Cryptopunks With Cigarettes Vs Vaping Punks (Custom Derivatives): Aesthetic Debates

There’s a weird fight happening in the NFT world right now. On one side, you have the original CryptoPunks—those 10,000 pixel characters from 2017 that started basically everything.

Some of them have cigarettes. On the other side, you have custom derivatives where artists swapped those cigarettes for vapes.

Make sure to subscribe to this article

Seems silly at first glance. But this debate actually touches on something bigger: how digital art evolves, what counts as “respectful” remixing, and whether vaping is just visually less interesting than a classic cigarette.

Let’s break down both sides.

What are CryptoPunks With Cigarettes?

The original CryptoPunks are simple. 24×24 pixel art. Randomly generated attributes like hoodies, beanies, and yes—a small pixelated cigarette dangling from the mouth.

That cigarette became iconic. It signals something specific. Rebellion. Old-school cool. A bit of an edge.

Punks with cigarettes are rarer than regular Punks, so they carry higher price tags. Collectors love them because the cigarette adds attitude. It’s subtle but it changes the whole vibe of the character.

What are Vaping Punks?

Vaping Punks are custom derivatives. Someone took the original Punk designs, photoshopped the cigarette into a vape pen, and started selling or sharing these modified versions.

Sometimes they call them “healthier Punks” as a joke. Other times it’s a genuine commentary on how culture shifts from smoking to vaping.

The vaping device looks chunkier in pixel form. Less sleek. Less dangerous-feeling. That’s part of the problem for people who prefer the originals.

The Main Aesthetic Debate

Here’s where things get interesting.

The pro-cigarette crowd says: The cigarette is part of the Punk identity. It evokes a specific era of counterculture—think CBGB, punk rock shows, dirty basements. Vaping doesn’t have that same energy. Vaping feels clean, corporate, suburban. Putting a vape on a Punk makes it less punk.

The pro-vaping side says: Culture changes. Punks adapt. The original CryptoPunks are from 2017 and vaping was already everywhere by then. A vape represents modern rebellion—still addictive, still a habit, just delivered differently. Plus, making derivatives keeps the art alive and sparks conversation.

Beyond Just Smoking Vs Vaping

This isn’t really about tobacco versus nicotine. The deeper argument is about derivative art itself.

Original CryptoPunk holders often hate derivatives because they feel like copies trying to steal value. Larva Labs (the original creators) gave the community a license to create derivatives, so technically it’s allowed. But allowed doesn’t mean respected.

Some collectors see Vaping Punks as lazy. “You just changed one tiny pixel detail and called it something new.” Others see it as creative commentary—a smart way to update an old icon for current times.

What The Market Says

Money talks in NFT spaces.

Original CryptoPunks with cigarettes still sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sometimes millions. Vaping Punks? Almost no resale value compared to the originals.

But here’s the twist: that’s not really the point. Most people making Vaping Punks aren’t trying to flip them for profit. They’re making a statement. They’re participating in internet culture by remixing something familiar.

Think of it like fan art. You don’t expect your Spider-Man drawing to sell for Marvel prices. You make it because you love the character and want to add your own spin.

The Generational Angle

There’s an unspoken generational divide here.

Older collectors (30s, 40s, 50s) tend to prefer the cigarette Punks. They grew up in a world where smoking was still common in movies, music videos, and art. A cigarette reads as cool to them.

Younger collectors (20s) lean more toward the vape versions or don’t care either way. They grew up with vaping ads, Juul in high school bathrooms, and constant messaging about smoking being gross. A cigarette doesn’t feel rebellious—it feels dated and sad.

Neither is wrong. It’s just different visual languages.

What This Teaches About Digital Art Ownership

If you own an NFT, do you control how people remix it?

Legally, not really. Art posted online gets screenshotted, edited, and reshared constantly. That’s the internet.

Culturally, it’s messier. Some communities embrace derivatives as flattery. Others see them as disrespectful cash grabs. CryptoPunks land somewhere in the middle because the original creators explicitly allowed derivatives, but the community is split on whether that was a good idea.

My take: derivatives only hurt the originals if the originals have nothing else going for them. CryptoPunks have history, scarcity, and cultural weight. A few vape edits aren’t going to crash that market.

Which Side Is “Right”?

Neither. And both.

If you value authenticity and historical context, original Punks with cigarettes win. They’re the real thing. They have the provenance and the price tag to back it up.

If you value creative remixing and cultural commentary, Vaping Punks are more interesting. They ask a question the originals don’t: what happens when a symbol of rebellion gets replaced by something less romantic?

You can appreciate both for different reasons. This isn’t a war. It’s a conversation.

Practical Takeaway For Collectors

If you’re buying Punks as an investment, stick with originals. Cigarette or not, original CryptoPunks have proven value. Derivatives are speculative at best.

If you’re buying art because you enjoy looking at it, buy whatever makes you smile. Some people genuinely prefer the vape aesthetic. That’s fine. Just know you’re buying fan art, not the real collectible.

And if you’re making derivatives, be honest about what they are. Don’t try to pass off a Vaping Punk as an official CryptoPunk. Call it a derivative, give credit to Larva Labs, and let people decide if they like it.

FAQ

Are Vaping Punks legal to sell?

Larva Labs permitted derivatives under their NFT license. But marketplaces like OpenSea have their own rules. Some remove derivatives if original creators complain. Sell at your own risk.

Do original CryptoPunk owners care about Vaping Punks?

Some do. Others don’t notice or don’t care. The loudest critics are usually collectors who own rare cigarette Punks and feel like derivatives dilute the brand.

Can a Vaping Punk ever be worth as much as an original?

Almost certainly not. Original CryptoPunks have historical value as the first major NFT project. No derivative can replicate that.

What about other CryptoPunk derivatives?

There are hundreds: Zombie Punks, Ape Punks, laser-eyed Punks. Vaping is just one niche in a huge ecosystem of fan edits.

Does changing one small detail make something a new artwork?

That’s the million-dollar question. Legally, no. Culturally, sometimes. It depends on who you ask and how transformative the change feels.

Final Thoughts

The cigarette-versus-vape debate seems tiny. And honestly, it is. But it’s also a perfect example of how art communities argue about authenticity, ownership, and what “counts” as meaningful change.

Original Punks with cigarettes have history on their side. Vaping Punks have the spirit of remix culture. Neither is going away anytime soon.

Here’s what I’m curious about: if someone made a “CryptoPunk with a nicotine patch” derivative, which side would hate it more? Drop a comment if you have thoughts.

Because honestly, watching people argue about pixelated smoking habits might be the most internet thing ever. And I mean that as a compliment.