I would like to highlight Moxie Marlinspike's counterargument [1] in particular. Ostensibly web3 allows you to truly own digital assets, with ownership records

I would like to highlight Moxie Marlinspike's counterargument [1] in particular. Ostensibly web3 allows you to truly own digital assets, with ownership records being stored on an immutable distributed blockchain, verifiable by anyone. In practice, however, the seller (i.e. the person who created the digital asset) or distributor (e.g. OpenSea) can swap out what you own, at any time, for any reason, with little or no legal recourse on your behalf. That was borne out by the experiment that Moxie did, where he minted an NFT that linked to a site which displayed a certain abstract art image when viewed on OpenSea, but displayed a poop emoji when viewed in a crypto wallet (thus demonstrating creator control). When OpenSea discovered this misrepresentation, they removed the NFT from their service, rendering it inaccessible not only to new purchasers, but also to everyone who had purchased it in the past (thus demonstrating custodian control). And what legal recourse does a buyer have to combat either of these moves? Nothing. Web 3 takes us from a world where "possession is nine-tenths of the law" to a world where possession is the only thing that matters. Having a title to a particular (digital) good is worthless when you have no way to enforce that title against repossession. Having a title to a digital good is worthless when a seller can deliver something completely different and you have no recourse to get your money back. Can Web 3 solve these problems? Yes, but the problem is that the solutions will require interacting with existing messy real world legal systems and social norms. The initial promise of Web 3, a world governed entirely by immutable smart contracts, where "code is law" seems as far away as ever. [1]: https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html