5 ms·

Worth noting that NFTs aren’t just cryptokitties; there is a lot more you can do with them. ETH NFT refers to the smart contracts that you would use to digitiz

Worth noting that NFTs aren’t just cryptokitties; there is a lot more you can do with them. ETH NFT refers to the smart contracts that you would use to digitize ownership of a house or any other (physical or financial) unique asset that you might trade. You can nest an NFT under an ERC20 token, too, so that you can sell partial ownership tokens in your NFT. Of all the use-cases in crypto, I think digitizing ownership is the one that seems most likely to be actually used for a non-trivial volume of non-speculative trading.

roywiggins 6y ago
What happens when a judge says "no, the person who the NFT says owns the house doesn't, it's Bob over there"? When it comes down to it, the entry on the local tax rolls or property registration office is going to be the one that counts.
- fredfoobar 6y ago
  What's the other proof of ownership? NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    My point is, that states have monopolized property transfers and there's all sorts of weird and arcane laws and practice around how you transfer property- especially real estate- and convincing the state to recognize an NFT as evidence of anything is going to be a real challenge. ex, if the law requires an actual notarized handwritten signature to transfer ownership, what you and I do on the blockchain will simply not count when it comes down to it. If I accidentally burn the NFT that represents ownership of my house I'm definitely still the owner of the house, there's no world where a government would shrug and say "I guess nobody owns it anymore, oops"
    - berenza 6y ago
      there is work being done on bridging smart contracts with contract law and it may be further along than you think. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/blockchain-legal-and-regulatory-guidance-report https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/blockchain-leg... https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2020/12/how-smart-contracts-are-changing-legal-contracts/ https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2020/12/how-smart-contrac... https://www.ikigailaw.com/how-have-different-states-in-the-united-states-of-america-enabled-blockchain-technology-and-smart-contracts/#acceptLicense https://www.ikigailaw.com/how-have-different-states-in-the-u...
      - roywiggins 6y ago
        It seems to me that there's going to be an unbridgeable gap when it comes to physical property. If someone hacks my wallet containing my "house NFT" and transfers it to themselves and I can't hunt them down and force them to return it, who owns the house? How do I sell it, if I don't have the NFT? Can I go get another NFT minted, and who from? How does the buyer know that this newly minted NFT represents the true ownership and the old one doesn't? Suppose I die taking my wallet keys with me; how do my heirs inherit my NFT-ized house? If the government is minting these NFTs and deciding which transfers are legitimate and which aren't, why are we bothering with all this? Basically: at some point, an NFT will become separated from the ownership as recognized by the people who count (banks, governments, etc). Without a mechanism to reunite them, the NFT is not very useful; but if there is some sort of mechanism, it's really that mechanism that determines ownership, not the NFT and you might as well use a centralized ledger.
        theptip 6y ago
        One easy way to resolve all of these problems is to build an escape hatch in the contract so that in the case of theft, loss, or other special circumstance you can invoke arbitration and mint a new token if needed. It’s important to understand that these tokens aren’t going to replace the existing legal system (much though the anarchist/libertarian wing of the crypto community might wish it). They just enable certain transactions to occur with lower overhead and time delay. This is about improving friction in the happy path, not providing new solutions for every conflict case. Personally I don’t think there is a reason to put your primary residence one the blockchain (you don’t trade it that often). But it’s interesting for places where you might want to trade assets at higher frequency (eg micro loans, supply chain finance, etc) and maybe there is a real-estate trust angle too.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership) No they aren't, and least not until they're recognized by law as such.
    - fredfoobar 6y ago
      I'm not sure what a "usecase" has to do with laws, a usecase can exist outside of the law. Are you implying that laws should come before inventions/ideas?
      - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
        > a usecase can exist outside of the law So, let me get this straight: you have an NFT that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law does not recognize the NFT as the deed for the vehicle... if you don't see any problems with that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
        fredfoobar 6y ago
        Let me reprharse this. You have a piece of paper that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law doesn't recognize the "paper" as the deed for the vehicle...(this during the time of clay tablets) Was that clear? or do you still have that bridge for sale?
        tablespoon 6y ago
        You're missing the point. A deed is only as good as the legal framework that enforces it as a representation of ownership rights. The thing that matters is that framework, not the technology use to implement it. There are people who sell deeds to land on the moon (https://lunarland.com/ https://lunarland.com/), but they're worth little more than the paper they're printed on, because they have some of the same deficits in legal recognition that NFTs have. Those people have no more ability to will their certificates into having legal force than NFT advocates have. In short, an NFT is little more than a trading card (representing only itself) unless a court would side with the possessor of an NFT against competing claims for whatever property it's suppose to represent (e.g. transferring ownership of the property/rights to party A using traditional means AND transferring the NFT to party B). If the court picks party A, the NFT meant nothing.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  I don’t really get your point. What happens when a judge says “you don’t own your house any more, the government owns it now”? Well, what happens is you lose your house. The fact that the government can circumvent any notion of property ownership isn’t really a criticism of any particular notion of property ownership.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Yes this would also defeat the government's own ownership database/archive.
  - quantified 6y ago
    Just highlighting “there’s a trump card over your claim to ownership lurking out there.”
snarf21 6y ago
As a sibling mentions, you can't digitize a house. The state has already done that. The whole point of crypto is decentralized trust. You don't need that when the state is the system of trust, whether you like it or not.
K0balt 6y ago
That's what I think too, which is why i started pruf.io

roywiggins 6y ago

What happens when a judge says "no, the person who the NFT says owns the house doesn't, it's Bob over there"? When it comes down to it, the entry on the local tax rolls or property registration office is going to be the one that counts.

