I don't get it either. The appeal isn't there for me. Not that I can afford any of the headline NFT prices anyway. But we might as well look at the analogy wit

I don't get it either. The appeal isn't there for me. Not that I can afford any of the headline NFT prices anyway. But we might as well look at the analogy with the art market - why do some people place high value on some art? Part of the answer is "authenticity" and "provenace". These are about who created the artifact. Were they the actual creator of the artifact being stamped, or are they some random trying to cash in on someone else's work? If they weren't the original creator, but paid for the artifact via transaction from the creator, that's respected too. Technically, sure, you can change a byte in an NFT and get a new one. But it's obvious to everyone doing diligence that you're claiming ownership of, and perhaps selling, a derivative. After all there is a proof of the original out there, which differs by one byte and was stamped before yours. If there aren't the tools to detect this sort of thing yet, there will be soon. So don't think you can re-encode the original to work around this. SImilarity detection is a thing. People, well some people anyway, will place a much higher value on an original compared with an altered derivative when both are available. They also place much higher value on something that can be traced to its creator, than something created by one person where another tries to claim it. Perhaps there's an instinct at play here that causes (some) people to direct resources vaguely in the direction of artifact creators they respect, and to the halo of people around them.