for a long time two of my biggest positions in crypto have been: Bitcoin ($118k) Punks ($180k) bitcoins and punks are the two most expensive assets in crypto. yes, individual nfts might be more expensive, but i wouldn't call them an asset per se. do you notice something about these two assets? they are NOT a play on technology. bitcoin is the oldest and slowest blockchain and punks are the oldest and least sophisticated NFTs (they aren't even erc721) to me, the race for "better, faster tech" is a race to the bottom. blockchains are a technology and technology ALWAYS behaves in the same way: it gets better, faster, cheaper over time today's blockchains are much more performant than the chains from 5 years ago and the chains in 5 years will ALL be faster, better,cheaper than SOL, sui and ...monad (lol) technology will always become obsolete which is why i don't bet on technology in the LONG TERM, but on CONTENT, bc content can survive. music from beethoven, mozart and all other artists are content and they are still thriving today while the instruments, CDs and devices they were recorded on are all obsolete. bitcoin is the worst blockchain in terms of tech. yet, it commands a 61% share of the entire market. punks are a badly executed nfts, yet, you cannot buy one for less than $180k in the short term, altcoins will most likely outperform these two, but it's just speculation. if you want to have an easy life without checking charts or twitter, just stick to the fundamentals