Right. It doesn't entitle the holder to any rights, it's purely a collectible. Again, owning an NFT doesn't mean you own the underlying work, and owning a base

Right. It doesn't entitle the holder to any rights, it's purely a collectible. Again, owning an NFT doesn't mean you own the underlying work, and owning a baseball card doesn't mean the athlete works for you. The idea of the floating signifier comes to mind. [0] > With a baseball card, I clearly own the physical card, and can put it in the spokes of my bicycle if I want to. Sure, but they both share the property of scarcity, and in the same way. The originator could in principle dilute the scarcity by issuing more (printing more baseball cards or issuing more NFTs for the same underlying asset). Is there anything of interest that changes by making it physical? I suppose the ability to destroy, but I think that's about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_signifier (not a great article in my opinion but I don't know of a better one) Also, I made a typo earlier: Dorsey's NFT of course sold for $2.9m, not $2.9.