It's different in at least two ways: physical objects provide utility in some way (you can read the book, wear the sneakers...) which means the demand isn't entirely speculative, and they also have a scrap value.

except people routinely pay more then their 'utility' value..so its just as easy to lose money. Not sure what the 'utility' of funco pops are, or the scrap value (same with stamps IIRC - many of them aren't even valid for postage). Stocks typically have no 'scrap' value as well - if a company goes out of biz, the stock is worthless, and these days you generally don't even have the paper certificates to sell for scrap.

Also, the 'value' of art, books, and collectables is rather subjective and fairly volatile. TBH, they seem pretty comparable to cryptos to me. You collect them for fun, hoping the value goes up.

If they routinely pay more than their utility value, it's a good indication that the asset is in a bubble, and therefore not a good investment in the long term. Most assets are not in a bubble. In fact, they can't all be in a bubble. If some assets are overpriced, then other assets must be underpriced.

Stocks don't have scrap value because they're a financial derivative, whereas we were talking specifically about physical assets. A stock is a claim on a company's equity, and the company equity is defined as assets minus liabilities. Obviously if assets < liabilities, then equity is negative, but that doesn't contradict the assertion that physical objects have scrap value, which was my claim.

Bitcoin is not a derivative, because it has no underlying. It's not a commodity either, because it doesn't exist. It's an imaginary asset, like fiat money. But unlike fiat, Bitcoin doesn't work as money, so it really has no use-case other than be used as a speculative asset. It's a bubble asset.