The article mentions blockchain tech only towards the end, and the specific blockchain to which they refer hasn't even started operating yet.
The one example is simply securitizing a work of art, "with the blockchain", where naturally a blockchain is no more useful than a simple contract since blockchains don't guarantee action in the real world.
Which is to say blockchains could never do what the article claims, as you'd expect. It reminds me of people selling digital paper-clips in the 1980's.
> it envisioned how blockchain technology might “change the balance of economic power in the art market” and “integrate art into the financial sector.”
LOL
Typical blockchain specialist talking about stuff they know nothing about.
Here's the intelligence of your average "cryptogenius" https://www.wired.com/story/classic-scam-steals-bitcoin-on-t...
Watches, even custom ones, serve a different purpose. They rarely show up on Christie’s or Sotheby’s. Instead, they serve as a communication device. I am, possibly incorrectly, conspiring that this is the reason for the death of ultra high end pocket watches. They’re just not as visible.
Watches are pretty common these days at the big auction houses and most if not all have departments specializing in them now. Selling to many buyers who are presumably speculators with little intention to no intention to wear the watch.
https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/sothebys-beefs-u...
For instance at a smaller scale I was into investing in perfect replica of light sabers and limited editions of them. They cost around $1000 and I hope to resell them in a few years for more. And if not I am still happy to have them so it’s not that much a loss.
The biggest benefit is depending of your country you can have tax benefits that you won’t have on profits with other more classic financial products.
Have you read a good critic of moder art that you could recommend?