Collectibles are their own thing. I'll allow that there is some value in the preservation of the item itself. But the reality is that with collectibles, it's th

Collectibles are their own thing. I'll allow that there is some value in the preservation of the item itself. But the reality is that with collectibles, it's the scarcity that's the thing. And with digital goods, scarcity is artificial. Your lumber comparison is vastly over-simplifying an issue to make it look similar. Lumber is useful. It has value as a building material. I've yet to see a cryptocurrency/NFT/whatever that has any value outside of its own ecosystem. I also like how you say the "new entrants condition does not qualify anything as a ponzi scheme" before pasting the definition which says "the promoter pays out current investors with the money of new investors". Which is how crypto works. That's the only source of increased value, new investors. The only quibble is that there's not a single promoter. In which case, fine. Crypto is not a ponzi scheme. Crypto is a vehicle by which people can easily create a whole bunch of ponzi schemes.