This is fundamentally wrong.
NFTs allow you to show off who "owns"[0] something.
[0] for some generalized, possibly meaningless definition of "own". I say possibly meaningless, then again, what is property really, just a government-managed, non-fungible, token? Don't gaze too hard at the abyss, unless you are willing to let the abyss to gaze back.
NFTs don't provide that, therefore they aren't a good medium of exchange. They aren't "scarce" in the way that money is or has to be.
They're also a Tulip bubble, but that's a different thing.
Doesn't sound specious to me. The artificial scarcity is real, and has real consequences for real people. While trust is the primary property of money, scarcity-at-any-point-in-time is a fundamentally necessary (but not sufficient) to be a money.
Do you have a different definition of specious?