The problem with turning every post into an NFT is exactly as I described in my original comment. The best kind of "trade" whenever there is any exchange, is one where both sides see what they are foregoing as atleast as valuable as what they receive in exchange. Creators of course will sell their NFTs and sometimes for a lot of money, but what immediate value (purposefully ignoring the speculative onwards resale value) does an owner get? Is it social credit? Clout?

What i'm interested in, is balancing the equation. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay large sums of money for "exclusive" content. Whenever I have purchased a creators NFT, be it art, a fancy picture or something else, it's always with no expectation of ever reselling it. It is effectively a consumable except that it is not "perishable."

I think that selling NFTs as an access "pass" to something makes more sense. But then we're out of the realm of selling "content" itself as the NFT.

If we created NFTs of some sort, I think it would have to be more than just a creators post, or a picture. Integrating galleries in the same way opensea does it is not very hard. Especially if we used something like HIVE-ENGINE for the NFTContracts, having a trophy or gallery would of course be there too.

The message i'm getting though, is that NFTs (in their current form at least) are only valuable if a) the consumer inherently values it (not speculatively) or b) it has the potential to be perceived as valuable, bolstered by things like flexing on galleries, publicly etc.

I lean more on the passes as being truly value accretive for both sides, but that would some what jeopardise the "I sell my art for a fortune" people, as well as those aspiring to achieve that dream.