<p>On September 26, Christie's will present Zao Wou-Ki's masterpiece &#34;17.3.63&#34; at the evening auction for the 20th and 21st centuries held at its Asia-Pacific headquarters in Hong Kong. The work &#34;17.3.63,&#34; created in 1963, has an estimated price range of HKD 70 million to 90 million, which is about a 40-50% drop compared to the prices of three similar-sized works by the artist sold during 2018-2019. During the same period, the price of Bitcoin, a leading cryptocurrency in the virtual asset market, has surged 16 times since May 26, 2018 (the auction end date for Zao Wou-Ki's similarly sized work &#34;28.02.67&#34;).</p>
<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/c6c4c142-1a5e-48cc-9a5d-d9ca80a89402.jpeg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://wpimg-wscn.awtmt.com/c6c4c142-1a5e-48cc-9a5d-d9ca80a89402.jpeg"/> Zao Wou-Ki (1920-2013) &#34;17.3.63&#34; oil on canvas 130 x 97.2 cm (51 1/8 x 38 ¼ inches) created in 1963, estimated price: HKD 70,000,000 – 90,000,000 (Article and cover image source: CHRISTIE'S IMAGES LTD. 2025)</p>
<p>Previously, Zao Wou-Ki's works have performed exceptionally well in the art auction market, especially some large-scale works and those from the &#34;period of no boundaries,&#34; which have repeatedly set record prices. In 2018, his work &#34;June to October 1985&#34; was sold at Sotheby's Hong Kong for <strong>HKD 510 million</strong>, setting the highest price in Hong Kong auction history at that time and breaking Zao Wou-Ki's world auction record. The popularity of Zao Wou-Ki's works is attributed to both their artistic value and the market's recognition of him. His works are considered a model of the fusion of Chinese and Western cultures, possessing high collectible value and investment potential.</p>
<p>However, a recent phenomenon of stark contrast between the art market and the virtual asset market has shown signs of reversal.</p>
<p>On August 14, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission issued a joint statement regarding the market volatility related to stablecoins: The recent market fluctuations related to the concept of stablecoins appear to stem from announcements, news, social media posts, or market speculation regarding the application for stablecoin issuer licenses in Hong Kong, engaging in related activities, or exploring the feasibility of such plans. Some claims also mentioned recent contacts with Hong Kong financial regulators. The Monetary Authority reiterated that it would adopt a prudent and cautious approach when considering applications for stablecoin issuer licenses and set higher thresholds. The Monetary Authority emphasized that expressing intent or submitting a stablecoin license application, as well as communication with relevant institutions, is merely part of the application process, and whether a license is ultimately granted will depend on whether the application meets the licensing conditions. Given the significant uncertainty surrounding these plans or application outcomes, the aforementioned market fluctuations driven by sentiment or speculation highlight the necessity of remaining vigilant during market exuberance. Severe stock price fluctuations may lead to irrational decisions, exposing investors to unnecessary risks. In light of this, the Monetary Authority and the Securities and Futures Commission urge the public to exercise caution, analyze relevant information thoroughly, 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 for reducing risk.</p>
<p>As a result, will the heat of the alternative investment market shift from virtual to real?</p>
<p>With the help of AI analysis and organization, the commonality between virtual assets and artworks is &#34;non-physical value carriers&#34;—their core value does not rely on physical attributes but on the collective construction of &#34;meaning, scarcity, and consensus&#34; by humans:</p>
<h3><strong>Subjectivity and Consensus of Value</strong></h3>
<p>The value of both does not depend on &#34;physical utility,&#34; but rather stems from <strong>market consensus and subjective recognition</strong>.</p>
<ul>
<li>The value of artworks is not determined by material costs (such as paint, canvas) but depends on their cultural significance, the artist's reputation, historical context, and the consensus of the collecting market (for example, the value of Van Gogh's &#34;Starry Night&#34; comes from its status in art history and globally recognized aesthetic value).</li>
<li>The value of virtual assets is similarly weakly related to &#34;utility&#34; (for instance, NFTs themselves do not possess physical functions); their value comes from users' recognition of their scarcity, symbolic meaning, or the stories behind them (for example, Beeple's NFT work &#34;Everydays: The First 5000 Days&#34; sold for over $69 million, primarily due to consensus in the digital art field).</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Scarcity as Core Value Support</strong></h3>
<p>Scarcity is the key premise for maintaining value in both, and &#34;scarcity&#34; can be achieved through human design or natural attributes.</p>
<ul>
<li>In traditional artworks, the uniqueness of the original piece is the core of scarcity (for example, there is only one version of Da Vinci's &#34;Mona Lisa&#34;); limited edition prints and signed works ensure scarcity through &#34;limited issuance.&#34;</li>
