Hacker News Reader

Comment by LoveMortuus | Hacker News Reader

Yup, this is bound to happen sooner or later, because nothing about NFTs is legally binding. From what I understand (which isn't much) you could even mint your own NFT that has the same image as another NFT but since the underlying address is different, you won't be prevented from doing so.

View on HN

This is why I think it's somewhat of a misnomer to call it web3. I think what these efforts are trying to do is less about changing the internet and more about changing government. NFTs are trying to change registration of copyright, DAOs for registration of companies, cryptocurrencies for registration of currencies, so on and so forth.

Heck, even some are talking of crypto nations, which seem to want to replace/compete with/ complement nation-states directly.

So I see most of this stuff as trying to change governance without directly admitting it.

If you're curious about how folks are exploring legal intersection with smart contracts, you might find the work of https://www.lexdao.coop/ interesting (US focused mostly for now afaik).

Let's see: the front page is blank with "Join Us" and "Book a Consultation".

The blog is dank memes of Crypto Chads and some bullshit on how crypto is great.

Yes, yes, so much interesting.

I said curious not dismissive. When people don't communicate like you it doesn't mean their ideas are bad.

> I said curious not dismissive.

I was curious. I went to the site. I saw literally nothing about the purported "exploration of legal intersection with smart contracts".

> When people don't communicate like you it doesn't mean their ideas are bad.

They have to communicate those ideas first

The idea is to sell an idea. They learned from Theranos that you shouldn't sell something that is verifiable. For example, if you sell a legal service and that legal service doesn't provide value, people can verify that your service was worthless and call it a scam.

However, if you sell the idea that crypto legal services could exist in the future, you are selling something that is unverifiable. You will never be able to prove that the idea of crypto legal services was a scam. The idea exists and the future exists.

So these "Crypto Projects" will say something like "We are community supporting innovation in decentralized insurance and smart contracts" So all they are on the hook for is "supporting innovation". Which doesn't mean anything other than saying you on in favor of innovation.

When you ask for an example of something they support, they will list people "Doing interesting things". But those people also are just "exploring innovation", they also are not actually selling insurance policies on the block chain.

Hmm, I had a look at their blog, and I have mixed feelings. Lots of it is stupid. Lots of the titles contain spelling errors that would be embarrassing for a 14-year-old. But some of it is thoughtful and interesting, albeit basic, like this post on contract law and blockchains: https://lexdao.substack.com/p/legal-contract-formation-in-sm...

I do think there's space for some more serious and professional lawyers to think, and possibly provide some solutions, in this space. Hell, even if you think it's a scam, it would still amount to an interesting case study in how the law intersects with technology.

> it would still amount to an interesting case study in how the law intersects with technology

Yes, it would. Because "is code law" has applications way beyond "smart contracts" (which are neither smart nor contracts).

However, LexDAO is definitely ain't it. Because you either have an interesting discussion, or you cater to crypto chads. You can't have it both ways.

The article you linked does give a high level overview of some interesting points, though, so there's that :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com