1. Digital ownership of a token. Digital assets can still be copied and distributed. Notions of ownership and title in digital are still inherently problematic.
2. This is probably not a feature society needs.
3. Possibly good? I'd say instead of "low trust" being the feature, "no natural owner of the database" describes the supply chain situation better.
4. maybe. USD, Gold, Etc have historically been good at this.
> Digital assets can still be copied and distributed. Notions of ownership and title in digital are still inherently problematic
Some NFTs come with additional publishing rights for the underlying asset. For example Eminems sold an NFT that contained to the rights and a different rapper bought it to make a song with it:
https://bitcoinist.com/the-rapper-who-bought-eminems-nft-for...
I think we're going to see more stuff like this in the future.
> 2. This is probably not a feature society needs
You might be right, but we do allow LLCs so we do allow a more difficult way to do the same thing. There is less regulation around DAOs but that's starting to change in some states, I'm for letting the experiment run
> 3. Possibly good?
I think this is a net benefit
> 4. maybe. USD, Gold, Etc have historically been good at this.
Yeah, for this one in particular I was thinking of stable coins that are backed by USD
If someone sells the NFT and publishing rights to a work at the same time… couldn’t they just sell the publishing rights? It’s like you’re buying the publishing rights and getting a receipt for your purchase and people are acting like the receipt is the big deal.
>3. Agree. There are a lot of databases that should exist, but the economic incentives of individual participants in a system means nobody wants to pay for it. Blockchains might present a way to make an end to end distributed database with no single owner, but where commercial interest still exists. (E.g. not open source)
