$600k in a cryptocurrency is sellable for that much cash.

$600K in a NFT is sellable for that much cash, or the nearest bid, no different than Ebay.

Wash trades also occur. People are discouraged from that due to transaction fees. Some people aren't discouraged from that.

When someone chucks $600k into an NFT from dollars for some virtual land I'll be much more likely to believe that it's actually worth that (to the individual) if it's demonstrably not a wash trade. And 'or nearest bid' is doing a lot of work. Lots of NFTs out there with a big disparity between bid amounts and asking price.

spend 2 minutes on an NFT marketplace? there are many trades between addresses that have registered aliases via ENS, which is the best way to determine if something is not a wash trade. Noteworthy is that you are starting from the opinion that things are wash trades, while the NFT users are not, and given the amount of energy necessary to support this opinion from someone not even participating it makes me wonder if any observation is possible to contradict your stance.

would you like a specific trade to debate? does it have to be $600k for this standard? I see some decentraland plots recently traded for $20,000.

thinking further about it, its easier if you owned an NFT other people were interested in, because then the bids - if they arise - would be from other people and you'll be one less person that would hold the likely wash trade idea. many NFTs are free to acquire during their initial creation.

Really no need when people actively research the field and we can see on aggregate what's really happening. Full transaction logs are useful for like that. And surprise, surprise: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00053-8

What is intended to be the surprise there? That it acts just like the fine art world?

This discussion was about prices are driven significantly by wash trades and that paper doesn’t suggest or imply that.

We have very different ideas about what this thread of discussion was about!