Is this a real number or did you just make it up?
The one good thing about NFTs is the ability to manipulate prices legally (just like they do with art), and create arbitrary value out of nothing.
If the main point of cryptos is speculation, not payments, then NFTs are a better crypto. You can better inflate them and sell them, the only problem is you need to create demand, which is harder if you are not a celeb. Better to partner with someone well known and split the profits.
NFT is simply provable ownership of a digital asset. What that asset actually is and what it provides is an experimental and evolving space. I think HNers need to think less narrow about this.
I think the gaming and mass-market collectible space will be huge. See NBA Topshot for a recent successful example (~$300 million in sales this year) https://nbatopshot.com/
No. NFTs are provable ownership of a token representing a digital asset, but not ownership of the asset itself. Buying an NFT doesn't confer copyright ownership, for example. Nothing prevents minters from just lying about their ownership of an asset, and they do.
What an NFT actually is can be different for every token. Nothing stops the creator of an image from declaring the owner of the NFT the owner of the copyright. Like I said, I think this is an area of future innovation.
But right now, ownership of the NFT declares ownership of the NFT. What you can do with that is where companies and software engineers are experimenting. It is a very raw, early space that is exceedingly well-funded, and I expect many clever inventions to come out of it.
Anybody can sell a NFT of the Mona Lisa. It's worthless.
Except that there is only one Mona Lisa, the painting. There can be as many NFT of Mona Lisa as one wants. It's worthless, and your proof is a proof of ownership of something worthless. Good luck defending your ownership of a NFT in a court of law.