>>Most art - at least of modern vintages anyway - are mainly a venue for money laundering anyway.

Is there any evidence at all for this extremely inflammatory claim?

Yes. It is a known problem/financial shortcut for people with the connections and wealth to pull it off.

https://www.artandobject.com/news/how-money-laundering-works...

The only evidence provided is highly circumstantial and geographically limited:

>>Consider that when the Mexican government passed a law in the early 2010s to require more information about buyers, and how much cash could be spent on a single piece of art, the market cratered, as sales dipped 70 percent in less than a year.

Much of Mexico's economy, even the legitimate markets, is controlled by cartels, so operates very differently than most economies.

It might not even be the law's impediment to money laundering that caused sales to crater - it may be simply that in a country with a large outlaw faction that has thoroughly infiltrated government agencies, people with means will not want to be easily tracked/identified by attaching their identity to large purchases of luxury items.

Except the "most" part needs, you know, substantiation.

Otherwise it's FUD.

No there isn't. While money laundry certainly happens in the art world the anti - crypto people learned It all from an article released few years and now parrot it everywhere. At this point I can't decide who are more annoying - cryptobros or the anti cryptobros.