4 ms·
The main (and dangerous) difference with the NFT stuff is that society doesn't agree any of this stuff is valuable. It's a bit like what happens when a conquer
by Jetrel 6y ago
The main (and dangerous) difference with the NFT stuff is that society doesn't agree any of this stuff is valuable. It's a bit like what happens when a conquering power comes in and existing land titles become meaningless. A good example of this was real estate moguls in prewar Japan, many of whom had spent centuries gradually accumulating land tenancy over tons of other people - but as soon as WW2 happened, one of the big changes that transformed that country was that all of those land titles were simply dissolved.
Just, -poof-. Gone.
Ownership of that land was simply taken from them, and evenly divided amongst their tenants.
There's a very similar danger with i.e. property rights inside of videogames and stuff - until and unless there's case law about it, I can go into my buddy's proverbial minecraft server, wreck all of his (potentially months of) work, and there's really nothing he can do about it. I might lose a friend over it, but I won't lose a lawsuit.
The illustrative bit about the minecraft server is I'm at the mercy of "the community of people who agrees that thing has value", and in this case, it's one person.
- Talanes 6y agoI'd assume part of the artistic statement being made here ties exactly to your point about land. It's ultimately just ALL certificates that are unconnected to possession of the physical space. The difference between owning the NFT and owning the bridge is a matter of scale; of how many people buy into the worth of your scrap of digital paper.