NFTs of jpegs are scams.
NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust, yes — unlike everybody else on the blockchain) like stock, real estate or anything else are not.
NFTs that are linked to real-world assets (through intermediaries that you have to trust, yes — unlike everybody else on the blockchain) like stock, real estate or anything else are not.
That makes the NFT redundant.
I'm pretty sure you didn't pay that for the transfer of the house title. Most of that was for other stuff that happened around the same time, like getting a mortgage and having your lender make sure they're not going to be left holding the bag.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/closing-costs-m...
That kind of makes sense, though. Isn't that insurance against the possibility that you bought the property from someone who did not actually own it, so basically insuring against a total loss?
IIRC, a Torrens title would deal with that possibility, but my understanding is it as a consequence introduces other issues.
I think a better use-case for NFTs for now is as as keys, i.e. early investors to a project are granted a limited number of NFTs, which then allow them preferential access to later high-APR investments or whatever. This is a somewhat niche use case, but at least it's all on-chain and trustless.
Do those actually exist, or are they just a fairy tale to hype NFTs?
Also, even if they do exist, they probably demonstrate a particular kind of confusion that's often used to hype cryptocurrency-type things: there may be a link to the crypto-space, but it's entirely superfluous and all the real work is being done by a traditional non-crypto mechanisms.
If I bought your house and in addition to all the legal paperwork you also gave me a handwritten note saying "house is yours now, promise!" do you think I'll care about the handwritten note? If you only gave me the note and not all the normally required paperwork do you think I'd pay you?
How would any state authority be able to handle any case where the person supposed to hold the keys either is unwilling or unable to authorize a transaction that should legally go through?
If I lost the keys (as in the keys to my blockchain wallet) to the NFT for my house should that plot of land just be abandoned forever? If a company gets hacked and their keys for all their assets (or stock) gets deleted should that company just close down forever even though nothing tangible actually changed?
You cannot impose the rules of the blockchain on tangible assets. If your counter argument is to give some institutions the power to rewrite or add unauthorized transactions to the blockchain then you have simply reinvented the state, and lost all of the properties of a blockchain that make them interesting/valuable.
> you have simply reinvented the state
If you could reinvent the state so that it is predictable, testable, and not subject to human corruption then I’d say it’s a good thing! And also quite the experiment haha
I think you misunderstand my points. All the things you stated are simply not things we can achieve as absolutes in society or the physical world. The current rules of blockchains and smart contracts deal in absolutes, and when they can't they defer to oracles (which interface with the real world, so they have all the problems you stated). The real world is full of nuances, judgment calls and edge-cases which is why we have people who can adjudicate them. The points I listed in the parent comment are just a small fraction of the real world problems that would creep up in the first day of implementing this sort of system.
From here on this is more opinion/political:
If the discussion was about making laws more aligned with those points then the last place to start would be with crypto-tokens that have no real world impact (besides using a bunch of compute/resources). The place to start IMO would be to start removing exceptions from laws/taxes that don't make sense anymore, get the legal code down to a manageable size, introduce better accountability to our democracy and so many other steps. Starting with the tokens is destructive because it focuses energy at the wrong end of the problem and has clearly just led to most destructive parts of society (thieves, criminals, grifters, scammers, MLMs, etc.) to profit. It also makes people who see the obvious problems with it (I count myself among them) unwilling to participate so there is less force behind it even if it (against all odds) was a good idea.
I think it's also clear that a proper system to solve these issues would not be based on the current technical platforms being built since those are incapable on a fundamental level to answer questions like the ones I asked.