3 ms·

"NFT" means "Non-fungible token". It means that one token of a type is not strictly equivalent to another token of the same type. It does not mean "a link to

"NFT" means "Non-fungible token". It means that one token of a type is not strictly equivalent to another token of the same type. It does not mean "a link to a JPEG that is hosted on OpenSea." > You do not own an NFT in any legal or moral sense. Often this is the case, but it doesn't need to be the case, it shouldn't be the case, and it was never intended to be the case. Yes, it is stupid that people are buying NFTs that are not linked to a legal or contractual grant of intellectual property. However, it is also the case that there are in fact NFTs being sold that do in fact attempt to convey an ownership right via contract.

acdha 5y ago
The problem is that the salespeople _frequently_ misrepresent NFTs as having legal meaning as a key part of the explanation for why you should pay so much for one and they _never_ mention that the same basis you'd need to convey the legal contract also means that you have a system you can use instead of a blockchain at much lower cost.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Has this been tested in court? Common law is very flexible, and (IANAL) I wouldn’t be surprised it if recognised an NFT sale as one. Eg if both parties believe and represent the transaction as a sale at the time, does that in itself make it a sale, regardless of finer technicalities?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - acdha 5y ago
    In most cases it doesn’t need to be tested: the party making the sale isn’t responsible for what some random cryptocurrency salesperson on social media claims. If the actual seller made misleading claims and the fine print didn’t clarify, it might be actionable. Typically what we see, however, is that the terms do note that you’re buying the link rather than its target.
threeseed 5y ago
> attempt to convey an ownership right via contract If that attempt was a serious one it would be an actual legally binding contract. But it's not. And the sellers know this because it allows them to scam more money out of people.
- legutierr 5y ago
  > If that attempt was a serious one it would be an actual legally binding contract. Yes, the idea is to have a legally binding contract that assigns ownership to whomever controls the token.

acdha 5y ago

The problem is that the salespeople _frequently_ misrepresent NFTs as having legal meaning as a key part of the explanation for why you should pay so much for one and they _never_ mention that the same basis you'd need to convey the legal contract also means that you have a system you can use instead of a blockchain at much lower cost.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Has this been tested in court? Common law is very flexible, and (IANAL) I wouldn’t be surprised it if recognised an NFT sale as one. Eg if both parties believe and represent the transaction as a sale at the time, does that in itself make it a sale, regardless of finer technicalities?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- acdha 5y ago
  In most cases it doesn’t need to be tested: the party making the sale isn’t responsible for what some random cryptocurrency salesperson on social media claims. If the actual seller made misleading claims and the fine print didn’t clarify, it might be actionable. Typically what we see, however, is that the terms do note that you’re buying the link rather than its target.

threeseed 5y ago

> attempt to convey an ownership right via contract If that attempt was a serious one it would be an actual legally binding contract. But it's not. And the sellers know this because it allows them to scam more money out of people.

legutierr 5y ago
> If that attempt was a serious one it would be an actual legally binding contract. Yes, the idea is to have a legally binding contract that assigns ownership to whomever controls the token.