>which has it written in it's bylaws that it will transfer it back to a real person if a smart contract tells it to do so. It all sounds good, but just because

>which has it written in it's bylaws that it will transfer it back to a real person if a smart contract tells it to do so. It all sounds good, but just because a smart contract tells a Foundation/business/individual to do something, does not mean they will act accordingly. In other words it’s not a trustless system, in fact in your very example there is a legal entity (foundation) with a legal document (by-laws). These types of transactions result in legal disputes regularly off blockchain, I just don’t see how smart contracts/tokens a. Fix that; or b. Even make it better/less likely. Just an example, say a self driving car is owned by the foundation and it’s generating revenue by doing rides for hire, so you want to buy a % via token. What if the foundation fails to file its annual report and is now no longer in good standing with the state and is administratively dissolved? Now you’re in a position where a. You could be personally liable as an owner for any accident of the car (piercing the corporate veil since the foundation no longer exists and provides liability protection, assuming it ever did) and b. The car (like any other asset) can not be legally transferred out of a dissolved entity to another owner (meaning your liquidity is gone). That’s a wild hypothetical just for fun, but the main one is the same as any other business transaction what if the foundation (seller) pockets the money from the sale of the asset and doesn’t pay the token holder. There are serious questions regarding how the courts will handle claims from token holders, as opposed to being a party to a written contract (which can still take wild swings in the courts).