I think the general principle behind the criminalisation of such images is that the sharing creates market demand for the abuse; the hash of the image isn't wha

I think the general principle behind the criminalisation of such images is that the sharing creates market demand for the abuse; the hash of the image isn't what gets file hosts off the hook because their moderators won't be punished for manually checking and deleting images either. On that basis, I can see someone apparently knowingly purchasing tokens symbolically representing actual acts of child sex abuse for a lot of money being in plenty of trouble even if the images never touch any of their computers. Perhaps their best defence would be that NFTs are complete nonsense which have no tangible connection with the mutable, third-party-controlled URL endpoint they are supposedly a token representation of...