Yes but I think you are overthinking the risk and overestimating the formation of a secondary market.
But most people overestimate these things in the collectible market.
All you get is the ease of prior price discovery and history of ownership. That’s only useful after the market has decided your edition was the valuable edition.
Copies leaking isn’t important because the history of ownership shows you were the only owner, at an earlier date. Literally solves all of the provenance and forgery issues that have plagued art world for millenium. People pay a premium for just that. Has nothing to do with comparisons to physical attributes or rare metals used. Like I said, a better analogy - for now - would be improvements to rare items in online games that people already were spending time and resources to acquire and trade. If you recall, many people weren’t willing to understand intangibles there either. Regardless, it is an extension of the same crowd and the same sentiment. Shareholders in the gaming company could pressure them to increase the supply of a rare item in a database, with NFTs that is not possible as earlier provenance can’t be modified. It assumes the market is discerning but if it already cares about a piece than it is. If it doesn’t, a secondary market would likely never form for the “investment” to begin with.