Blender Guru creating a huge collage of donut renders to make an NFT for Blender Dev Fund

Blender guru is asking for thousands of donut blend files to make one massive collage image and sell it as an NFT… if it reaches those crazy prices that other Digital Art NFTs have made recently then it will be fantastic for Blenders Development.
I wonder if Blender Artists could also do a community type NFT thing to also help fund Blender development.


Will there be a way to verify / be sure all proceeds will go to the Blender Foundation?

1 Like

Probably. I imagine the selling price would be public, and then the amount donated to the Blender foundation would probably also be shown publicly, you’ll have to ask Andrew Price… I mean if he starts podcasting from a huge mansion we might have reason for suspicion. lol.


In the video he states that some of the money will go to make the minting carbon neutral by using instantaneous carbon capture.

That sounds like greenwashing… a lure from the capitalists


I think it’s a terrible idea from a number of standpoints:

  1. NFTs are divisive and contentious due to their environmental costs.

  2. Carbon neutral NFTs make about as much moral sense as allowing people to kill lions as long as some money from that goes into wildlife conservation.

  3. Probably 75% of the renders are going to be near identical. All using slight variations of the sickly magenta/pink colour Andrew Price opted for in his tutorial series. The remainder will be largely made up of kinda chocolate that doesn’t look really like chocolate and some other sickly colours like bright blue and bright green icing. Most contributors will have not a chance in hell of picking out their contribution from the rest. I’d imagine Price will have to relight and render out stuff selectively to increase the range allowing for a vaguely workable mosaic type image. In that case he might have saved a bit of bandwidth and just asked people to email him their preferred RGB colours for their icing instead of their blend files.

  4. I think Ton said that while the Blender Foundation do accept donations in cryptocurrency they don’t condone or support NFTs as a concept. It would put them in a really unpleasant situation.

  5. He’s now done something like 7 videos on NFTs in the past month alone. He has been gagging to find a way of getting on the NFT bandwagon and this is his ticket.

  6. Finally: Who’s going to buy it? He has very little following outside the Blender Community. Someone with a tonne of money and an interest in supporting Blender could just, well, you know… support Blender directly.


I think he’s being very generous here, he could easily have done something similar himself and made some easy money. Sure, he’s raising his profile and likely the price of his next artwork, I’m sure there’s a part of him that hopes to capitalise on this somehow… but he’s already somewhat established and the donut is his most notable association. If he had any chance of making money with an NFT it was with the donut, and he chose to give that money away. I wish him luck in making some money for himself with his next one.

NFTs may be divisive among the general population, but among people running their computers all night to render scenes, I don’t think Blender users have any right to criticise.


There’s a volcano in St. Vincent right now that is puffing carbon like Groucho Marx puffs cigars, and it might do so for months. His virtue signaling might actually make a difference and lower a town’s high temperature reading by 0.000001 degrees.

If he wants to risk his own money on the NFT thing for the good of Blender then he can do that, but don’t involve the community if this is going to devolve into a demonstration of progressive buzzword bingo.


Some interesting points… So if a NFT sells for a million dollars does that mean 1 million worth of Ethereum has to be mined??? surely it does not, surely its just put on the blockchain which is a simple cryptographic calculation to verify its uniqueness and authenticity… I think that might be all that happens, and a rich person buys the NFT with dollars???
It matters not at all what the aesthetics of the art work is a mediocre artwork could sell for millions and has, i think its been accepted that the value proposition of an NFT is it allows the buyer to uniquely claim ownership over a digital artwork, and its similar to cryptocurrency in that its value is decided by what people want to pay for it, much like dogecoin.
So hopefully it would not mean Blender Foundation having to accept crypto currency but cash instead…

I could be wrong i should research it more.

Take the Beeple thing for example. They buyer didn’t go and get 79M dollars and pay it to Beeple. He didn’t take 79M dollars and convert it to ETH to buy the artwork. He took an amount of ETH he already had and paid it to Beeple. The buyer has been involved in Ethereum at least since it launched. $79M worth of ETH cost him a fraction of that.

