Skip to main content

Why 96% of Brand NFT Projects Failed—And What the Survivors Did Differently

· 10 min read
Dora Noda
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

Nike just quietly sold RTFKT in December 2025. Starbucks shut down Odyssey in March 2024. Porsche had to halt its 911 NFT mint after selling only 2,363 of 7,500 tokens. Meanwhile, Nike now faces a class-action lawsuit from NFT purchasers seeking over $5 million in damages.

These aren't fly-by-night crypto projects. These are some of the world's most sophisticated brands, with billions in marketing budgets and armies of consultants. And yet, according to recent data, 96% of NFT projects are now considered dead, with only 0.2% of 2024 drops generating any profit for their holders.

What went wrong? And more importantly, what did the handful of winners—like Pudgy Penguins now in Walmart stores or Lufthansa's loyalty-integrated NFTs—figure out that the giants missed?

The Carnage: How Bad Did It Get?​

The numbers are staggering. Research from late 2024 reveals that 98% of NFTs launched that year failed to deliver profits, with 84% never exceeding their mint price. The average lifespan of an NFT project is now just 1.14 years—2.5 times shorter than traditional crypto projects.

The NFT market lost over $12 billion from its April 2022 peak. Daily sales volume has collapsed from billions during the 2021-2022 boom to around $4 million. Supply has completely overwhelmed demand, with an average of 3,635 new NFT collections created monthly.

For brands specifically, the pattern was consistent: hype-driven launches, initial sellouts, declining engagement, then quiet shutdowns. The graveyard includes:

  • Nike RTFKT: $1.5 billion in trading volume, now sold off and facing securities lawsuits
  • Starbucks Odyssey: 18 months of operation, $200,000 in sales, then shuttered
  • Porsche 911: Mint halted mid-sale after community backlash over "low effort" and "tone deaf" pricing

Even the projects that generated revenue often created more problems than they solved. Nike's RTFKT NFTs stopped displaying images correctly after the shutdown announcement, rendering the digital assets essentially worthless. The proposed class action argues these NFTs were unregistered securities sold without SEC approval.

Autopsy of a Failure: What Brands Got Wrong​

1. Extraction Before Value Creation​

The most consistent criticism across failed brand NFT projects was the perception of cash grabs. Dave Krugman, artist and founder of NFT creative agency Allships, captured the issue perfectly when analyzing Porsche's botched launch:

"When you begin your journey in this space by extracting millions of dollars from the community, you are setting impossibly high expectations, cutting out 99% of market participants and overvaluing your assets before you have proven you can back up their valuation."

Porsche minted at 0.911 ETH (roughly $1,420 at the time)—a price point that excluded most Web3 natives while offering nothing beyond aesthetic appeal. The community called it "tone deaf" and "low effort." Sales stalled. The mint was halted.

Compare this to successful Web3-native projects that started with free mints or low prices, building value through community engagement before monetization. The order of operations matters: community first, extraction later.

2. Complexity Without Compelling Utility​

Starbucks Odyssey exemplified this failure mode. The program required users to navigate Web3 concepts, complete "journeys" for digital badges, and engage with blockchain infrastructure—all for rewards that didn't significantly outperform the existing Starbucks Rewards program.

As industry observers noted: "Most customers didn't want to 'go on a journey' for a collectible badge. They wanted $1 off their Frappuccino."

The Web3 layer added friction without adding proportional value. Users had to learn new concepts, navigate new interfaces, and trust new systems. The payoff? Badges and experiences that, while novel, couldn't compete with the simplicity of existing loyalty mechanics.

3. Treating NFTs as Products Instead of Relationships​

Nike's approach with RTFKT showed how even sophisticated execution can fail when the underlying model is wrong. RTFKT was genuinely innovative—CloneX avatars with Takashi Murakami, Cryptokicks iRL smart sneakers with auto-lacing and customizable lights, over $1.5 billion in trading volume.

But ultimately, Nike treated RTFKT as a product line rather than a community relationship. When the NFT market cooled and new CEO Elliott Hill's "Win Now" strategy prioritized core athletic products, RTFKT became expendable. The shutdown announcement broke image links for existing NFTs, destroying holder value overnight.

The lesson: if your NFT strategy can be shut down by a quarterly earnings call, you've built a product, not a community. And products depreciate.

4. Timing the Hype Cycle Wrong​

Starbucks launched Odyssey in December 2022, just as NFT valuations had already plummeted from their early-2022 peaks. By the time the program reached the public, the speculative energy that drove early NFT adoption had largely dissipated.

The brutal irony: brands spent 12-18 months planning and building their Web3 strategies, only to launch into a market that had fundamentally changed during their development cycles. Enterprise planning timelines don't match crypto market velocities.

The Survivors: What Winners Did Differently​

Pudgy Penguins: Physical-Digital Integration Done Right​

While most brand NFT projects collapsed, Pudgy Penguins—a Web3-native project—achieved what the giants couldn't: mainstream retail distribution.

