Sorry, but that's false. You simply didn't read what I wrote, and you didn't respond to it at all - you repeated your initial arguments as if I had said nothing.

I responded piece by piece, specifically, to each thing you wrote: you ignored it, and posted exactly the same ideas again, specifically:

1. People are buying NFTs today, so it can't be a bubble.

2. People attach NFTs to things of value, so the NFTs themselves have value.

3. People successfully use NFTs to sell their art they couldn't sell before, so NFTs must have value.

4. People use NFTs as a difficult and complicated solution to simple problems we have had easy solutions to for decades or even generations, like "an account on a website" or "proving ownership", so NFTs have value.

4 is at least new, but is objectively terrible.

All of 1 through 3 were true of every single bubble in history (modified slightly for technology).

https://www.forbes.com/1999/01/14/mu3.html?sh=25a3f0814aea

https://medium.com/swlh/icos-a-history-of-building-castles-in-the-air-a4b508efdc5

You should learn from the lessons of the past. Just because people wildly buy some item that seems to have no intrinsic value, doesn't mean it actually has a value.

----

And there are my objections that you have avoided entirely:

1. Nearly all the things that are described as using a Blockchain don't have a consensus problem and thus waste incredible quantities of resources for no additional value.

2. Cryptocurrency prices fluctuate wildly on information of no economic value, like a tweet.

3. All conventional models of asset valuation give all cryptocoins a value of zero.

4. And there is no competing model of asset valuation provided by the cryptocommunity. There's no objective mathematics that you can use to compare the valuation of two cryptocurrencies. There isn't even a start at it!

These last two keep coming up over and over again. Whether it's epidemiology, cryptocurrencies, or climatology, I keep hearing, "All of this science that I know nothing about is wrong, but I can't provide you any explanation of how things actually are."

I started working for Ripple Labs in 2014. Since that time I've talked to hundreds of people about cryptocurrencies. I was pretty gung-ho about crypto for at least the first hundred or so.

Not one person since that time has given me any actual economic argument for cryptocurrency except crime - they call it, "Avoiding government regulations".

Aside from crime, all the arguments I have gotten are, "People want to buy them now, so the price will continue to go up indefinitely", but this is not an economic argument, and as we saw above, all bubbles make that same claim.

(Oh, and there's the "Let's do something with the blockchain that we could do exactly the same with <1% of the resources without a blockchain" argument. "Let's buy a steamroller as a nutcracker," I call it.)

I hoped I might either hear a good argument from you, or convince you, but sadly, this was not the case.