[owenmarshall]

It's entirely motivated thinking.

For a real asset to be backed by an NFT it seems your options are either to maintain physical control over the asset, or to use legal maneuvering on other claims of title to make the NFT hold value. So a painting or gold bar goes in a vault and only changes hand after the NFT is sold, and land sales become contingent on NFT transfers - and I suspect a ton of people would be incredibly surprised to hear that even contractual clauses with indefinite survival periods very rarely last forever, instead surviving only for a defined statutory period!

So under option one the NFT means the real item is worthless (and potentially not ever yours) because it is never in your actual possession, under option two it is subordinated to existing law.

A lawyer friend once jokingly said anyone drawing a contract should replace any mention of "NFT" with "magic bean" and see if the fundamentals still held: if they did, you don't need a blockchain; if they don't, the contract is already deficient.