If the argument is that tokens in general have a use-case, then I agree with you, they do. My concern is specifically with NFTs (not the general concept, the specific example that springs to mind when most people say the word). I have problems with:
A) the technology
B) the average consumer's understanding of the technology
I think we need art-tokens to be on a blockchain, and in a lot of ways the blockchain might even make this kind of stuff even harder. It's often desirable when working with non-fungible tokens to be able to easily update their metadata, block them, or link them together. NFTs are slowly making movement in this direction, but they're moving very slowly, and it's not clear how the blockchain is helping with any of those features.
I also think it's worth asking why this scene exploded specifically with NFTs even though the systems to make it work existed long before NFTs were on the scene. Frankly, I don't believe you that the average NFT investor understands that the ledger is just a ledger. I've talked to people who are involved in casual NFT collection, and they think the technology is magic. They think that the blockchain magically makes their tokens valuable.
> but when OpenSea kicked off a Cryptopunk Clone project no one lost their tokens, they continued to be traded elsewhere, and the community still chose to value their possessions, even if it maybe inhibited their growth.
It's not really the blockchain that makes this happen though; federated systems can split from each other and route around each other just as easily. If a federated ledger tries to remove tokens, communities can still choose to recognize those tokens and either fork the ledger or run in parallel alongside it.
What you're seeing with OpenSea and clone projects is the social side of this, not the blockchain part.
A) the technology
B) the average consumer's understanding of the technology
I think we need art-tokens to be on a blockchain, and in a lot of ways the blockchain might even make this kind of stuff even harder. It's often desirable when working with non-fungible tokens to be able to easily update their metadata, block them, or link them together. NFTs are slowly making movement in this direction, but they're moving very slowly, and it's not clear how the blockchain is helping with any of those features.
I also think it's worth asking why this scene exploded specifically with NFTs even though the systems to make it work existed long before NFTs were on the scene. Frankly, I don't believe you that the average NFT investor understands that the ledger is just a ledger. I've talked to people who are involved in casual NFT collection, and they think the technology is magic. They think that the blockchain magically makes their tokens valuable.
> but when OpenSea kicked off a Cryptopunk Clone project no one lost their tokens, they continued to be traded elsewhere, and the community still chose to value their possessions, even if it maybe inhibited their growth.
It's not really the blockchain that makes this happen though; federated systems can split from each other and route around each other just as easily. If a federated ledger tries to remove tokens, communities can still choose to recognize those tokens and either fork the ledger or run in parallel alongside it.
What you're seeing with OpenSea and clone projects is the social side of this, not the blockchain part.