Probably a big point that is missing is that many of them will indeed be worthless because a lot have been given away for free. A lot of businesses use/used them as marketing material - take a popular TV show and the next season coming out, they would give free/claimable NFTs to fans of said show. I think in that example, it was more to do with the collectible element but they were literally free.
Obviously there is a often market corrections and I do agree that the value of the oft commented ''Crypto Punks'' were at an overinflated value. But like any art, that value really only ever lies with what someone is prepared to pay for it of course. What I think is valueless, someone else will think is worth remortgaging their house for [not financial advice]. Kandinsky's Concentric Circles has never been something I admire but millions of people around the world love his work. I enjoy stuff by David Hockney but others can't stand multiple paintings of trees.
When new versions of exchange of value come in, there will always be some boom but there will always be people who can't or don't want to adapt. That's fine, but people should allow a space to evolve rather than bashing something they often haven't even dipped their toes into.
Hey ho that's the way it goes
