Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Dogecoin rely on a very simple premise: there is a certain number of this thing, and each one is unique, and you can use them as currency for goods and services.
You can look at Bitcoin and Dogecoin and come to the conclusion that they should be worth basically 0, and make arguments like "but why Bitcoin and Dogecoin when there could be other better cryptocurrencies" but you can't really argue against the fact the idea is simple and it works
With NFTs, the idea is that you have this digital art (picture, song, etc) that can be endlessly and perfectly copied and distributed, but you'll somehow slap a crypto token on one of them (more like crypto token has a URL to a JPG) and it becomes the "original" and somehow this token corresponds to the art.
It relies on people misunderstanding digital art. If the art can be endlessly copied and distributed, then what does the 'NFT' have to do with the art? It's a completely external thing .
I've heard arguments like "it's good for artists", and I understand that artists being paid for their work is fantastic, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bias.
