They saw utility. You seem to think it was all about free tokens, which I don't deny, yet I maintain that the utility is what gave the tokens any value.
Which is why I think NFT failed so miserably. Pure speculation born from the most absurd utility imaginable, exclusivity over authorship and ownership as an end in itself, not as a by-product as is entailed by everything else.
It depends, seems fine art outperforms even bitcoin, nft, its the complete opposite. It seems that fine art goes up, while nft only goes down. Fine art, like collectibles, have something OTHER than just exclusivity.
what did they want it for ?
I assume early adapter advantage.
so, they saw some potential demand for what exactly ?
They saw utility. You seem to think it was all about free tokens, which I don't deny, yet I maintain that the utility is what gave the tokens any value.
yes, the utility creates demand
Which is why I think NFT failed so miserably. Pure speculation born from the most absurd utility imaginable, exclusivity over authorship and ownership as an end in itself, not as a by-product as is entailed by everything else.
exactly like the "fine art" market
It depends, seems fine art outperforms even bitcoin, nft, its the complete opposite. It seems that fine art goes up, while nft only goes down. Fine art, like collectibles, have something OTHER than just exclusivity.