> Most of the stuff I'm seeing aren't anywhere near the Mona Lisa in quality. Most of what I see in modern art, which goes for tens of millions of dollars, doe

> Most of the stuff I'm seeing aren't anywhere near the Mona Lisa in quality. Most of what I see in modern art, which goes for tens of millions of dollars, doesn't look like much to me: * https://luxurylaunches.com/auctions/9-pieces-of-art-ridiculously-sold-for-millions.php https://luxurylaunches.com/auctions/9-pieces-of-art-ridiculo... And yet it seems to be "worth" that much to someone. Heck, I don't think much of the "Mona Lisa" as a painting personally—give me a Rembrandt or Monet for my wall—but I wouldn't mind owning it, just so I could turn around and sell it, as the money would be more useful to me. What makes someone pay tens of millions for a watch? * https://www.forbes.com/sites/hylabauer/2017/10/26/paul-newmans-paul-newman-daytona-sells-for-15-5-million-a-record-for-a-wristwatch-at-auction/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hylabauer/2017/10/26/paul-newma... > Ok, and what does this actually get me? How meaningful is "ownership" in this context? You get to say that you own it, and there is a seemingly legally-approved chain of custody that says you do. You can continue to keep it, or you can pass ownership to someone else. More generally: how meaningful is the ownership of anything? I'm planning to buy a new pair of shoes for about $100 this weekend because my current pair is old. Yet people are willing to layout thousands of dollars for sneakers: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneaker_collecting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneaker_collecting What makes them "worth" that much? Why would anyone spend that kind of money to own something like that? This is similar to Bitcoin: it's just a bunch of bits, so how meaningful is ownership of bits in the ledger? Why do people follow a certain process to exchange money so that some bits (transactions/ledger) say that I own certain other bits (wallet contents)?