Didn't some artist get his NFTs stolen through Discord screensharing and he begged his Twitter followers not to acknowledge the possessor of the NFT as the real owner of art?
My personal view here is that your continued ability to own an NFT depends on your ability to tell an interesting story.
If 51% of the professional clout of the art world decides you don't own something any more, you ... might not?
If the metadata that denote ownership of beeple's first 5000 everydays are accidentally overwritten due to a small bug, probably everyone will agree to ignore that.
But if someone puts on a super cool art-thief costume and does a livestream where they write and execute software that resets the ownership so it's their art now, while they play "The Thomas Crown Affair" soundtrack in the background, probably everyone will go along with this, yeah?
(Certainly the theft of the Mona Lisa increased its value!)
This requires some social contract to know who the authority is, and that's probably based on how much they have spent on marketing to become The Authority.
It always comes back to social contracts.
if there are 20 NFT chains, and 10 of them assign ownership to A, and 5 of them assign it to B and the other 5 don't assign it at all - what can we say anymore about the ownership?
all of this public ledger stuff might make more sense if, unlike as is customary, there is a single authoritative chain instead of a 'marketplace' of chains.
Once you get that, everything makes sense, from why bitcoin has value to the point of NFTs.
It's worth taking time to think about it until it at least makes sense what's happening, even if you don't choose to participate yourself.
It was funny to see how they responded to losing their NFTs by being tricked on discord: they contacted the centralized storefronts (rarible, opensea) to have them marked as stolen.
Which strictly speaking is about the art being "stolen", not the NFT.