I don't quite get this post, it somehow seems to make a case FOR nfts and then try to make the point that these are not look likr stocks (which is rather obvious).

The whole point of nfts is to create uniqueness among endlessly duplicatable media, and provide the possibility for digital art to be handled like physical art.

Just like the Mona Lisa, you can look at endless photos of it without restriction, but only one person can actually own it - the article correctly points out that nfts enable the same principle to hold true for digital goods, and then goes on to argue that this is bad because doesn't provide any passive return to the collector, which holds true for physical collectibles all the same ...