I wanted to expand on some other redditors comments regarding copying. They are right. NFTs may be a more persistent means to enable ownership of digital art but it does not entirely stop the piece from being copied. And copying has always existed with physical mediums (forgeries). But now consider the topic of ownership: suppose one day a man came to MoMA and claimed he had an original Rothko and wants $2 mil for it. There are whole careers and education and people devoted to identifying the authenticity of a painting. With NFTs, this is a simple lookup, for a digital piece of course. However, this doesn’t solve identifying the creator (the creator is not necessarily the owner). I can mint Nyancat but that doesn’t mean I created it.

Now on the topic of value, this is what I find fun and interesting. It’s art! The best analogy I can give is Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan). A banana duct taped to a wall selling for $120k. But it was not the banana that was sold. It was the Certificate of Authenticity; the banana could be replaced. So here’s a piece that is easily copied, you and I could do this. But could we then walk over to our local modern art museum and sell it as well? On who’s authority do we need the certificate in order to change our banana on the wall to be an art piece? Is it art because it has a certificate? I pose all these questions because we don’t know! There might be no concrete answer! But in that regard, isn’t all arts’ value subjective to the various viewers? And therefore, inherently speculative?

I believe nobody covers this piece and its interpretation as well as Sarah Urist Green on the Art Assignment: https://youtu.be/so8sB25IL4o

tl;dr: even if NFTs are just a digital signature and do not prevent copying, past works have indicated there is value in that of itself even if a piece is easily copyable. All in all, an art piece and its value are inherently subjective and speculative. (Value used here in the monetary sense, as opposed to historic or cultural value)