I'm gut-checking myself. I "hate NFTs", but in a way, I don't really. The implementation just seems awkward to me. Also the horrific monetization angle where it doesn't belong.
Is buying signed CDs from the artist any different, really? Is buying a print with a signed certificate from an artist who works only in digital media different?
I think to me, and yes - I'm old, it seems different. I don't care if a digitally-transferred song came with a string of data which indicated it was provably unique. I do care about some tangible connection to the author - they physically wrote their name on the CD sleeve. That - sane or not - feels different.
Maybe just a difference in perception of artificial scarcity.
Willing to accept this is me being insane and/or dated.
I have thought about it, considerably. I think there is a significant (to me) difference between an authenticated or licensed print of an existing and published work, or the rights to the same, than a newly fabricated imagine that has ZERO associated value, other than the hustle for the rights.
For example, there is a piece of art that was made digitally that I've been jonesing for for a while. It's not excessively expensive - I think a licensed print is $350 or so. It has value to me to have...let's say 1 of 250 prints of a published work.
Contrary-wise, a Bored Ape is...nothing. it's not Donkey Kong. Or King Kong. Or even Curious Geroge. It's just a pointless, valueless, culturally insignificant picture with an associated ownership right whose only value comes from hype.
Now, if people are able to make some money...I don't begrudge anyone an opportunity if there are willing market participants. Who am I to get in the way? That said, there are precious few KNOWLEDGEABLE market participants. But, if folks want to pay their money and take their chances...that's personal agency, I suppose.