[Ruffy]

Nope, I still don't get it. Why do we need a decentralised ledger to permit trade? It seems to be built on a constructed fallacy that subjective interpretation/opinion should have universal value, or that 'money' has value in itself.

Especially in the digital world I get the hard challenge about copy protection so we can preserve a concept of tradeable 'assets'. That's what NFTs seem to be trying to be - new assets that can be bought and sold. But why try to replicate the physical-world marketplace and hold on so tightly to the notion of 'things'? (Especially when they're actually 'nothing'.)

Even with physical items, why is the original piece of art more valuable than a copy image (quality of reproduction aside)? As it happens, I've seen the Mona Lisa in the Louvre, I've seen copies of the image too, I'm not moved by one any more than the other. Equally, I don't fail to appreciate the skill and effort that went in to creating the original by looking at a (good) copy. It's intrinsic value though is not much more than the price of a few pieces of wood/canvas and a bit of oil and colour pigment dust.

Really, is an NFT any more useful than an old-world handwritten receipt- isn't it just a unique proof of something at the end of the day, with an attributed value like an IOU? Except that in the case of an NFT it's not really tied to a widely understood and agreed unit of worth and so is probably more exposed to the vagaries of subjectivity. That doesn't sound revolutionary to me, it just sounds crazy or risky. A solution looking for a problem IMHO.