Often the actual token would just hold a link to a jpeg. With all the consequences of link rot.

Cryptopunks are still over $60k. Pricy jpegs.

Let me guess, that's crypto value, because no one in their sane mind would pay $60K in real money for crude, combinational images. I hope this, and Bored Ape Yacht Club still exist many years in the future, just to remind our descendants of the things we burned the planet for.

Define intrinsic value in a measurable way that does not depend on any specific human’s subjective estimation.

Is it useful? If not, it has no intrinsic value. It might have emotional value, either by being a memento, something of historical significance..., or something to calm the the dreams for quick, easy, and abundant money.

Define useful in a measurable way that does not depend on any specific human’s subjective estimation.

Is a dictionary definition insuficient?

useful

- Having a beneficial use; serviceable: "a useful kitchen gadget."

- Being of practical use: "a useful job; useful members of society."

- Full of use, advantage, or profit; producing, or having power to produce, good; serviceable for any end or object; helpful toward advancing any purpose; beneficial; profitable; advantageous: "vessels and instruments useful in a family; books useful for improvement; useful knowledge; useful arts"

Let’s say I bought an NFT for X and later sold it for Y profit. I bought a house with Y. The person who received X bought a car with it, or maybe long in oil futures with X before the Iran war, made Z, and bought a field with the profit. Or maybe he put Z in a couple of bonds and used the resulting return later.

I'd say that's a scam, not an argument for the usefulness of NFTs. My counterargument is that most NFTs made people lose money instead of buying them houses or oil fields.

I'd bet that most stories of NFTs translating to material wealth come from minters or the inner circle of early adopters, because they made something useless and valueless, and somehow convinced enough people that it was worth buying it for hard-earned cash. Many lost so a few could make bank.

They convinced fools to enter a rigged gamble.

Value and usefulness are again subjective. For instance, what value would you have put on a can of Piero Manzoni’s Artist’s Shit? After all, we could all take a shit in a can. One can was sold for 124k EUR.

Many people lost some money. Maybe they gained from the experience. Many people made money. Maybe they lost some on other things. Many people got their knickers in a twist over things with such perceived (by themselves) low value selling for high value. Maybe they forgot that fiat money is a construction as well. Conversely, maybe they gained something intangible from the whole experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit?wprov=sfti1

This was a core point of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Per that book you are asking for the impossible.

How many calories do you get when you eat it or burn it. Everything else is down to taste.

It's funny to think that if bitcoin was backed by jpegs it would've failed already.

> We have people wasting money on jpegs and people wanting to own things outside of game inventory screens even today. Something akin to NFTs could still become a part of the economy.

Horrible comparison, because people buying hats or reskins, let alone unique game items, are actually enjoying their purchases before the game is sunsetted and it all dissolves into the digital IP void. NFTs offer no value besides moral ownership; if Capitalism and Greed could make jokes, NFTs would be among their best.

The assets were the expected future value of worthless items in an engineered bubble.

The bubble never inflated, so the nominal value crashed back down to the real value almost immediately.

Fairly sure there was some money laundering happening too.