|
|
|
|
|
|
by ARandumGuy
1729 days ago
|
|
|
The problem with using NFTs to verify ownership is that they actually make it much harder to resolve any disputes. An NFT can't be transferred or modified without explicit permission from the owner of the NFT, which means that any dispute is impossible to resolve without bypassing the NFTs entirely. For example, let's say you have an NFT that represents something tangible (and not just some link to an image download). What happens if the owner of the NFT dies without setting up a way to transfer their NTSs? What if multiple, seemingly valid NFTs point to the same object? What if the NFT was never truly valid in the first place? What if an NFT is stolen? In all of these situations, a third party (like a court) would have no actual power to fix anything within the NFT space. A hard fork is theoretically possible, but that becomes impractical to do every time someone has an NFT dispute. The only option is to just declare an NFT invalid. But if you have some third party that controls the validity of NFTs, then you might as well cut out the NFTs and just rely on the third party. |
|
|
In the terms of what you're saying, I'm arguing that the space of scenarios in which people can't come to an agreement is different for NFTs vs. legal systems, because NFTs provide some self-service mechanisms for proving ownership and legitimacy. I'm sure those come with tradeoffs, as you've mentioned. I'm not in a position to weigh those tradeoffs yet, nor claim that one is always better than the other. I think it's too early for that.
More concretely, courts, NFTs, et al are tools for reaching agreements. There's no reason to dogmatically cling to "on-chain" if it's not helping reach an agreement, and there's no inherent reason things can't be mixed between on-chain and off-chain, just as agreements can be made in court vs. out-of-court.