I disagree with 'tech community' being against it, every project I come across these days have included nfts in some way or other.
If ethereum were to solve it's scalability problem, we would see even more participation.
I mean yeah most projects that aim to get short term profits would be into NFTs right? But my point is that most technical shows I've watched (or even stuff like the WAN show) explains how it doesn't really have much of a "value". It can be minted again, and there's little point in "exclusivity" or "proof of ownership" argument when the stuff that is in questions doesnt really have a physical existence.
The way that NFTs are being associated with images, is basically useless because getting that image is basically as simple as right clicking and hitting "Save as". The technology itself isn't worthless - just the current most popular implementation regarding NFT art is.
You can copy a digital file as many times as you want, including the art that’s included with an NFT.And sure, the proof of ownership that exists on the blockchain can't be copied. But for just any piece of art, does that really carry any value? And it doesnt make it more exclusive, if other people also have that image, it doesnt even remotely compare to art collecting like most people hope it will. With digital art, a copy is literally as good as the original.
