The key problem with NFTs is that they are advertised as decentralized, zero-trust, proof of ownership. But minting doesn't prove authorship and selling the to

The key problem with NFTs is that they are advertised as decentralized, zero-trust, proof of ownership. But minting doesn't prove authorship and selling the tokens isn't exclusively transferring the data. Say you want to prove authorship. Prove without a shadow of a doubt, prove mathematically, that you own this MOV of your indie film. You can't. You can't do it in the real world, you can't do it in the digital world. In the real world, we register copyright and then sue violators for damages in courts governed by laws put on the books by legislatures elected by citizens. That's the very system the NFT is trying to avoid. And say you want to create exclusion for the data. You'd have to create a DRM system. But we can't even get DRM to work when we do have legitimate proof of ownership in physical media sales through authorized retailers. So even if DRM could, would, and should be implemented, then it's only as good as the teeth behind it. So now you're back in court, invoking the DMCA. The concepts of Ownership and "decentralized, zero-trust" are incompatible. Ownership requires exclusion, exclusion requires a credible threat of violence if violated, and violence is monopolized by the State. I would personally go so far as to say the entire concept of zero-trust is a boondoggle, it's really all just "shifting the point of trust", but that's a different argument for another day.