In an earlier article we outlined the potential of non-fungible tokens (NFT) for commercial activity, and today (some 2.5 years later) the New York Times and even the Wall Street Journal are catching up to the topic. Albeit, the authors still seem to struggle with the terminology – i.e. separating blockchains and cryptocurrencies.
Twelve years after the publication of the bitcoin whitepaper, a general confusion persists among creators eager to make use of the invention introduced by its mysterious publisher. This is why investors cannot be blamed for a general skepticism toward solutions labeled with the term “blockchain.” To understand the paradigm shift these networks introduce, scientific principles demand that its relevance for commercial activity must be established from first principles.
As outlined in an earlier article, blockchain-native digital bearer instruments such as Bitcoin’s mining reward bitcoin introduced new concepts of ownership and value transfer, upsetting the order of enumerated asset classes heretofore seemingly complete.
A fact that thus far has escaped many legal professionals, regulators and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, all of which seem to be content to force round blockchain pegs through narrow square holes of legacy regulations and/or vernacular designed for financial products lacking the sophistication of blockchain-based solutions.
In the absence of truly interdisciplinary discourse, amateur legal practitioners and technologists started to apply broad labels to a number of concepts which are still undergoing transformations.
My latest Hackernoon article discusses the nuances of the frequently applied – and more often abused – term digital asset.
Category: Search |
Comments Off on When is an Asset “Digital”?
The following is a first principle examination of the market opportunities blockchain-based solutions offer within the realm of government-controlled currencies, commonly referred to as “fiat money”. Quite literally addressing all the money in the world.