On a lark, I started my own line of NFTs on OpenSea. Literally just uploading pictures of the scenery I've taken on my morning drive. Who knows, maybe I'll be a millionaire in a few.
Seriously, though, I don't expect this whole thing to last long at all. All the NFTs and "clubs" seem to be iterations on a theme, a picture with minor differences and the people selling them saying some are more common than others. What happens if you put actual art of photography into the mix?
Doesn't matter. There are many, many people uploading others art without permission, and it's permanently soured every artist I follow on the thing. On top of that, Samwise Didiem announced a NFT of one of his pieces and the reaction on the announcement itself was almost universally "Oh hell no."
As someone else put it, furry has been doing the custom artwork market for DECADES, and has had no reason for any sort of solution like this, which shows again how much it's just a solution looking for a problem, and how it actually does nothing for artists. It's about the investment and speculation, not the contents, and it's been outright said by pro-crypto folk multiple times. They just want "mo money" and don't care what it is as long as it makes them richer, or lets them cash out(since the only way to cash out is by other people buying your crypto, gotta have a way to make it desirable after all).
As to whether it sticks around, that depends on the IRS and legislative responses, and whether enough rich people(and scammers) think they can continue to milk it for more money, and can keep getting people to buy into it.
Also another good read here:
https://blog.dshr.org/2022/02/ee380-talk.html
it actually brings up an interesting aspect: permissionless blockchain(what we all think of) is technically vulnerable to being taken over by many many small accounts, which is apparently called a Sybil attack - so the solution to stopping a Sybil attack is by causing enough waste that you'd lose more than you gain by running one. Waste such as mining is basically required to protect the blockchain and is built into it's very existence. On top of that:
As has been true for the last seven years, no more than five mining pools control the majority of the Bitcoin mining power and last November
two pools controlled the majority of Ethereum mining.
So even that defense didn't work out in the end, as it still has re-centralized around a small number of groups who can prioritize or deprioritize things(as explained in the article). Not to mention that because of exchanges to get money in or out:
Most activity in "trustless" cryptocurrencies actually uses trusted third parties, exchanges, that are layered above the blockchain itself. These use conventional Web-based identities and provide another layer of centralization. Binance, the dominant exchange, does two out of three derivative transactions and half of all spot transactions. Adam Levitin points out that
customers are unsecured creditors of exchanges. Exchanges are
routinely compromised; in most cases immutability means the pilfered funds are not recovered.
But, more fundamentally, the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem depends upon a trusted third party, Tether, which acts as a central bank issuing the "stablecoins" that cryptocurrencies are priced against and traded in
[8]. This is despite the fact that
Tether is known to be untrustworthy, having consistently lied about its reserves.
So in the aspect that most people engage with it it's not decentralized either, in terms of control, which was supposed to be the entire POINT of the thing.