Aren't NFTs literally the cryptocurrency equivalent of tulips? The tulip mania died down because you can trivially replicate tulips. One can argue that Bitcoin is an overvalued currency because the actual economy backing it is absolutely tiny but there is at least some nugget of value in there, even if it is only $100 per Bitcoin. It's enough to at least pretend but with NFTs you have taken the one final step that makes them meaningless.
I thought Bitcoin was going to be a bubble that would eventually burst, but it's still growing. At this point I don't see it stopping despite still being a speculative investment for most people.
If anything I believe NFTs actually have more staying potential. People love to show off their wealth by having something unique. NFTs allow this in a digital space. They also can act as a speculative investment like Bitcoin. And because they're non-fungible I actually think that there's less potential of a bubble. With Bitcoin, if one Bitcoin is devalued, they're all devalued. With an NFT, if one token is devalued, only related tokens should lose value (by related here I mean tokens that do represent the same thing like the 50 copies of a sports video discussed in this blog post).
How is it even a bubble? A bare handful of high status sales? Sure the asking price for some silly crypto kitty might be high but is anybody really buying? And where's the proof that they are?
Aside from that eye-popping headline, the same article mentions other sales hitting $7.6 million (CryptoPunks), $6.6 million (another Beeple piece), $382k (Banksy-derived piece), $100k+ (CryptoKitties), etc. Whatever this phenomenon is, big money definitely is getting spent for real – to the extent you consider spending cryptocurrency "real," anyway!
