Somebody compared it to star naming services.

I know. I’m not convinced, as that is 100% a scam, and there are some actual artists involved in that NFT thing, which makes it only 95% comparable IMO :)

An artist being complicit in a Ponzi scheme doesn't mean it isn't a Ponzi scheme. It just means the artist is happy to fleece a greater fool. Don't confuse creativity with integrity! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greate…

I find the Ponzi scheme scam arguments too shallow, and also quite boring TBH

I don't understand the argument about shallow, and I can't help things that you find boring (I'm not too excited about it myself). It is an artificial construct where the last person standing finds they are holding something worthless, and everyone else along the way cashes out.

It is the literal definition of a Ponzi scheme. There is zero worth in a digital pointer to something, especially when (which is already happening) the platforms doing the pointing suddenly stop existing.

There’s a ton of fraudulent stuff happening in that space, but there are actual, legitimate use cases, e.g. when the actual owner connects an actual right to it, when some other service validates ownership, etc. And I’m not aware of other decentralized ways to achieve that.

There is nothing "decentralised" about it in a governance sense. If you put a NFT on the Ethereum blockchain, it is part of the Ethereum network. It has no legitimacy outside of that network. A genuinely decentralised way to do it would be peer-to-peer nonrepudiation like PGP.

Sure, you can view both Ethereum and Bitcoin as being not really decentralized. There still much closer to that ideal than any centrally hosted approach. Not sure how valid a comparison to some non-existent PGP-style variant is :)

Not a "PGP-style variant", PGP itself! If you sign a receipt with your private key and encrypt it with my public one, then I can prove ownership (by unlocking with my secret key) and provenance (by verifying your signature with your public key). This has existed for decades!