Therein lies the insanity; a person can create {art, music, game asset} and nothing stops others from consuming that thing. Web3/crypto does not solve that -- it only 'proves' that one person 'owns' the created thing. Abstractly, that's cool. Concretely, who the hell cares? I got to see the jpeg and listen to the album exactly as the 'owner' of the digital asset was able to.

You don't think it's different to experience the art and to own the art?

NFTs just force the idea of “ownership” onto things for which ownership makes zero sense.

You are never going to convince more than a small number of suckers that any of this is true or worth it.

Ownership is one way to interpret the meaning of an NFT, but that's not the only way to do it.

For instance, you could use them to keep track of responsibility/permissions: "The holder of this token is the project maintainer, only they can approve pull requests". That sort of thing.

Interpretation is up to the users, I'm really just talking about nonfungibility in general here.

> You are never going to convince more than a small number of suckers that any of this is true or worth it.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is said before complete implosions or complete disruptions. Time will tell!

Reminder: same was said about BTC.

I'd argue that for most types of content the modern problem is the abundance of creative effort (orders of magnitude more good content being created globally than anyone can consume) because of the global scaling so the major social problems for arts are the curation and discovery of the abundant creative effort, not securitization of some actually scarce resource. A particular piece of art or a particular author's work becomes scarce only due to social factors e.g. their work becoming "hot" among the uncountable other equally good works which aren't noticed or cared about for random reasons, not because such work is inherently scarce.