Blockchain Architecture and Software Design Focused on NFTs

The rapid evolution of blockchain technology has enabled groundbreaking innovations in digital ownership, with Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) emerging as a disruptive force in multiple industries. Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are fungible and interchangeable, NFTs represent unique assets that are verifiable on a blockchain. This distinct characteristic has fueled the adoption of NFTs in areas like digital art, gaming, music, real estate and intellectual property [1,2]. However, while NFTs have gained significant traction, the underlying blockchain infrastructure must address critical challenges related to scalability, transaction costs, security vulnerabilities and interoperability across different networks.

Scalability remains a primary concern, as high network congestion on major blockchain platforms, such as Ethereum, results in increased transaction fees and slower processing times. Layer-1 blockchains, including Ethereum, Solana and Flow, have developed unique solutions to optimize NFT transactions, yet each comes with trade-offs regarding decentralization, security and cost efficiency. Additionally, Layer-2 solutions and sidechains, such as Polygon and Immutable X, aim to alleviate these issues by offering faster, low-cost alternatives. Understanding the comparative advantages and limitations of these architectures is crucial for building efficient and sustainable NFT platforms [3,4].

Beyond blockchain scalability, software design plays a pivotal role in the functionality and user experience of NFT platforms. From smart contract development to frontend integration, software design patterns influence the security, efficiency and adaptability of NFT marketplaces [5]. Security risks such as re-entrancy attacks, metadata manipulation and phishing scams necessitate robust development strategies, including gas optimization techniques, proxy contract implementation for upgradeability and decentralized storage solutions like IPFS. Furthermore, wallet integration and indexing solutions, such as The Graph, ensure seamless user interactions and efficient metadata retrieval, enhancing the overall usability of NFT platforms [6].

As the NFT ecosystem continues to expand, research into novel blockchain architectures and software design methodologies is essential to overcome existing limitations and drive further innovation. This paper aims to provide compressive blockchain architectures and software design patterns tailored to NFT platforms [7]. By exploring the current landscape, identifying key challenges and discussing emerging technologies.

Blockchain technology provides the foundational infrastructure that enables the creation, transfer and verification of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), ensuring decentralization, immutability and trustless verification of ownership. NFTs, as unique digital assets, are supported by a wide range of blockchain architecture, standards and smart contract ecosystems.

This section presents a technical overview of the fundamental blockchain components that underpin NFT functionality, including consensus mechanisms, token standards, smart contracts and decentralized storage. It also outlines the comparative analysis of leading NFT-compatible platforms and emerging design patterns in Decentralized Applications (dApps).

Blockchain consensus mechanism

At the core of any blockchain architecture is the consensus mechanism, which ensures agreement across distributed nodes. NFT-enabled blockchains have adopted a variety of consensus models, each influencing scalability, security and decentralization.

Proof of Work (PoW) was the initial consensus model for Ethereum, inherited from Bitcoin. PoW achieves consensus through energy-intensive computational work, offering strong security guarantees at the cost of performance and sustainability [8]. As NFT activity surged on PoW-based Ethereum, limitations such as network congestion and high gas fees became significant barriers to scalability [1].

To address these issues, Proof of Stake (PoS) emerged as a scalable and energy-efficient alternative. Networks such as Ethereum 2.0, Solana and Cardano implement PoS by requiring validators to stake tokens as collateral. This reduces the environmental impact and facilitates faster block finality, enhancing the viability of NFT marketplaces [9].

Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) further optimizes performance by introducing governance: token holders elect a fixed number of validators. This is implemented in platforms like EOS and Flow, where transaction throughput is prioritized without entirely compromising decentralization [10]. Each consensus model reflects trade-offs along the blockchain trilemma of decentralization, security and scalability and the choice of mechanism profoundly affects the design and performance of NFT platforms.

