What really made me change my mind on NFT's is collectibles. Not so much random pixel art, but actual collectibles (e.g. think stamps, baseball cards, basketball cards, pokemon, etc). The success of NBA Top Shots is a case in point. The blockchain allows for decentralized verifiability of a collectible's origin/authenticity (making fakes impossible), and even more importantly: seamlessly allows to create a marketplace around the collectibles without needing to rely on ebay and shady sellers. I definitely think this pixel art fad will pass or remain a niche, but the concept of collectibles has been around for a long time and will stay for a long time to come.
The problem with this claim, and kind of NFTs in general, is that all the collectables in general are fake, and all the NFT really does is try to prop up scarcity, which is also fake in this scenario. There's nothing genuine about any of this.
Pokémon cards, back in the day, was at least some cool looking sheets of paper and a game to play. But you can buy a single $100 NFT and pay $200 in "gas fees". That's already exceeded what an average parent probably spent on Pokémon cards per year.
This is an interesting thought: I buy an object and the NFT with it. Then I swap it and sell you a fake lookalike, and the NFT. Which one is the "original" object now? Who is the owner of the "valuable" object? Is it the person who holds the NFT, or the person who holds the original?
Most people would say it's the latter, but what makes an object valuable is not as clear-cut. Yes, a fake Picasso isn't as valuable as a real Picasso, but the NFT was (presumably) verifiably minted by the original artist, so maybe the NFT is the art, and the object is just something that comes with.
