> It's like people want collectibles but seem to have decided to cut off a big part of what makes a collectible valuable.
What makes a collectible valuable? I think it's just scarcity plus a group choice to value that scarcity.
I don't think this is new or unique to non-physical collectibles, other collectibles also follow a pattern of increased demand for scarcity.
Take baseball cards. We know that better players have more expensive cards, and the more scarce the card the higher the value, along with other characteristics of the card. Makes some intuitive sense.
But that's not enough for collectors who want some cards to have a very high value. So then there's this collective agreement that rookie cards are going to be worth a lot more, not just based on print run, but based on the ability of the whole group to point at it and say that's a thing we value.
Then we have condition of the card, mint or near mint or worn, those are all different values. Again it makes intuitive sense because it's based on quality in some way. But it's not enough, so ever more sophisticated grading mechanisms are invented, well beyond any actual value to someone observing the card. It's a difference the naked eye can't perceive, only experts with sophisticated tools. But once they inspect it and give their mark of approval, it's a new point of scarcity that everyone can value.
It's all just invented value for the sake of value, the main thing is that the group can collectively point at something scarce and call it valuable. Misprints are another example, where the value is obvious not coming from quality and only from scarcity.