Usually when you respond to a post you address what is in the post. Posting that you think it’s a stupid question adds nothing to the discussion. Doubly so when you don’t bother to present an alternative way to look at it.
Ok. Let me spell out explicitly what I already implied.
First, it wasn't a stupid question. How do you know some NFT trades aren't just wash trades? We don't know! It's hard to know that due to the non fungible nature of NFTs.
Second, it was not a genuine question; it was a rhetorical question with an implication that surely, surely, any NFT trades at high prices or whatnot must have been wash trades. I don't agree with this implication.
When you have non fungible assets which rarely trade, it's very difficult to establish what they're worth (or, "what they would sell for", to avoid a detour about intrinsic value).
An NFT can sit a long time in someone's wallet without any trades and it's hard to say if it would sell for $5, $5000, or not find a buyer at any price.
Likewise, an NFT can be traded multiple times at ever-higher prices and it will be difficult as an outsider to establish wether those trades are wash trades or not.
I'm saying it's difficult to establish what the market price for these NFTs is. This is an alternate way of looking at things. The original story was that some people proclaimed they determined the market price for some collections of tokens and confidently concluded that that price was zero. That's ludacrious; nobody trades anything at zero. Either the volume crashed to nothing, or the price was at some level above zero. In any case, I disagree with the premise that it's feasible to measure the market price for illiquid collections of tokens.