Smart contracts and token standards

Smart contracts autonomous programs deployed on blockchains facilitate NFT minting, ownership transfers and royalty disbursement without intermediaries. On Ethereum and EVMcompatible chains, smart contracts are written primarily in Solidity, incorporating logic for compliance with token standards. The ERC- 721 standard introduced the concept of unique, indivisible tokens. Each ERC-721 token contains a unique identifier and metadata, making it ideal for representing art, collectibles and gaming assets [11]. The ERC-1155 standard extends this by allowing the management of both fungible and non-fungible tokens within a single contract, enabling batch operations and reducing gas costs a significant advancement for high-volume applications [12]. Beyond Ethereum, alternative standards have emerged: SPL tokens on Solana, FA2 on Tezos and dGoods on EOS. These standards cater to the architectural nuances of their respective chains, such as higher throughput or native support for composability and are increasingly adopted in performance-sensitive NFT applications [3]. NFTs are not just token identifiers but carriers of provenance and rights. The combination of smart contracts and token standards allows programmable logic for royalty enforcement, access control and lifecycle management, ensuring a secure and flexible asset model.

Decentralized storage and metadata integrity

While blockchains are suitable for recording ownership, storing large media files directly on-chain is impractical. Consequently, NFT metadata such as image URLs, audio or 3D models is typically stored off-chain using decentralized storage systems like IPFS (InterPlanetary File System) or Filecoin. IPFS assigns a contentaddressed hash to every file, ensuring integrity and resistance to tampering [13]. However, off-chain storage introduces challenges. If a file is hosted only temporarily or through centralized gateways, the NFT risks becoming a “dead link.” To mitigate this, solutions such as Arweave offer permanent data storage models, while Metadata pinning services (e.g., Pinata) provide content persistence [14]. Maintaining this metadata integrity is essential to uphold the value and functionality of NFTs.

NFT applications across ecosystems

NFTs have redefined digital ownership and monetization across diverse industries:
Digital art: Marketplaces like OpenSea and SuperRare allow artists to mint and sell NFTs directly, embedding royalty logic into smart contracts to guarantee compensation for secondary sales [2].
Gaming: Games like Axie Infinity and Decentraland tokenize characters, land and assets, enabling cross-platform asset ownership and novel monetization models. These ecosystems leverage fast, cost-effective chains such as Ronin (for Axie) and Polygon for scalability [15].
DeFi integration: NFTs are used as collateral in decentralized finance platforms, enabling NFT-backed loans and fractional ownership models. Protocols like NFTfi and Arcade exemplify this convergence of DeFi and NFTs [16].
Identity and certification: NFTs are being explored for digital identity, certifications and IP protection. Academic institutions and content creators are issuing NFT-based certificates to ensure authenticity and verifiability [17].

The combination of blockchain fundamentals and NFT standards continues to evolve, addressing scalability, sustainability and interoperability challenges to foster a more efficient and inclusive digital economy.

NFT platform architectures: Categories and design context

The emergence of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) as a transformative digital asset class has spurred the development of blockchain architectures specifically optimized for NFT issuance, trading and long-term asset storage. Across the rapidly evolving ecosystem, platforms differentiate themselves through variations in consensus algorithms, scalability mechanisms, transaction cost structures, developer tooling and support for composable smart contracts.

Among Layer-1 blockchains, Ethereum remains the dominant platform due to its pioneering role in defining NFT standards (ERC-721 and ERC-1155), its extensive developer ecosystem and robust support for decentralized applications. However, limitations in scalability and high gas fees have prompted the transition to Ethereum 2.0 and the growing adoption of Layer-2 solutions [18].

Other Layer-1 platforms, such as Solana and Flow, have introduced novel architectural paradigms aimed at improving performance for NFT-specific use cases. Solana’s hybrid Proof-of- History (PoH) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus model enables high transaction throughput and low latency, making it attractive for applications requiring real-time interaction, despite occasional concerns about stability and decentralization [19]. Flow, developed by Dapper Labs, implements a multi-role node architecture and leverages Cadence, a resource-oriented programming language designed for digital asset management, although its unique programming model introduces a steeper learning curve [20].

To address Ethereum’s scalability challenges while maintaining compatibility with its virtual machine, a growing number of Layer-2 and sidechain solutions have emerged. Polygon, for instance, aggregates technologies such as Plasma, optimistic rollups and zero-knowledge rollups, offering a versatile framework for building scalable NFT applications with lower transaction costs [12]. Similarly, Immutable X leverages zk-rollup technology to enable gas-free minting and trading of NFTs, offering an efficient and environmentally sustainable alternative for high-frequency applications such as digital collectibles and gaming [21].

In sum, the selection of a blockchain platform for NFT development must balance trade-offs between scalability, decentralization, security and ecosystem maturity. The following sections provide a deeper analysis of Layer-1 and Layer-2 solutions, as well as interoperability and alternative architectures, to inform platform selection for NFT-focused software systems.

