"Due diligence" - except you can't. Did people in the 1950s know that Submariner watches were going to be a big gain? No. People bought them to wear. Why did Ro

"Due diligence" - except you can't. Did people in the 1950s know that Submariner watches were going to be a big gain? No. People bought them to wear. Why did Rolex watches persist and gain value, while Bulova watches did not? We can come up with reasons -now-, but in the 1950s you wouldn't know. Just like with the NFT of the first tweet, 'due diligence' for collectibles is just speculation because there is nothing to base it on. Most investments have cash flow of some sort you can evaluate. Not collectibles. The expected value of every collectible trends negative, since it's a physical thing subject to wear and tear, and most physical things depreciate. NFTs are worse than collectibles in that the scarcity isn't even of the thing; it's just an artificially created scarcity around "ownership" of an infinite thing. Unprovable ownership, no less. If you 'invest' in a Rolex, at the end of the day you have a nice watch. If you 'invest' in an NFT, at the end of the day you have a freely available graphic. In terms of digital goods in video games...yeah; companies have been selling digital goods for their games without NFTs for years. Not sure what NFTs are bringing there.