Wouldn't he need someone to pay that same amount or more for the painting to effectively have moved money with this apparatus? And if the next buyer is similarly motivated, isn't the valuation akin to a Ponzi?
In the art auction world, either or both sides can remain as anonymous as they wish, which makes this whole scheme possible.
Rybolovlev and Bouvier have been in a legal battle over their business dealings (including the da Vinci sale): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bouvier_Affair
If you want to read a long-form story on Bouvier (which does touch on this situation), I'd recommend this: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/the-bouvier-af...
"Because these stones are too large to move, buying an item with one simply involves agreeing that the ownership has changed. As long as the transaction is recorded in the oral history, it will now be owned by the person it is passed on to and no physical movement of the stone is required."
Sadly, this appears to be true. Tons of art just sits in secure warehouses like gold bars, never seen by anyone. https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-freeports-oper... (I've never heard of Rybolovlev before, but his name comes up in this article as well.)