I'm all for the potential of cryptocurrency... But can we all agree NFTs are dumb though?
For other types of software, without authenticating to the blockchain, there is no way to verify that the user is the owner of the license.
Do you need to add a transaction to the ledger for each use/verification?
The use case I considered was a client for trading on XRPL. For an application like this they are going to be signing transactions to interact with the ledger. If they are able to sign and own a license token in their ledger account then they are the valid user.
How is that going to fit in with tax assessment and ownership transparency legislation without making things complicated enough you haven't gained anything?
The purpose of a distributed cryptographic ledger is that no authority may commit to it without the required cryptographic private keys. If you have some party who can commit to the ledger arbitrarily, or who has a skeleton key, then you don't need the distributed ledger - you just need a centralized ledger with replication (far more efficient).
Any situation where ownership is enforced by a central party is a poor fit for this technology. You either want the cryptographic keys to secure the property, or you want the humans in charge to secure the property through a legal system. There is no sensible marriage between these systems. A system controlled by humans undermines cryptographic security, and a system controlled by cryptography obsoletes human control.
Therefore, the only thing worth owning w.r.t a digital ledger is the digital token itself. As a proxy for anything else, a digital token cannot assert right of ownership.
anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rather than old/archaic/obsolete. for example when I talk about the reason why election processes should not be "computerized"/networked it's because you want a slow system, it's a feature. The slow system gives you a slow result (but in an acceptable time), but it also avoids fast/at scale fraud.
I think slow while still holding slightly negative connotation is not as negative as archaic and other option (slow food is good)
I guess with a house owner token you could trade it electronically but have to go register the change and a government office within 30 days for something for it to be legally valid.
Art NFTs are digitally native. Like Bitcoin, the blockchain entry is the thing you own. That is why they are seeing the success that they are.
(disclosure: I have interest in the company)
That we’re seeing NFTs trading well isn’t an indication that it’s the art behind them that matters rather than the popular view of it as an asset.
Sure, given how they're being used for now; but with some refinement this could displace deeds and titles for property for instant verification. Possibly even validating credentials and degrees and maybe even passport and associated visas.
I'm not sure how you get over the enforceability aspect, but I can see a country like Estonia could opt to build their architecture around this.
Also, if I'm honest ETH is the last blockcahin of the big 3 that I'd consider putting something critical given all the exit scams: DAO and the first ETH etc...
Attaching a token to something that's inherently reproducible such as digital art yet with granting no means to actually enforce copyright is pretty much lunacy and it's just muddying the waters further when it comes to cryptocurrency.
The strength of smart contracts are also their greatest weakness - they're code, so any bug in the code is a de facto rule of the contract.
What now?
The problem with this line of thought is that the Venn diagram of cases where there is a potential natural fit for NFT and the cases where there is both a need for them and likelyhood of adoption may well have an empty intersection.
Property deeds are a good example. They can't practically replace the current system without radically rethinking that system, and it's unclear that the stakeholders would find any compelling reason to consider that.
Do you have a compelling example?
What advantage is gained by tying it one-to-one with an NFT or storing it on a blockchain at all?
Imagine if you could transfer car ownership without having to deal with the government or anything else? Just a transaction away. If the seller/buyer also uses cryptocurrency, you could safely write a contract that swaps the funds for the NFT without any risk of either parties running away with both of them (funds and NFT).
I'm looking at it from a "why would any government on Earth choose to use a 'decentralized' blockchain as a source of truth to keep track of property deeds in their jurisdictions" perspective.
uh you still have to register with the government, for good reason. and that's not going away.
When it reaches the reseller, it changes hands from the manufacturer to the dealer. Once the dealer sells it, it reaches the owner. At that point, government can still see all the details, transfers and more by just doing queries, instead of relying on people filling out forms.
Or am I missing what you mean?
Even if there wasn't any value in registering a car with the government, people buy how many cars in their lifetime? I expect that the number of cars that I'll ever sell in my life is less than ten. So this would save me like 30hrs in my entire life in DMV trips.
Maybe there is some utility here for dealerships who are dealing with a lot of government paperwork involving titles, but for a general population this seems like an incredibly tiny benefit.