Their strategy inverted the typical brand approach:

  1. Start digital, expand physical: Rather than forcing existing customers into Web3, they brought Web3 value to physical retail
  2. Accessible price points: Pudgy Toys in Walmart stores let anyone participate, not just crypto-natives
  3. Gaming integration: Pudgy World on zkSync Era created ongoing engagement beyond speculation
  4. Community ownership: Holders felt like co-owners, not customers

The result? Pudgy Penguins was one of the only NFT collections to see sales growth into 2025, while virtually everything else declined.

Lufthansa Uptrip: NFTs as Invisible Infrastructure​

Lufthansa's approach represents perhaps the most sustainable model for brand NFTs: make the blockchain invisible.

Their Uptrip loyalty program uses NFTs as trading cards themed around aircraft and destinations. Complete collections, and you unlock airport lounge access and redeemable airline miles. The blockchain infrastructure enables the trading and collecting mechanics, but users don't need to understand or interact with it directly.

Key differences from failed approaches:

  • Real utility: Lounge access and miles have tangible, understood value
  • No upfront cost: Users earn cards through flying, not purchasing
  • Invisible complexity: The NFT layer enables features without requiring user education
  • Integration with existing behavior: Collecting enhances the flying experience rather than requiring new habits

Hugo Boss XP: Tokenized Loyalty Without the NFT Branding​

Hugo Boss's May 2024 launch of "HUGO BOSS XP" demonstrated another survival strategy: use blockchain technology without calling it NFTs.

The program centers on their customer app as a tokenized loyalty experience. The blockchain enables features like transferable rewards and transparent point tracking, but the marketing never mentions NFTs, blockchain, or Web3. It's just a better loyalty program.

This approach sidesteps the baggage that NFT terminology now carries—associations with speculation, scams, and worthless JPEGs. The technology enables better user experiences; the branding focuses on those experiences rather than the underlying infrastructure.

The 2025-2026 Reality Check​

The NFT market in 2025-2026 looks fundamentally different from the 2021-2022 boom:

Trading volumes are down, but transactions are up. NFT sales in H1 2025 totaled $2.82 billion—only a 4.6% decline from late 2024—but sales counts climbed nearly 80%. This signals fewer speculative flips but broader adoption by actual users.

Gaming dominates activity. According to DappRadar, gaming represented about 28% of all NFT activity in 2025. The successful use cases are interactive and ongoing, not static collectibles.

Consolidation is accelerating. Native Web3 projects like Bored Ape Yacht Club and Azuki are evolving into full ecosystems. BAYC launched ApeChain in October 2024; Azuki introduced AnimeCoin in early 2025. The survivors are becoming platforms, not just collections.

Brands are pivoting to invisible blockchain. The successful corporate approaches—Lufthansa, Hugo Boss—use blockchain as infrastructure rather than marketing. The technology enables features; the brand doesn't lead with Web3 positioning.

What Brands Entering Web3 Should Actually Do​

For brands still considering Web3 strategies, the failed experiments of 2022-2024 offer clear lessons:

1. Build Community Before Monetization​

The successful Web3 projects—both native and brand—invested years in community building before significant monetization. Rushing to revenue extraction destroys the trust that makes Web3 communities valuable.

2. Provide Real, Immediate Utility​

Abstract "future utility" promises don't work. Users need tangible value today: access, discounts, experiences, or status that they can actually use. If your roadmap requires holding for 2-3 years before value materializes, you're asking too much.

3. Make Blockchain Invisible​

Unless your target audience is crypto-native, don't lead with Web3 terminology. Use blockchain to enable better user experiences, but let users interact with those experiences directly. The technology should be infrastructure, not marketing.

4. Price for Participation, Not Extraction​

High mint prices signal that you're optimizing for short-term revenue over long-term community. The projects that survived started accessible and grew value over time. Those that started expensive mostly just stayed expensive until they died.

5. Commit to Long-Term Operation​

If a quarterly earnings miss can kill your Web3 project, you shouldn't launch it. The blockchain's core value proposition—permanent, verifiable ownership—requires operational permanence to be meaningful. Treat Web3 as infrastructure, not a campaign.

The Uncomfortable Truth​

Perhaps the most important lesson from the brand NFT graveyard is this: most brands shouldn't have launched NFT projects at all.

The technology works for communities where digital ownership and trading create genuine value—gaming, creator economies, loyalty programs with transferable benefits. It doesn't work as a novelty marketing tactic or a way to monetize existing customer relationships through artificial scarcity.

Nike, Starbucks, and Porsche didn't fail because Web3 technology is flawed. They failed because they tried to use that technology for purposes it wasn't designed for, in ways that didn't respect the communities they were entering.

The survivors understood something simpler: technology should serve users, not extract from them. The blockchain enables new forms of value exchange—but only when the value exchange itself is genuine.

References​

Share on Twitter