I just don’t get it. It seems like a case of the Emperor’s New Clothes to me. These people aren’t buying or owning the artworks. They are buying and owning nothing more than a token saying they own something. It’s like buying a traditional painting hung in a gallery, but on condition that it can never be removed from the gallery, must always be viewable by the public and you don’t have any commercial rights over the artwork. All you have bought is a bit of paper saying “yeah… he ‘owns’ it” and perhaps directions to the gallery.

Therein lies the whole problem. The calculations are far from simple. Which is why vast amounts of electricity have to be consumed as miners race each other to reach the solution. It’s complex and energy intensive by design. They literally made it that way. If it were easy and cheap we’d all be doing it.


I kind of get it but theres still many questions… I think theres a good chance Blender Foundation can get big money out of this and not have to feel bad about it… I still dont quite believe that the verification of the NFT takes any “significant” electricity that would make any significant difference to man made carbon emissions any more than me going outside and having a bonfire this November 5th. I think we should focus more on what this would mean for Blenders Development and the tools it would give us all with future versions of Blender…

Eh, this is not his only chance. Imagine that image sells for A LOT. It might make news headlines. “Who is this guy?”, the crypto investors ask. And the next image Andrew puts up, maybe its a render of the first donut tutorial he did, …kaching. Or perhaps a crypto investor have already approached him to set this up, just like Beeple or many other celebrities/influencers did. I don’t have any doubts, there are incentives to capitalize on this, especially after all that FOMO from all his recent videos.

1 Like

The thing for me about crypto mining is that it turned the GPU industry upside down. Scalpers bought up all the new cards to sell to the miners who couldn’t get one, and now the prices of those cards are outrageous. I needed a new computer badly and I wanted a gaming computer since I do a lot of that. I was fortunate to get one at a fairly reasonable price (by today’s standards), but I paid hundreds of dollars more than I would have if not for the scarcity of the GPUs, plus I had to wait 2 months for the unit to be delivered. I feel bad for folks who just want a new GPU that was originally ~$400 and is now 3 times that or more.
I get that part of the problem was a perfect storm of the pandemic creating a lack of workers, which created a lack of chips, etc., but it’s gotten so bad that some countries are passing laws against mining and the GPU manufacturers are trying to figure out ways to limit the mining capabilities of their cards.


So the community’s first order commerce-clown has gone lower again. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Here’s my plea to anyone who thinks this move by Mr. Price was a bad one:
Let us all send him the default startup-.blend, with nothing but the defaultcube, default camera and default pointlight, renamed to sth. like ‘donut.blend’.

donut.blend (754.8 KB)

I furthermore invite everybody to send him a .blend of a pile of dogshit instead, if you like.

I hope the satirical nature of this post is obvious enough for everyone. It’s not like I’m trying to attack A. Price or sth. like that.

greetings, Kologe


So, is that worse than paying millions for an old postage stamp?
I think you just have to accept that collectors are weird but they do and probably allways will exist.

Traditional collectors actually obtain the item physically and place it among the other items in their home or office (ie. they actually own the thing and the guy they bought it from relinquishes all rights to it).

It may just sit there unused, but most items you own you are not literally using all of the time.


The value of a thing to a collector is purely emotional. It does not matter if the thing is physical. It only needs to activate the collectors collecting trigger.

An old physical item that is genuinely rare is a world of difference from saying you will create a token and call it rare to increase its value (even though you can create a million copies with a click of the mouse if you want).

Now you might ask why not make a million copies of the old stamp? Well, old things tend to have a look (from age) that is very hard to recreate in a new item, even if you did it using period tools. Then there’s the whole issue of copyright and how you might not even have the rights to create the image for commercial purposes. Furthermore, it costs money to create copies of a physical item, you are not spending so much when following Ctrl-C with Ctrl-V.

Also, noting the caption in the link you posted, it sounds like wikipedia is trying to present collecting as a bad thing born from negative mental traits? Couldn’t you eventually paint all hobbies with that brush (which includes you and me using Blender)?

1 Like

Non of this is important regarding collectors. The only important thing is that the collectors collecting trigger is triggered.

Maybe you are seeing a different caption. For me it shows “Psychology of collecting” which sounds as neutral as it gets. The article itself is neutral as well. It explains the mechanism that makes collectors collect, points out a couple of positive and couple of negative things.

Y’all are missing the point of why the rich buy Art. It isn’t about “collecting” per se but more about a place for their unused capital to safely gain interest.