3 ms·
The court, in making their ruling, could forcibly transfer the NFT, as it would make sense that they would give themselves admin status in the smart contract. S
by everfree 6y ago
The court, in making their ruling, could forcibly transfer the NFT, as it would make sense that they would give themselves admin status in the smart contract. So there's no reason the blockchain would need to diverge.
Regarding liens, it seems simple enough to say that if someone does not own an NFT "free and clear", then they cannot transfer it "free and clear". It might even be a different NFT entirely (a "liened NFT," where the original un-liened NFT is held in trust by yet another smart contract, with limited or conditional ownership rights given to the lien holder.)
The reason not to use a database is interoperability. Any smart contract can transfer these NFTs according to infinitely nuanced scenarios, and only during disputes would a court need to get involved and forcibly transfer the NFT according to a judgement.
- theptip 6y agoI’d add on the “why not use a database” - in general you should always prefer a database to a blockchain/DLT, all else being equal. The typical case where all is not equal in finance is where currently parties transact via a trusted intermediary like a clearinghouse (who might take a 1% fee, say), and a startup wants to allow parties to transact directly, thereby capturing the fee as upside. Large financial institutions don’t tend to trust small startups that might implode any month, but they can (sometimes, it seems) be persuaded to trust a distributed ledger.