At this point it's probably necessary to talk about Crypto's Non-Fungible Tokens, and how disappointed I am that they set back all this stuff a decade.
If the concept of NFTs is vomit-inducing, feel free to skip the above link. Here let's suffice to say that they misunderstood the introduction of digital tokens into established cultural systems the same way I misunderstood the introduction of currencies into established cultural systems. That is that the members of a cultural system are protective of that system, and not at all interested in outsiders telling them their way is better (especially when it's not).
Since I've talked about gaming as a cultural system on the currency side, let me just highlight what I mean in a gaming context. "Ownership" of gaming items is what was touted as being enabled by NFTs, but anyone who had played any multi-player game with exchangeable gear knows that ownership already exists within games. Folks have been trading gear in MUDs, and on message boards since before the internet.
The novelty, that these NFTs could be used in different games, was undermined by the specific implementation of the NFTs, which I wrote about here 
.
The tl;dr is that because the NFTs are 256 bits, developers cannot write code that predictively maps to them.
The space where something interesting lies is, I think, in between the notion of fungibility, and non-fungibility. For lack of a better term I've called it Half-Fungibility.