenon has a major impact not only on support on the field but also on marketing and commercialization, the present study highlights that if followers can be converted and remain loyal to a product, brand or artist, then it is the followers themselves whom managers must engage and persuade. Their support can be strategic for adoption – otherwise, no new technology will ever succeed in crossing the chasm.

From a theoretical standpoint, this research sheds light on NFTs, followers’ identity and the uncertainties facing them and the role of emotion on their adoption attitude. It contributes to the literature on identity based on objects perceived as essentially intangible and digital in nature and on identity construction process, toward a shared self-building process, but not without questioning dimensions such as individualism. With or without metaverses, phygitalism is taking shape with NFTs, changing the current dimensions of materialism and guiding us toward new research. NFTs authentication features can be used to certify experiences or moments in the life of consumers. But what is marketed, digital, authenticity for an individual, is there a genuine authenticity and a commercial one, is there a market for authenticity, these suggestions highlight both the inherent limitations of this study and directions for future research.

The semiotic square presented, grounded in Floch’s (1990) framework, delineates distinct consumer value orientations – hedonic vs functional and fun vs serious – each carrying theoretical and managerial implications. Theoretically, it refines consumer behavior models by integrating symbolic, pragmatic and experiential dimensions. Managerially, it informs segmentation strategies, guiding tailored branding and communication efforts.

Despite its contributions, this paper suffers from several limitations.

Sample was not representative of the NFT population. Interviews could include other countries where NFTs markets are active, notably the USA, China, Japan or Brazil to better explore the phenomena we observed and concentrate on different type of NFT interests as the role of detractor or firms-user relationships. Future research will have to better investigate NFTs followers and NFT communities using quantitative or experimental methods and conduct them in other areas or in different cultures. Adopting mixed methods as ethnographic or netnographic analyses could be valuable to study communities and identity construction in physical and digital dimension. Longitudinal studies could investigate the flow of a new technology.

Beyond the obvious development of an adoption model adapted to NFTs, further research could investigate their diffusion and impact of other dimensions such as emotions, extroversion and other constructs, e.g. individualism and collectivism, materialism.

Future research could explore how the digital creation, through NFTs or other technologies, could be certified and exchanged. On the consumer side future research must investigate how consumer use and navigate through multiple identities, the impact on their wellbeing, health and revenue opportunities. Conversely, with near immortality of data, or perenniality, consumers will have to thoroughly curate their digital identity, a task that is completely new to them, as the impact of sustainability could change NFTs use.

Another interesting research opportunity revolves around the concept of transience and the role of self-verification themes and all the negative sides underlined such as loneliness and narcissism. Creation and management of digital memories by consumers, their possible individual legacy strategies for next generation are to be investigated. For NFT followers, potentialities of NFT for self-concept and creation are contradicted by the rising defiance toward institutions and people. Hence, the path for marketing NFTs to a majority of consumers appears narrow and treacherous. Defiance issues, the frustration they create, must be understood as it may escalate and create frictions in the marketing and economic spheres overall, opening new ways a to the study of the financial investor behavior and entrepreneurial opportunities.

We are never quite ready for change. However, knowing them and learning how to use and manage remain crucial.

This study has not been published anywhere else and it is not under consideration by another journal. All study participants approved the manuscript and agree with the submission.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.