[usrbinbash]

> But they're not required to tell anyone whether a transaction happened.

If they receive a court order, they are required to hand over records.

> Sued about what?

If I buy something from an artist, I am entering a legally binding contract with him. Such contracts can be enforced in court.

Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.

[Procedural]

> Of course, if I just send the artist some money, then he is under no obligation to give me anything, tell anyone about it, or even say "thank you". But that's not what I do when I want to buy a piece of art.

Correct. But NFT people want to show everyone that they support artists they like. Others are free to ignore them, but with public and independently verifiable transactions no one can objectively deny that NFT people actually support the artists.

[usrbinbash]

Support for the artist exists when someone first buys the NFT from the one who minted it. But nothing prevents investors from trading NFTs among each other. How many NFT trades are "artist-to-buyer", how many nft trades are "investor-to-investor"?

And if I buy a piece of art the classic way (buyers contract), I can put it in a gallery, or whatever, and "show everyone that I support the artist" that way.

And even without buying something, no Blockchain is required to support artists: people have managed to do so since long before electricity was discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts