NFTs like cryptocurrencies are a non-yielding asset. If you buy a business, a building or land, they all yield or have the potential to yield an income.
Gold is the original non-yielding asset and when, in 1941 the US entered WW2, many people bought gold as a 'safe' asset. Every $1 of gold bought in 1941 is now worth 3c (and that's adjusted for inflation).
ALL non-yielding assets PRESUME that their is someone prepared to pay more for said asset, they have no inherent value. As a medium of exchange, cryptocurrency has the benefit of being non-centralized so it's become the go-to medium for people seeking to avoid taxation or for transactions over illegal products and services.
I know someone who invested quite heavily in crypto early on and has done reasonably well - they were able to profit for a few years, but in the last 12 months they have gone VERY quiet, have begun to rent their spare room and are now looking for a job. So even successful investors aren't seeing it working as a form of passive income.
It's also fascinating that investors had to invent an acronym for anyone who casts doubt on the whole field of investment. Anyone who questions the financial basis of NFTs and crypto is accused of 'spreading FUD'.
I don't see ANYONE feeling the need to defend investment into, say, building and renting properties, shares in productive companies or even into new startups. Why? Because all of these represent a yielding asset.
Investment 'bubbles' into non productive assets has a long, long history. From Tulipmania in The Netherlands (1634-1638) onwards, people still don't seem to recognize that their is no such thing as free money. If one is in the lucky position of not materially losing even if an asset's value does undergo a 'correction' then it can be considered speculation and anyone in the business of speculation will widely spread the risk. But NFTs and crypto are seemingly not subject to the level of accountability placed by governments on other investments.
It's interesting to note that even the most successful speculators, people who spend months analysing a potential investment, only see an average of around 40% of their investments ever yielding them a profit. So people buying NFTs must be insane. That 'Bored Ape Yacht Club' has lost 88% of it's value in the last month. Now they attempted to sell their NFTs promising all manner of services but when you see how much those NFTs cost, what an owner was given 'free' represented about 1% of the price they paid - and the BAYC people were the MOST successful.
Anyone looking closely at the agreement would see that they don't own the image nor do they own the copyright, right to reproduce the image or right to in any way profit from owning the image. No, the BAYC still owns all of those. So when the price collapses, they can go on to produce limited edition merchandise having obtained hundreds of millions of pounds of free advertising.
In short, the only people who profit from NFTs are the people who produce them. I collect Lukács prints from the 1920s-1930s. They are a series of Dutch safety posters. So it's known how many were produced and how many different prints were produced. I enjoy owning them because I find his work fascinating - IF their value substantially increases then I MIGHT consider selling them... but if they are worth nothing, it doesn't affect my appreciation of his work.
So why buy an NFT? Buy a unique piece of art that you love and consider any potential profit as a bonus.