Thing is, "value is in the eye of the beholder". It might be material in a strictly biological setting, or idealistic (subjective) in a post-scarcity environmen

Thing is, "value is in the eye of the beholder". It might be material in a strictly biological setting, or idealistic (subjective) in a post-scarcity environment. We're somewhere in-between with the digital world, the value of the superfluous (e.g. collectibles) is able to rise as material needs are more easily covered (using an ever-smaller fraction of resources). To put it simply to the point of absurdity, if we were a "magical" (in Arthur C. Clarke's word) civilization without any outstanding needs, we could still play some for-profit economic game and spend quadrillions buying autographs, because it wouldn't lessen anything of importance. Conversely, if you're barely eating enough, you won't spend resources on anything else than getting more food, because that would lessen your chances of survival. The degree of perceived insanity, I think, thus entirely depends on who you are as a beholder of value, where you fit in the material ⇾ idealistic spectrum. Pretty sure Africans with $1/day feel this is perfectly stupid, but your average billionaire might find it a funny hobby, like collecting some cards of the digital era. There will be a market for that, I think crypto-manias proved as much. It's all relative to an observer, IMHO.