<li>Virtual assets enhance scarcity through technological means: NFTs rely on the &#34;immutability&#34; of blockchain to ensure the uniqueness of each digital work; virtual real estate (such as Decentraland) guarantees scarcity by setting a &#34;fixed number of plots&#34; on the platform.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Overlap of Collectible and Investment Attributes</strong></h3>
<p>Both possess dual attributes of &#34;collectibility&#34; and &#34;investment,&#34; and purchasing behavior may stem from emotional preference or expectations of appreciation.</p>
<ul>
<li>Art collectors may purchase due to &#34;liking the style of the work,&#34; or they may invest because they &#34;anticipate future appreciation&#34; (for example, collectors buying works from young artists, expecting their future recognition to increase).</li>
<li>The same applies to holders of virtual assets: some collect NFTs because they recognize their digital art value, while others view virtual currencies and virtual real estate as &#34;asset allocation tools,&#34; hoping to profit from market fluctuations.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Necessity of Property Rights Clarification</strong></h3>
<p>Both require clear &#34;ownership&#34; to safeguard value, and defining property rights is a prerequisite for transactions and circulation.</p>
<ul>
<li>Traditional artworks clarify ownership through authentication certificates, collection records, etc. (for example, authenticity reports issued by auction houses), while copyright is protected through legal provisions (such as the artist's rights to reproduction and adaptation of their works)</li>
<li>Virtual assets establish ownership through technological means: NFTs record ownership transfers via blockchain, making each transaction traceable and ensuring that &#34;who is the holder&#34; is immutable; the ownership of virtual currencies is verified through private keys, achieving decentralized property definition.</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Cultural and Symbolic Significance</strong></h3>
<p>Both are <strong>carriers of cultural symbols</strong>, embodying the values, aesthetics, or social emotions of specific eras.</p>
<ul>
<li>Traditional artworks are the core medium of cultural heritage: the &#34;landscape imagery&#34; in Chinese painting embodies Eastern philosophy; Picasso's Cubist works reflect the cognitive transformation of the industrial age.</li>
<li>Virtual assets also possess cultural symbolic significance: NFTs can carry the subculture of the digital age (e.g., the CryptoPunk series NFTs represent the rebellious spirit of the early blockchain community); virtual real estate has become the &#34;physical carrier&#34; of metaverse culture, reflecting digital natives' pursuit of &#34;digital space sovereignty.&#34;</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Liquidity and Volatility of the Trading Market</strong></h3>
<p>Both have active trading markets, with prices influenced by supply and demand, trends, and speculative behavior, exhibiting strong volatility.</p>
<ul>
<li>Art transactions rely on auction houses (such as Sotheby's, Christie's), galleries, and other channels, with prices potentially fluctuating dramatically due to factors like &#34;artist events&#34; (e.g., in 2021, a Basquiat work sold for over $110 million, setting a record for contemporary art).</li>
<li>The trading of virtual assets relies more on decentralized platforms (such as OpenSea, Blur), with prices fluctuating more frequently: NFTs may surge several times in a single day due to &#34;celebrity endorsements,&#34; or may significantly depreciate due to market cooling; the prices of virtual currencies are even more affected by policies, technological iterations, etc., showing high volatility.</li>
</ul>
<p>Will the heat of the alternative investment market be driven from virtual to real or from real to virtual? Or will it be a blend of both— the commonality of &#34;non-physical value carriers&#34; between virtual assets and artworks allows the two to gradually merge in the digital age (e.g., traditional artworks issuing NFTs, virtual assets being included in art exhibitions), becoming value symbols that transcend the physical and digital worlds.</p>
<p>The answer to market questions awaits the market to respond.</p>
<p>Risk Warning and Disclaimer</p>
<p>The market has risks, and investment requires caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account individual users' specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own risk</p>

03068

03066

<p>On September 26, Christie's will auction Zhao Wuji's masterpiece "17.3.63" in Hong Kong, with an estimated price of HKD 70-90 million, a decrease of 40-50% compared to the transaction prices of works from the same period in 2018-2019. Meanwhile, the price of Bitcoin has surged 16 times since May 2018, highlighting the stark contrast between the art market and the virtual asset market. Although Zhao Wuji's works have repeatedly set sky-high prices, the changes in market recognition and artistic value have drawn attention</p>

- On September 26, Christie's will auction Zhao Wuji's major work "17.3.63" in Hong Kong, estimated between 70 million and 90 million HKD.  
- The art market has seen a decline in prices for similar works, while Bitcoin has surged 16 times since May 2018, indicating a potential shift in investment trends.  
- Both art and virtual assets share characteristics as non-physical value carriers, relying on human consensus for their worth, raising questions about the future dynamics between these markets.  

The valuation of top artworks has plummeted, while the art and virtual asset markets are experiencing a stark contrast?