On September 26, Christie’s will present Zao Wou-Ki’s masterpiece 17.3.63 at the Evening Auction of 20th & 21st Century Art held at its Asia Pacific headquarters in Hong Kong. Created in 1963, 17.3.63 has an estimated price range of HK$70 million to HK$90 million. This represents a roughly 40-50% drop compared to the transaction prices of three similar-sized works by the artist from the 1960s sold between 2018 and 2019. Over the same period, the price of Bitcoin, a leading virtual asset, has surged 16-fold since May 26, 2018—the day when Zao Wou-Ki’s similarly sized 1960s work 28.02.67 ended its auction.
Zao Wou-Ki (1920-2013), 17.3.63, oil on canvas, 130 x 97.2 cm (51 1/8 x 38 ¼ inches), painted in 1963. Estimate: HK$70,000,000 – 90,000,000. (Source for article and cover image: CHRISTIE'S IMAGES LTD. 2025)
Previously, Zao Wou-Ki’s works had always performed strongly in the art auction market, especially some large-scale pieces and those from his “Infinite Period,” which repeatedly fetched sky-high prices. In 2018, his work June to October 1985 sold for HK$510 million at Sotheby’s Hong Kong, setting the highest price in Hong Kong’s auction history at the time and 刷新 ing Zao Wou-Ki’s world auction record. The popularity of Zao Wou-Ki’s works stems partly from their artistic value and partly from market recognition. His works are regarded as a model of the integration of Chinese and Western cultures, boasting high collection value and investment potential.
However, the recent “worlds apart” phenomenon between the art and virtual asset markets has faintly shown signs of reversal.
On August 14, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) issued a joint statement on market volatility related to stablecoins: Recent market volatility linked to the concept of stablecoins appears to stem from announcements, news, social media posts, or market speculations related to entities planning to apply for a stablecoin issuer license in Hong Kong, engage in related activities, or explore the feasibility of such plans. Some claims also mentioned recent contacts with Hong Kong financial regulatory authorities. The HKMA reaffirmed that it will adopt a prudent and cautious approach when considering applications for stablecoin issuer licenses and has set high thresholds. The HKMA emphasized that expressing intent, submitting a stablecoin license application, and communications between the HKMA and relevant institutions are only part of the licensing process; the final decision on whether to issue a license will depend on whether the application meets the licensing criteria. Given the significant uncertainty surrounding the outcome of these plans or applications, the above-mentioned volatility driven by market sentiment or speculation highlights the need to remain vigilant during market 狂热. Sharp fluctuations in stock prices may lead to irrational decisions, exposing investors to unnecessary risks. In light of this, the HKMA and the SFC urge the public to exercise caution, conduct in-depth analysis of relevant information, and avoid making irrational investment decisions based solely on market hype or price momentum. The public should remember that making thoughtful and informed decisions in a volatile environment is crucial to reducing risks.
Against this backdrop, will the popularity in the alternative investment market shift from the virtual to the real?
Through AI analysis and sorting, virtual assets and artworks share a common feature as “non-physical value carriers”—their core value does not rely on physical attributes but on the collective construction of “meaning, scarcity, and consensus” by humans:
Subjectivity and Consensus of Value
The value of both does not depend on “physical utility” but rather stems more from market consensus and subjective recognition.The value of an artwork is not determined by material costs (such as paints and canvas) but by its cultural significance, the artist’s reputation, historical context, and the consensus in the collection market (for example, the value of Van Gogh’s The Starry Night comes from its status in art history and globally recognized aesthetic value).
The value of virtual assets is also weakly related to “utility” (for instance, an NFT itself has no physical function); its value comes from users’ recognition of its scarcity, symbolic meaning, or the story behind it (for example, Beeple’s NFT work Everydays: The First 5000 Days sold for over US$69 million, primarily due to consensus in the digital art field).
Scarcity as a Core Value Pillar
Scarcity is a key prerequisite for both to maintain value, and “scarcity” can be achieved through artificial design or natural attributes.In traditional art, the uniqueness of the original work is the core of scarcity (such as Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, of which only one exists); limited edition prints and signed works ensure scarcity through “limited issuance.”
Virtual assets enhance scarcity through technical means: NFTs rely on the “immutability” of blockchain to ensure the uniqueness of each digital work; virtual real estate (such as in Decentraland) guarantees scarcity by setting a “fixed number of plots” on the platform.
Overlap of Collectible and Investment Attributes
Both have dual attributes of “collection” and “investment”; purchasing behavior may be driven by emotional preference or expectations of appreciation.Art collectors may buy a work because they “love the style” or invest in it with the “anticipation of future appreciation” (for example, collectors purchasing works by young artists in the hope that their popularity will rise in the future).
Holders of virtual assets are similar: some collect NFTs because they recognize their digital artistic value, while others view virtual currencies and virtual real estate as “asset allocation tools,” expecting to profit from market fluctuations.
Necessity of Property Rights Confirmation
Both require clear “ownership” to protect their value, and the definition of property rights is a prerequisite for transactions and circulation.Traditional art confirms rights through authentication certificates, collection records, etc. (such as authenticity identification reports issued by auction houses), and copyright is protected by legal provisions (such as a painter’s right to reproduce and adapt their work).
Virtual assets confirm rights through technical means: NFTs record ownership transfers through blockchain, with each transaction traceable to ensure that “who the holder is” cannot be tampered with; the ownership of virtual currencies is verified through private keys, enabling decentralized property rights definition.
Carrying Cultural and Symbolic Meanings
Both are carriers of cultural symbols, embodying the values, aesthetics, or social emotions of a specific era.Traditional art is a core medium of cultural inheritance: the “landscape artistic conception” in Chinese painting embodies Eastern philosophy; Picasso’s cubist works reflect the intellectual changes of the industrial age.
Virtual assets also have cultural symbolic significance: NFTs can carry subcultures of the digital age (such as the CryptoPunks NFT series representing the rebellious spirit of the early blockchain community); virtual real estate has become a “physical carrier” of metaverse culture, reflecting digital natives’ pursuit of “digital space sovereignty.”
Liquidity and Volatility of Trading Markets
Both have active trading markets, and their prices are influenced by supply and demand, trends, and speculative behavior, showing strong volatility.Art transactions rely on channels such as auction houses (such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s) and galleries; prices may fluctuate sharply due to factors like “artist-related events” (for example, in 2021, a Basquiat work sold for over US$110 million, setting a record for contemporary art).
Virtual asset transactions are more dependent on decentralized platforms (such as OpenSea and Blur), with more frequent price fluctuations: NFTs may surge several times in a single day due to “celebrity endorsements” or depreciate significantly as the market cools; the price of virtual currencies is even more affected by policies, technological iterations, and other factors, showing high volatility.
Will the popularity in the alternative investment market ultimately shift from virtual to real, from real to virtual, or perhaps achieve a fusion of the two? The commonality of virtual assets and artworks as “non-physical value carriers” may lead them to gradually merge in the digital age (such as the issuance of NFTs for traditional artworks and the inclusion of virtual assets in art exhibitions), becoming value symbols that span the physical and digital worlds.
The answer to the market’s question will have to wait for the market itself to reveal.