There have historically been attempts to restrict the sale of purely speculative assets to the general public (Howey test, binary options ban etc), because gambling is such a compelling addictive product that people ruin their lives by it.
> I fail to see how this is different than any speculative asset?
To drive home the point from pjc50's sibling post, NFTs are "empty" speculative assets.
If you speculate with company stock, housing, or whatever else — there's generally at least some material value that could be liquidated. Even during a bubble when it's overvalued, it's generally not zero. And the cases where it can become zero (companies going completely bankrupt), there's warning signs and possibly even fraud.
NFTs just have no backing. Even "fiat money" (frequently said to "only have value because people back it", after gold standards went away) is different since it's backed by some country. NFTs? Nope. Just nothing.
Populated with real, physical resources, and real, physical people, who will take real, physical action to secure themselves, their resources, and their ideas.
Who is defending my unique set of bits? How are they defended? What is gained from defending them? What is lost if they're not defended?