I see. So this is specifically about speculation, not about replacing all property ownership. This then involves trusting a central authority (the DOA) to grant

I see. So this is specifically about speculation, not about replacing all property ownership. This then involves trusting a central authority (the DOA) to grant ownership of the property to who-ever owns the NFT (which can be seen as a derivative from the property). Then the idea is that transfer of ownership through the blockchain is cheaper faster than actual transfer of ownership of a property through the government. That is interesting, but it seems to me that the legal problems here are far from trivial. How do you, as someone that purchases a NFT that is supposed to grant you ownership of a property, supposed to be ensured that you are actually purchasing a property? What if the DOA simply refuses to give it to you? Are you trusting a central authority without any legal fallback? There are also laws on eviction. It's not as simple as "if you get a mortgage and don't pay for a month, the house belongs to the bank". The government will not be pleased if people try to wriggle their way around those laws using a setup like this. There is strong regulation in this domain for a reason.