I believe that NFT can bring a certain satisfaction to the real owner. Since its value is subjective, comparing it to Bitcoin or altcoins that clearly have usefulness is unfair. However, I do not deny that since the popularity of NFT, many people have tried to take advantage of the craze to create money for free by minting thousands of NFTs that have no value. What they're ambitious about is trying the luck of others who got millions of dollars earlier.
Honestly, besides specific cases related to copyright, cars, or diplomas, I haven't seen any real-world value in NFTs. Collections are just for fun because everyone can easily copy/paste to admire the artwork, or maybe I'm not educated enough to understand the value of owning a few images on a blockchain.
Fundamentally this is the concept of collectables in general, when we take out any of the real-world values. Like what is the value in physical trading cards, when you could just get a knock of copy of it, or get a photocopy of it? Clearly the value of the item (physical or not) is in the eye of the beholder. These types of collectables have never needed intrinsic value in order to be valued.
NFTs were very hot during the bullrun 2021 when they were given too many expectations, and the reality has disappointed NFT investors in the same way that ICO did in 2018.
I still think it's too early to tell if it's like ICOs, or whether it's like Bitcoin 2011 when it dropped 90%+ or Ethereum when it dropped 95%+ in 2017. The point being that both of these assets survived and thrived afterwards, and while NFTs are not cryptocurrencies, the speculation (huge pumps and dumps) remains very similar. The fact the many of the most popular collections have dropped 95%+ should be expected, as this is what happens when valuations rise by 100x+. You could say that similar to the ICO craze, 99.9% of projects died, but there were a tiny number that survived and remains alive and well today, so it's predictable that NFT colelctions are no different.
Personally I only invested a reasonable amount in MoonCats, simply because of the historical significance. It never really did that well 2021, potentially because it was one of the first collections of 2017 bought back to life, so there was a lot of selling pressure from the get go. But notably, unlike 99.9% of collections, the price has remained stable for years now, partly due to the lack of bull-run pump, but otherwise I believe it's because the value was only ever in it's historical significance and therefore hasn't changed. There are a few outliers like this, specifically the historical collections, aside from a few newer ones that got lucky recently in the bear market, that will no doubt struggle to survive in the future.
Of course we could look at CryptoPunks or Bored Apes and say they have failed and will never be popular again, because they have dropped like 80-90% in value. But then you have to look at perspective: they both increase like 100-1,000x and have still outperformed Bitcoin & Ethereum by 10x since 2021. So I'd hardly say these top two collections were failures given they have still outperformed the top two cryptos. Only time will tell if their values continue to increase in a bull market, or whether they die off. The more relevant aspect is that whenever valuations go up by 100x+, then you should take profits, and you could save yourself having highly speculative assets loose 90%+ value.
As long as governments haven't opened up to blockchain and NFTs, I don't see the possibility for NFTs to officially participate in the economy and society. Some applications in GameFi and SocialFi are just the beginning and haven't really taken full advantage of the full power of blockchain through NFTs.
To me this is still a non-starter and was never the initial idea for NFTs (that of being simple collectables). Maybe this would find value in the future but I was never a believer in any GameFi, SocialFi or Metaverse based NFTs. People tried to develop it but there was fundamentally no interest at the time.