Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because nfts are not tied to the real world. You own nothing but the digital signature. The digital signature is thing that people want to own in the real world!
And yet all the talk is not about the signature, but the thing it refers to. Why is that distinction constantly elided? Is it because the digital signature has no value on its own?
Being in physical possession of the bytes to a JPEG is not what gives people the sense that they own this piece of art in the way they might own a painting, because the bytes are so cheaply copied.
Owning the intellectual property behind a JPEG is an entirely different kind of ownership; the value is in the commercial exploitation of those rights, and the buyer is now taking over from the creator in being responsible for said exploitation to get their money's worth. This is not what artists or art collectors want.
The whole point is to artificially recreate the traditional experience of ownership, but for immaterial/digital goods. People talk about owning the work (or an edition of it), not the signature, because that is the whole point of the exercise.
Immaterial artworks such as video art, performances etc. are already being sold in the art market; what you get is a piece of paper stating that you own the work. It's exactly the same as an NFT.
It may seem utterly useless for people who don't care about owning editions of immaterial works of art, but there is nothing scammy about it. It is done entirely in earnest.