Discussion
They own a sat that came to a wallet address from a tx hash that has data to form a jpeg.
At the end of the day a sat is a sat. The value of the history of how it got there is subjective, but it has zero utility. Physical collectables are arguably more valuable because at least trading cards are still actual paper.
They're not inherently bad but they are only worth what people will pay for them. My guess is 99% of what people will pay over zero is all speculative gambling. Degenerates.
Ultimately they are relying on other people respecting the connection between the transaction and the jpg. To achieve this they need a third party agent to enforce it. Why go to the trouble of running a blockchain? Why not just have the third party run a simple database of ownership?
Decentralised ledgers are meant to remove the trusted third party. Why would an authority enforce a standard that is meant to undermine their rule?
Exactly. I totally agree.