The design and deployment of NFT platforms are closely linked to the characteristics of the underlying blockchain architecture. As NFTs gain traction across various sectors such as digital art, gaming and decentralized finance, choosing the appropriate blockchain infrastructure becomes critical. This section provides an in-depth analysis of Layer-1 and Layer-2 solutions, alongside interoperability technologies, focusing on their implications for scalability, decentralization and security.

Layer-1 blockchains for NFTs

Layer-1 blockchains are foundational distributed ledger systems responsible for transaction validation and consensus. These include Ethereum, Solana and Flow each offering distinct architectural paradigms tailored to NFT use cases.

Ethereum remains the most widely adopted platform for NFTs, supported by a mature ecosystem and strong developer tools. Its standards, ERC-721 and ERC-1155, serve as foundational protocols for NFT issuance and interoperability [11]. However, Ethereum’s original Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus faced criticism for high energy consumption and limited throughput. With the transition to Ethereum 2.0 and adoption of Proof-of-Stake (PoS), improvements in scalability and sustainability have been realized [18]. Nevertheless, high gas fees and network congestion continue to affect NFT minting and trading activities, prompting the need for complementary Layer-2 solutions.

Solana introduces a hybrid consensus model combining Proofof- History (PoH) with PoS to achieve high throughput reportedly up to 65,000 Transactions Per Second (TPS) and low latency. The Solana Program Library (SPL) facilitates NFT development, enabling seamless minting and marketplace integration. Despite its performance advantages, concerns remain regarding its decentralization and vulnerability to network outages [19].

Solana introduces a hybrid consensus model combining Proofof- History (PoH) with PoS to achieve high throughput reportedly up to 65,000 Transactions Per Second (TPS) and low latency. The Solana Program Library (SPL) facilitates NFT development, enabling seamless minting and marketplace integration. Despite its performance advantages, concerns remain regarding its decentralization and vulnerability to network outages [19].

Flow, developed by Dapper Labs, was explicitly engineered for NFT centric applications. Its multi-node architecture decouples consensus, verification and execution functions to optimize scalability without compromising security. Cadence, its resourceoriented programming language, provides first-class support for digital ownership and composability [20]. Flow has powered successful NFT platforms such as NBA Top Shot, demonstrating its application-specific design benefits.

Layer-2 solutions and sidechains

To address Ethereum’s scalability limitations, a suite of Layer-2 solutions and sidechains has emerged. These off-chain or semioff- chain technologies process transactions separately from the Ethereum mainnet, significantly reducing fees and increasing throughput.

Polygon is a sidechain compatible with Ethereum that leverages technologies like Plasma and zk-rollups. It supports EVM-based smart contracts, enabling developers to port existing NFT projects with minimal friction. Polygon’s adoption in NFT-heavy applications like The Sandbox and Decentraland illustrates its cost-effectiveness and usability [12]. See Table 1.

Table 1:Comparative analysis of NFT-compatible blockchain platforms.

Immutable X is a Layer-2 protocol employing zk-rollups for gasfree NFT transactions. Built specifically for NFTs, it enables scalable, environmentally sustainable trading while inheriting Ethereum’s security guarantees. Its API-first design simplifies integration for marketplaces and games [21].

Arbitrum, another Layer-2 rollup solution, focuses on generalpurpose smart contract scalability with EVM compatibility. While not designed exclusively for NFTs, its low-cost transaction processing offers a viable alternative for NFT applications requiring smart contract complexity.

The trade-offs between Layer-1 and Layer-2 solutions typically revolve around the blockchain trilemma: scalability, security and decentralization. Layer-2s optimize for scalability but may introduce additional complexity in state verification and user onboarding.

Interoperability solutions

As NFT ecosystems expand across multiple blockchains, interoperability has become a pivotal concern. Achieving seamless cross-chain interactions is essential for asset liquidity, composability and user accessibility.

Cross-chain bridges such as Polkadot and Cosmos aim to connect disparate blockchains through shared security models and interoperability protocols. Polkadot employs a relay chain and parachains architecture, allowing for cross-chain messaging and asset transfers. Cosmos uses the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol to enable token movement between heterogeneous chains.

