You're making quite a few points, some I agree with and some I don't. > NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give

You're making quite a few points, some I agree with and some I don't. > NFTs are just like generating random numbers and then bidding who of the rich will give more money. > Art progresses human knowledge, spirit and soul it has embedded intrinsic attributes that makes us better people. NFTs do not have any of those. Like art this is really up to interpretation. As I mentioned in the previous comment NFTs have unique properties and as a result some intrinsic value. I'm not to argue the specific price of this tweet but that it shouldn't be dismissed outright. For me an NFT of Jack's tweet embodies the time and effort spent building twitter the platform. Whether or nor Jack needs money is irrelevant in the same way that an artist's net worth isn't relevant to the value of their art, as is the time period their art was created. Of course compared to the span of the universe ownership is meaningless, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. Twitter, like ethereum will likely remain in ~100 years, and if it doesn't exist be part of history books in ~1000. This is also a unique property of NFTs, as ownership is via asymmetric cryptography until prime factorisation is broken or the blockchain is dead, ownership remains. Once again, I'm not saying that this tweet is worth 2000 Eth, or that he should be selling it. All I'm trying to say is that NFTs have unique properties that don't exist in the digital world and shouldn't be entirely discounted because a millionaire is exchanging money with a billionaire.