[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

In some context I would agree, there is theoretical value to a decentralized trustless ledger[0]. What I can't agree with, however, is that entries in a decentralized trustless ledger are inherently valuable as cryptocurrency proponents would like us to believe. The entries in the ledger have no inherent meaning, they're just a number associated with another number and the only reason anyone equates that with a monetary value is that, for the moment, they can find someone else[1] to give them money to shuffle those numbers around. I think that, at best, one could say that BTC is backed by hype and speculation. I am not convinced that is a useful basis for a currency[2].

This is in contrast to fiat currencies which their various governments offer guarantees that they will honor.

NFTs, on the other hand, make even less sense to me. They seem like they are just cryptocurrency in disguise trying to fool people who otherwise question the concept of inherent value by claiming (falsely) that they are equivalent to ownership of digital goods[3].

[0] I have yet to hear a use case for which they are actually better than traditional alternatives, but I can imagine that one might exists.

[1] read: greater fool.

[2] Leaving aside all the energy wasted on PoW.

[3] And that's before we get into my conviction that attempts to force artificial scarcity into a post-scarcity space are backward and perverted.

[mitchdoogle]

Money in your bank account is just a number in a database somewhere.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

You must have missed a significant portion of my post if you do not see why I do not believe those are equivalent.

I'll reiterate: the number in the database represents an amount of tokens guaranteed to be accepted by the government of the country I live in. Cryptocurrency 'coins' carry no such guarantee, only the possibility of greater fools.