Wrapped NFTs represent assets from one chain to another by locking the original asset in a smart contract and issuing a synthetic counterpart. While this facilitates cross-chain access, it introduces custodial and security risks.

Standards like ERC-721 and ERC-1155 are increasingly being extended or mirrored on other blockchains (e.g., Solana’s Metaplex or Tezos’ FA2), fostering partial interoperability at the protocol level. Further innovations such as cross-chain messaging protocols and zero-knowledge proofs are being explored to ensure trustless verification of ownership across networks [22].

In conclusion, selecting blockchain architecture for NFT deployment requires a nuanced understanding of trade-offs in scalability, decentralization and interoperability. Layer-1 platforms offer robust security and composability, while Layer-2 solutions address cost and speed. Interoperability remains an evolving frontier, crucial for the maturation of a multichain NFT ecosystem.

Alternative architectures

Beyond traditional blockchain structures, alternative architectures are emerging to address the limitations of conventional Layer-1 and Layer-2 platforms. One such architecture is the Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), as exemplified by Hedera Hashgraph.

DAG-based systems replace linear blockchains with a graph of transactions that can be processed in parallel, enabling high throughput and low latency. Hedera Hashgraph, in particular, utilizes a virtual voting and gossip protocol to achieve consensus, making it capable of handling thousands of transactions per second with minimal energy consumption. This efficiency and deterministic finality make DAG-based systems promising for NFT applications that demand high-frequency trading and microtransactions.

Another alternative is represented by hybrid architectures like Polkadot, which combines features of both Layer-1 and Layer-2 paradigms. Polkadot introduces the concept of parachains independent blockchains that operate in parallel and communicate through a central relay chain.

This architecture allows for custom optimization of each parachain based on its intended use case, such as NFT minting, trading or metadata storage. The relay chain provides shared security and interoperability, ensuring that NFT assets can move seamlessly across parachains while maintaining trust. This modularity offers a scalable solution that balances specialization with a cohesive ecosystem.

These alternative architectures highlight a broader trend toward modular and scalable infrastructure in the NFT ecosystem. While adoption is still emerging, these models present new opportunities to resolve persistent issues of congestion, cost, and interoperability. As NFT use cases expand beyond digital art into more complex domains such as identity management and decentralized finance, these architectures may provide the necessary technological foundation for next generation NFT platforms.

In Table 2. Summarize and compare leading blockchain platforms and architectural approaches for NFT deployment, focusing on scalability, interoperability and security. The table below categorizes technologies into Layer-1, Layer-2, interoperabilityfocused and alternative architectures.”

Table 2:Summary of blockchain architectures for NFTs.

The development of Non-Fungible Token (NFT) platforms requires a sophisticated understanding of blockchain architecture, coupled with the implementation of efficient software design patterns. In this section, we delve into the critical aspects of smart contract design, backend and frontend considerations, and essential security mechanisms that ensure the functionality, scalability and safety of NFT ecosystems.

Smart contract design for NFTs

Smart contracts are the backbone of NFT platforms, enabling decentralized ownership and interaction without the need for intermediaries. The design of these contracts demands best practices to ensure both efficiency and security. One of the key components in smart contract development is gas optimization. Gas costs are a crucial consideration on platforms like Ethereum, where each transaction requires a fee for processing. Optimizing gas usage ensures that transactions are executed more efficiently and costeffectively. Techniques such as minimizing state changes, using mappings instead of arrays and utilizing efficient algorithms for storage access are standard practices for reducing gas consumption.

Additionally, upgradeability is an essential design consideration for NFTs. Due to the immutable nature of blockchain, once a smart contract is deployed, it cannot be modified. However, NFT platforms often require updates and improvements to stay competitive. The Proxy Pattern allows for smart contracts to be updated by routing transactions to a separate, upgradable contract, ensuring that the core contract logic remains upgradeable without losing data (Liu & Wang, 2020). The Diamond Standard is another approach for handling upgradeability. This pattern allows for multiple contract facets to be upgraded independently, offering a more flexible solution to contract management. Ensuring that these contracts are secure is paramount. Common vulnerabilities like reentrancy attacks, where malicious actors exploit a contract’s call function to steal funds and overflow errors, which can lead to unintended behaviors, must be mitigated through rigorous validation and checks during development.

