Hahaha. I see that you as well repeat the same nonsense that the box is not empty if you trade it for something.
No, I don't trade the box itself. I put value inside the box, and only once the box is filled, then it can be traded (the value inside the box is traded, not the envelope). Read again the part about "Stage 2" and private contracts.This is called Freudian rationalization. Or playing dumb.
That's what describes your comment best. 
I think you didn't even read my post.Collectibles are something that people can touch and see, explore with their senses.
OK, but then explain me something: Why is a stamp or coin where a failure in the printing machine made look one character slightly different, much more valuable than a stamp/coin with the correct character? (This is actually why I brought this example up, but your understanding seems to be too limited to grasp that ...)The reason has actually to do with "rarity", not with the "senses" you "explore" the item with. The difference can explain 99% or more of the value. This is also the case for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin was not rare it would not have a value.
If you now do another Freudian rationalization and say that "collectibles are also stupid", or "this kind of collectible is stupid" then ok. Then we simply have an opposite view about what "stupidity" is
If you try to explain the price of the failed coin/stamp with something which has still to do with the "senses" the collector "explores", for example because he likes the way the failed character looks, then I believe that you still believe in the Santa Claus story that people buy these things _not_ to invest or even launder money but "because they are beautiful".