> a usecase can exist outside of the law

So, let me get this straight: you have an NFT that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law does not recognize the NFT as the deed for the vehicle... if you don't see any problems with that, boy do I have a bridge to sell you.

Let me reprharse this.

You have a piece of paper that represents the deed for a vehicle, but the law doesn't recognize the "paper" as the deed for the vehicle...(this during the time of clay tablets)

Was that clear? or do you still have that bridge for sale?

You're missing the point. A deed is only as good as the legal framework that enforces it as a representation of ownership rights. The thing that matters is that framework, not the technology use to implement it.

There are people who sell deeds to land on the moon (https://lunarland.com/), but they're worth little more than the paper they're printed on, because they have some of the same deficits in legal recognition that NFTs have. Those people have no more ability to will their certificates into having legal force than NFT advocates have.

In short, an NFT is little more than a trading card (representing only itself) unless a court would side with the possessor of an NFT against competing claims for whatever property it's suppose to represent (e.g. transferring ownership of the property/rights to party A using traditional means AND transferring the NFT to party B). If the court picks party A, the NFT meant nothing.

Oh god, why??

I made a point, which you missed and you're telling me that I missed your point? seriously?

I'm just telling you that this technology is suitable for doing the job of a paper-title, but in a digital way. Is it that hard?

I don't get it. If the law doesn't recognize the paper as the deed for the vehicle, then that piece of paper is worthless.