Backend and frontend considerations

Beyond smart contract development, the backend and frontend architecture of NFT platforms must also be designed with scalability and usability in mind. On the backend, indexing solutions like The Graph provide a powerful tool for querying blockchain data in a decentralized way. The Graph allows for efficient retrieval of NFT metadata, transactions and other critical information, enabling the development of fast and responsive dApps. By indexing blockchain data, developers can avoid the need to directly query the blockchain every time a user interacts with an NFT, reducing delays and improving the overall performance of platform [23].

Wallet integration is another critical aspect of NFT platforms. Wallets like MetaMask and Wallet Connect provide users with a way to interact securely with the blockchain without exposing their private keys. These tools enable users to connect their cryptocurrency wallets to NFT platforms, facilitating seamless transactions.

MetaMask, as one of the most widely adopted Ethereumbased wallets, is often the go-to solution for users engaging with NFT marketplaces. By supporting standard interfaces like Web3.js, these wallets help developers create a smooth interaction between the frontend and the blockchain [24]. As NFT platforms grow in popularity, ensuring seamless wallet integration becomes crucial for user adoption and experience.

Security and anti-fraud mechanisms

Security is an overarching concern in the development of NFT platforms, particularly due to the irreversible and immutable nature of blockchain transactions. The decentralized nature of these platforms means that once assets are transferred, they cannot be retrieved unless the platform implements strong anti-fraud measures. One common vulnerability is reentrancy attacks, which can occur when an attacker exploits a vulnerability in the contract to perform unauthorized actions, such as withdrawing funds multiple times. Preventative measures include the use of checkseffects- interactions patterns and ensuring that external calls are minimized in the contract code [17].

Phishing is another significant threat, as users may be tricked into revealing their private keys or approving malicious transactions. To combat this, NFT platforms must adopt antiphishing mechanisms, such as alerting users to suspicious URLs or offering educational content on identifying fraudulent activity. These mechanisms can be enhanced through collaboration with cybersecurity experts to create robust user verification systems.

Finally, oracles are integral to the functioning of dynamic NFTs, which are NFTs whose attributes change over time based on real-world data or events. Oracles provide external data to smart contracts, allowing them to react to real-world conditions, such as sports scores or weather changes. However, ensuring the reliability and security of oracles is critical, as unreliable data could lead to inconsistencies or malicious manipulation of dynamic NFTs. To mitigate these risks, it is essential to utilize trusted oracle services that offer multiple data sources and decentralized verification [25].

A project of this type implements a comprehensive testing strategy that covers multiple levels, with special emphasis on the security and reliability required for Blockchain platforms. It consists of the following items [26]:

Component-based testing approach Smart contracts (high criticality):

A. Exhaustive unit tests for minting and transfer contracts with a minimum coverage of 95%.
B. Verification of correct ownership assignment and metadata management.
C. Validation of transfer and royalty distribution functions.
D. Specialized audit for vulnerability detection.
E. Tools: Truffle, MythX [27].

Backend (high criticality):

a) Integration tests for authentication and user management services.
b) Validation of endpoints for registration, login, and session management.
c) Verification of integrity in IPFS metadata storage and retrieval.
d) Tools: Jest, Mocha, Chai, Postman.

Frontend web and mobile (medium-high criticality):

A. E2E tests for critical flows such as NFT purchasing.
B. Validation of collection display and rendering.
C. Responsive design and resource optimization testing.
D. Tools: Cypress, Flutter Test [28].

Types of tests implemented

a) Unit Tests: Verification of isolated components, triggered on each commit.
b) Integration Tests: Validation of interaction between components using Cypress and Postman [29,30].
c) E2E Tests: Simulation of complete user flows, triggered upon promotion to staging.
d) Contract Tests: Specific verification of smart contracts in simulated environments.
e) Performance Tests: Analysis of behavior under load using JMeter, scheduled weekly.
f) Static Analysis: Verification of coding standards and vulnerability detection using ESLint.
g) Security Tests: Threat detection using OWASP ZAP and specific audits for Blockchain.

Established coverage levels

The coverage levels established within the framework of a Component Testing Approach refer to the different metrics used to measure the comprehensiveness of the tests carried out at the level of individual components of a software. The main purpose of these levels is to determine which parts of the component code have been exercised by testing and therefore identify areas that might not have been adequately tested [31,32]. The following are suggested data (Table 3):

Table 3:Coverage levels established within the framework of a component testing approach.