fredfoobar 6y ago
What's the other proof of ownership? NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership), IMO. I'm not too keen on the collectibles/art usecases, they're probably the easiest/low-effort ones.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  My point is, that states have monopolized property transfers and there's all sorts of weird and arcane laws and practice around how you transfer property- especially real estate- and convincing the state to recognize an NFT as evidence of anything is going to be a real challenge. ex, if the law requires an actual notarized handwritten signature to transfer ownership, what you and I do on the blockchain will simply not count when it comes down to it. If I accidentally burn the NFT that represents ownership of my house I'm definitely still the owner of the house, there's no world where a government would shrug and say "I guess nobody owns it anymore, oops"
  - berenza 6y ago
    there is work being done on bridging smart contracts with contract law and it may be further along than you think. https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/blockchain-legal-and-regulatory-guidance-report https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/blockchain-leg... https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2020/12/how-smart-contracts-are-changing-legal-contracts/ https://www.lawtechnologytoday.org/2020/12/how-smart-contrac... https://www.ikigailaw.com/how-have-different-states-in-the-united-states-of-america-enabled-blockchain-technology-and-smart-contracts/#acceptLicense https://www.ikigailaw.com/how-have-different-states-in-the-u...
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      It seems to me that there's going to be an unbridgeable gap when it comes to physical property. If someone hacks my wallet containing my "house NFT" and transfers it to themselves and I can't hunt them down and force them to return it, who owns the house? How do I sell it, if I don't have the NFT? Can I go get another NFT minted, and who from? How does the buyer know that this newly minted NFT represents the true ownership and the old one doesn't? Suppose I die taking my wallet keys with me; how do my heirs inherit my NFT-ized house? If the government is minting these NFTs and deciding which transfers are legitimate and which aren't, why are we bothering with all this? Basically: at some point, an NFT will become separated from the ownership as recognized by the people who count (banks, governments, etc). Without a mechanism to reunite them, the NFT is not very useful; but if there is some sort of mechanism, it's really that mechanism that determines ownership, not the NFT and you might as well use a centralized ledger.
      - theptip 6y ago
        One easy way to resolve all of these problems is to build an escape hatch in the contract so that in the case of theft, loss, or other special circumstance you can invoke arbitration and mint a new token if needed. It’s important to understand that these tokens aren’t going to replace the existing legal system (much though the anarchist/libertarian wing of the crypto community might wish it). They just enable certain transactions to occur with lower overhead and time delay. This is about improving friction in the happy path, not providing new solutions for every conflict case. Personally I don’t think there is a reason to put your primary residence one the blockchain (you don’t trade it that often). But it’s interesting for places where you might want to trade assets at higher frequency (eg micro loans, supply chain finance, etc) and maybe there is a real-estate trust angle too.
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > NFTs are the digital equivalent of a vehicle title, that's the strongest usecase (proof of ownership) No they aren't, and least not until they're recognized by law as such.
  - fredfoobar 6y ago
    I'm not sure what a "usecase" has to do with laws, a usecase can exist outside of the law. Are you implying that laws should come before inventions/ideas?
    - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      > a usecase can exist outside of the law So, let me get this straight: you have an NFT that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law does not recognize the NFT as the deed for the vehicle... if you don't see any problems with that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
      - fredfoobar 6y ago
        Let me reprharse this. You have a piece of paper that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law doesn't recognize the "paper" as the deed for the vehicle...(this during the time of clay tablets) Was that clear? or do you still have that bridge for sale?
        tablespoon 6y ago
        You're missing the point. A deed is only as good as the legal framework that enforces it as a representation of ownership rights. The thing that matters is that framework, not the technology use to implement it. There are people who sell deeds to land on the moon (https://lunarland.com/ https://lunarland.com/), but they're worth little more than the paper they're printed on, because they have some of the same deficits in legal recognition that NFTs have. Those people have no more ability to will their certificates into having legal force than NFT advocates have. In short, an NFT is little more than a trading card (representing only itself) unless a court would side with the possessor of an NFT against competing claims for whatever property it's suppose to represent (e.g. transferring ownership of the property/rights to party A using traditional means AND transferring the NFT to party B). If the court picks party A, the NFT meant nothing.
tshaddox 6y ago
I don’t really get your point. What happens when a judge says “you don’t own your house any more, the government owns it now”? Well, what happens is you lose your house. The fact that the government can circumvent any notion of property ownership isn’t really a criticism of any particular notion of property ownership.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Yes this would also defeat the government's own ownership database/archive.
- quantified 6y ago
  Just highlighting “there’s a trump card over your claim to ownership lurking out there.”

snarf21 6y ago

As a sibling mentions, you can't digitize a house. The state has already done that. The whole point of crypto is decentralized trust. You don't need that when the state is the system of trust, whether you like it or not.

K0balt 6y ago

That's what I think too, which is why i started pruf.io