3 ms·

No, dude. I’m doing the legal and technical work so that when a piece of real estate is sold as an NFT, the actual ownership of the land changes. You can actua

No, dude. I’m doing the legal and technical work so that when a piece of real estate is sold as an NFT, the actual ownership of the land changes. You can actually read the legal contracts which make that happen at mattereum.com/land — go over it with a lawyer, they’ll explain how it works. It’s straight forward contract law. The property has to be in an SPC (special purpose vehicle) but that’s standard for all commercial real estate and quite a bit of high end residential. It’s just a lot of lawyering. It actually works.

topranks 3y ago
The fundamental issue remains though. It’s all that legal framework off-chain that implements and enforces property rights in the real world. Having the data on chain doesn’t really help anything. All that matters is who the authority choose to see as the owner. They may as well operate the registry as they can choose to ignore it if they wish.
- leashless 3y ago
  Having data on chain changes everything. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-MR-to-Smarter-Contracts-Report-Launch-Lawtech-UK-UKJT-Blockchain-Smart-Contracts.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-M... -- head of civil justice for the UK discusses smart contracts and commerce. Read points six through ten here. This is entirely the point: having the data and contracts on chain is hugely important. If you don't understand this, you don't understand critical features about how everything really works.
  - ryan_lane 3y ago
    6 - 10 don't offer any useful information, except to say "blockchain is hot hot hot". You're only further showing that your grift is confidence.
    - leashless 3y ago
      *from one of the most senior judges in the UK* -- not "hot" but "has a ton of utility in the conduct of real commerce." It hits different coming from people that handle the legal frameworks for trillions of dollars of transactions, you know?
      - ross_st 3y ago
        Dude, I've already linked you to the full Smarter Contracts report that Sir Vos was referencing and explained to you how much of it isn't even referring to blockchain technology at all. I know you're a VERY busy CEO, but you could at least try and directly address some of that?
        leashless 3y ago
        I looked at your comments. They read broadly as a total failure of imagination: the kind of thinking that would have looked at email and said "this is not better than a fax machine because I can fax 40 million people, but only email 5000." If that's how you see the world, me going point by point is not going to change your fundamental "but only 5000 people have email accounts." Here's 550 pages of the UK Law Commission (govt legal think tank) discussing how to integrate digital assets into UK law. https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/ https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/ Why do you think this kind of labour is going into the digital asset space? Crypto is a massively compelling proposition to working transactional lawyers at all levels of seniority but it's especially compelling to the most senior. They know their business. As do I. Decades of experience doing real world transactions makes the utility of the blockchain obvious. To people without that experience, maybe the point is harder to see? But the serious types get it. That's the lived experience in the field.
        arcticbull 3y ago
        > Why do you think this kind of labour is going into the digital asset space? Sunk cost fallacy, libertarian ideology, the fact it's become a cult of prosperity for the tech class and the fact that to argue against it meaningfully you have to have a strong understanding of finance, technology and law. Very few people have enough expertise in all three areas to explain why it's a bad idea. But let me ask you. Since it's been the 'internet of the early 90s' for 15 years, why isn't it the 'internet of the mid/late 2000s' yet?

topranks 3y ago

The fundamental issue remains though. It’s all that legal framework off-chain that implements and enforces property rights in the real world. Having the data on chain doesn’t really help anything. All that matters is who the authority choose to see as the owner. They may as well operate the registry as they can choose to ignore it if they wish.

leashless 3y ago
Having data on chain changes everything. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-MR-to-Smarter-Contracts-Report-Launch-Lawtech-UK-UKJT-Blockchain-Smart-Contracts.pdf https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-M... -- head of civil justice for the UK discusses smart contracts and commerce. Read points six through ten here. This is entirely the point: having the data and contracts on chain is hugely important. If you don't understand this, you don't understand critical features about how everything really works.
- ryan_lane 3y ago
  6 - 10 don't offer any useful information, except to say "blockchain is hot hot hot". You're only further showing that your grift is confidence.
  - leashless 3y ago
    *from one of the most senior judges in the UK* -- not "hot" but "has a ton of utility in the conduct of real commerce." It hits different coming from people that handle the legal frameworks for trillions of dollars of transactions, you know?
    - ross_st 3y ago
      Dude, I've already linked you to the full Smarter Contracts report that Sir Vos was referencing and explained to you how much of it isn't even referring to blockchain technology at all. I know you're a VERY busy CEO, but you could at least try and directly address some of that?
      - leashless 3y ago
        I looked at your comments. They read broadly as a total failure of imagination: the kind of thinking that would have looked at email and said "this is not better than a fax machine because I can fax 40 million people, but only email 5000." If that's how you see the world, me going point by point is not going to change your fundamental "but only 5000 people have email accounts." Here's 550 pages of the UK Law Commission (govt legal think tank) discussing how to integrate digital assets into UK law. https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/ https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/ Why do you think this kind of labour is going into the digital asset space? Crypto is a massively compelling proposition to working transactional lawyers at all levels of seniority but it's especially compelling to the most senior. They know their business. As do I. Decades of experience doing real world transactions makes the utility of the blockchain obvious. To people without that experience, maybe the point is harder to see? But the serious types get it. That's the lived experience in the field.
        arcticbull 3y ago
        > Why do you think this kind of labour is going into the digital asset space? Sunk cost fallacy, libertarian ideology, the fact it's become a cult of prosperity for the tech class and the fact that to argue against it meaningfully you have to have a strong understanding of finance, technology and law. Very few people have enough expertise in all three areas to explain why it's a bad idea. But let me ask you. Since it's been the 'internet of the early 90s' for 15 years, why isn't it the 'internet of the mid/late 2000s' yet?