Hacker News Reader

Stocks used to be owned by whoever owned the physical share certificate. I think the difference is more that paintings still have some intrinsic value (though only aesthetic) even if other people don’t think they’re valuable.

View on HN

Right, the value in holding the stock certificate is that it provides the bearer with entitlements to control and a share of the assets of an intangible thing - a company.

The value in holding a painting is that you own some aesthetically arranged atoms.

But there's art that exists in freeports whose only value is that it's moved from locker A to locker B as a part of a financial transaction. Definitely, not all art is a security but it's an interesting question, both philosophically and legally whether there can be some class of art that functions so close to a security that security provisions should apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com