I think there is a flaw in your reasoning but it's hard to be sure because your last sentence is rather hard to parse. > They are missing 99% of the reasons th

I think there is a flaw in your reasoning but it's hard to be sure because your last sentence is rather hard to parse. > They are missing 99% of the reasons things have value, Can you clarify? > they cannot understand two seemingly identical things having widely different values. We're not talking about the value in a piece of art - or even the value of owning an original piece of art. Ownership itself is a social construct. Back to my limited edition print comparison: You own one of a series of 100 prints or a photograph by a famous artist. I "own" a reproduction of the same work that is high enough resolution to be indistinguishable from your print. Assuming you can prove the authenticity of your print (maybe there's a chain of custody you can verify) - your print is worth thousands and mine is worth simply the cost of making another copy. How is this less silly than NFTs?