> I don't feel this way about inherited wealth, or people who got money through the lottery, or for being famous reality show people, but something about NFTs r

> I don't feel this way about inherited wealth, or people who got money through the lottery, or for being famous reality show people, but something about NFTs really rubs me the wrong way. This paragraph interests me deeply. It is clearly a personal feeling and one that I have empathy for. However, a few things came to my mind when I read it. 1) You and I were born into a world where inheritance, lotteries, and celebrities existed, but NFTs were invented in our lifetime. Is it the newness/novelty of NFTs at issue? 2) Suppose the answer to 1) is no i.e. I am not troubled by the newness of NFTs. Alright, instead let’s imagine the first incidence of inheritance, or lotteries, or celebrity status that yielded material/monetary reward. Did people feel similarly about these ways of acquiring money back when these ways were novel? 3) What about applying the general idea of finding/inventing/innovating to create new industries e.g. advertising technology? Some people have similar feelings about the nominal value being created versus the perceived value of a whole host of activities: venture capital, e-sports, advertising, sex work, content creation, financial services/instruments, the creative arts and their subfields, etc. You can search for posts and comments on this forum expressing exactly that on each of the examples I listed. 4) What do we call it? I would say the word jealousy captures one side of the dimension where perceived value doesn’t match up with actual value that was exchanged (perceived value is less than the value exchanged). 5) Why do we do it? Why do we judge the perceived fairness of transactions that we are not party to? 6) Now, back to the initial question: what makes some forms of wealth transfer fair and others not?