News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi scheme. Parent comment

Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi... by Rule35 on Tuesday March 16, 2021 @08:46AM (#26475979)
No, but purchasing it effectively will. If I create a software-license rental NFT which you have to refill periodically, you won't be able to force me to provide full coverage to that software. Even if you purchased it from someone else without being told the rules - the NFT encodes them and you'd be expected to read it and know the limitations on your claim.

If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.

If you buy a second-hand concert-ticket NFT the requirements of attendance will still need to be met before you can use it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi... by sneak on Tuesday March 16, 2021 @11:36AM (#26478211)
> If I minted an NFT that said for every period you paid you could collect royalties from my art then you would have a valid contractual claim after purchasing it, even if I didn't make the deal with you initially.

I don't believe this statement to be accurate.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Metakovan, the mystery Beeple art buyer, and his NFT/DeFi... by Rule35 on Tuesday March 16, 2021 @03:19PM (#26481548)
I don't think it's plausibly true now because of the complexity of that contract and the difficulty in expressing it, jurisdictional issues, etc.

But if all that was handled and it was considered binging between you and the first guy then I don't think the transferability would phase a court at all. The NFT by nature, being meant to be transferred, and with tools to prevent that where desired, would indicate intent.

Perhaps a better example would be me (the hypothetical creator of cryptokitties) selling a cryptokitty, with the obvious implication that I would not modify my game to invalidate said kitty. The final owner of the kitty, like yourself, could sue me for misrepresentation for selling a product I intended to disable. Perhaps for tortious interference.

[ Parent | on HN ]