>>389075497
>>389075236
>>389074779
I think you look at this too much through the lens of what NFTs have traditionally been marketed for. Practically speaking what we want is proof of creation for assets you use in VR. So if you make an asset and people steal/rip it, they can't claim the original was by them. They can modify it and claim ownership over that, but there will be the originals, and the chinky fakes, just like with real products. People can still remix things, but provide proper credit. 

Whether blockchain can provide this in a user friendly way remains to be seen, which seems to be true. Communism didn't work and it backfired. Facebook probably knows the risks too with blockchain, but they can still research it, and then pull it back at the last second if they do see it as impossible to do right. 

>everything this whole NFT blockchain marketplace ecosystem offers can be replicated by having an account that you can log into lots of different places with
The problem is that unlike with money, we can't prove that the assets in our account are original or genuine. That's good enough if the only thing we want is interoperability, but we want both interoperability and proof of ownership, even if it's just "owning a copy or license". It may be possible for organizations (like banks) to all agree upon verified transactions of digital assets, but it'll be tough to insert those assets in the first place to have them verified. 

The effects on creativity are a concern and I can see where that argument comes from. I think it's a trade-off. This ability to have ownership and credit will attract more creators, while there will be a decrease in the openness and spread of ideas. It's unfortunate but the situation isn't entirely negative. Kind of like with the modding situation. Huge modding projects have died in favor of just making their own games, but those games can also be pretty good in their own right.