And according to the article they got pushback, said it was a glitch (his got deleted after a year of inactivity, they claim it's supposed to be four years, and in part to comply with data privacy laws, I'm guessing in the UK as theirs are pretty stringent), and also said they're going to more or less undo it in this instance, meanwhile Steam wasted no time announcing they don't delete inactive accounts ever, gaining some free brownie points and a decent number of people will probably avoid their store in the future so as not to risk this happening.

So yeah, I maintain my point that if they offer NFTs, allow owners to sell them to other people (which is kind of the point of NFTs), and then decide certain instances of NFTs don't have to be honored because they banned that person, they're going to get enough articles like this that they'll feel pressure to walk back such an action.

So from the post you responded to

> The idea that NFTs somehow help in these kind of situations is utter nonsense

is accurate. Is your point that NFTs wouldn't hurt the situation? That's a different claim.