Right, that must be why this is a discussion on the IRS requiring people to report transactions to tackle money laundering, and how that justifies protests, and not art history.

> Art has been one of the more prominent uses of NFTs that emerged this year.

"Art" has been the pretext. The prominent use of NFTs is to perform transactions.

Don't be disingenuous, and tone down the arrogant gaslighting.

NFTs could theoretically actually allow artists to get a cut of any future sales because of its basis in smart contracts.

Of course, NFTs can be used for money laundering as well but art is presumably already used for that purpose.

Power law. Prominent artists will move to cash in now, as they can hoover up 90% of whatever legitimate business there is. The remaining 10% will be fought over by no-name artists who enter the scene too late.

Even highly respected artists are not immune to the appeal of making an easy buck. For instance, as legend would have it, Pablo Picasso created his "Poor Robbie" engraving with the express purpose of monetizing it, so that his close friend Robert Godet could quite literally use his printing press to whip out yet another "limited edition" print whenever he was short on cash and needed a quick buck.