User experience testing

This should consider the following:
A. Usability evaluation with representative user groups (artists and buyers).
B. Analysis of critical interfaces such as wallet connection and minting processes.
C. Validation of clarity in transaction signing requests.
D. Experience testing under intermittent connection conditions for the mobile app.

The testing strategy must be fully integrated with the development process through an automated CI/CD pipeline, ensuring early detection of issues and maintaining high quality standards, particularly important in a system handling valuable digital assets in a blockchain environment.

Scalability

Definition: Scalability addresses the ability of the underlying blockchain network to handle a large volume of NFT transactions (minting, trading, transferring) quickly and affordably [33,34].
Challenge: Many popular blockchains (historically Ethereum) face congestion when NFT activity surges. This leads to slow transaction confirmation times and extremely high transaction fees (often called “gas fees”), making NFTs expensive and frustrating to use, especially for lower-value items or high-frequency actions.

Future direction/solutions (sharding & rollups):

A. Sharding: This is a database partitioning technique applied to blockchains. It involves splitting the network’s data and transaction processing load across multiple smaller, parallel chains (“shards”). The idea is that by processing transactions concurrently on different shards, the overall capacity (throughput) of the network increases significantly, reducing congestion and fees. Ethereum is implementing forms of sharding as part of its ongoing upgrades.
B. Rollups (Layer 2 scaling): These are solutions built “on top” of the main blockchain (Layer 1). They bundle or “roll up” hundreds of transactions off-chain, process them efficiently and then post a compressed summary or proof back to the main chain. This drastically reduces the data load and computational burden on Layer 1, leading to much lower fees and faster transaction speeds for users interacting with the rollup. Examples include Optimistic Rollups (like Optimism, Arbitrum) and Zero-Knowledge Rollups (like zkSync, StarkNet).
Goal: To make NFT interactions seamless, fast and cheap, regardless of network activity levels.

Interoperability

Definition: Interoperability refers to the ability of different blockchain networks to communicate and interact with each other, allowing assets like NFTs to be recognized, transferred or used across multiple chains.
Challenge: Currently, most NFTs are “siloed” on the blockchain where they were minted (e.g., an Ethereum NFT isn’t easily usable on Solana). This fragmentation limits an NFT’s utility, reach and potential value and complicates the user experience.

Future direction/solutions (cross-chain NFT standards & protocols):

a) Cross-chain NFT standards: Developing common technical standards or protocols that define how NFTs should be represented and transferred between different blockchains.
This would allow wallets, marketplaces, and applications on different chains to understand and interact with the same NFT. b) Protocols like CCIP & wormhole: These are examples of cross-chain messaging and interoperability protocols.
c) CCIP (Chainlink cross-chain interoperability protocol): Aims to provide a secure way for smart contracts on one chain to communicate, send messages, and initiate transactions (including token/NFT transfers) on another chain.
d) Wormhole: A generic messaging protocol that connects various high value blockchains, enabling the transfer of data and assets (including NFTs, often by “locking” the original on one chain and “minting” a representation on another) across them.
Goal: To create a seamless “internet blockchains” where NFTs can move and be utilized freely across different ecosystems, enhancing their value and user experience.

Sustainability

Definition: Sustainability in the NFT context primarily concerns the environmental impact, specifically the energy consumption, associated with the blockchain networks NFTs rely on [35].
Challenge: Early and prominent blockchains like Bitcoin and (until September 2022) Ethereum used Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanisms. PoW requires vast amounts of electricity for “mining” (validating transactions and securing the network), leading to significant carbon footprint concerns and public criticism directed at NFTs minted on these chains.

Future direction/solutions (energy-efficient consensus):

A. Shift to Proof-of-Stake (PoS): This is the primary solution being adopted. PoS relies on validators “staking” their own cryptocurrency as collateral to validate transactions. It does not involve energy-intensive computation like PoW. Ethereum’s transition (“The Merge”) to PoS dramatically reduced its energy consumption (by ~99.95%). Many newer blockchains are built on PoS or similar efficient mechanisms from the start. B. Other efficient mechanisms: Exploration and use of other consensus protocols that are inherently less energy-intensive than PoW. Goal: To ensure that the creation and trading of NFTs occur on blockchain infrastructure that is environmentally friendly and energy-efficient, addressing public concerns and aligning with broader sustainability goals.