Are legacy brand ownership methods proving more secure than blockchain?
The recent phishing theft of the Seth Green NFTs brings the reality of the dark world of crypto's blockchain technology to the forefront.
You wanted anonymous ownership? So did the people looking to steal your stuff.
Now a thief has stolen a well-known NFT into which significant investment has been made to bolster upcoming production and licensing. Then the thief re-sold the NFT to what appears to be a third, innocent party. The thief is in the "ether," so to speak, protected by the very technology that titles the art, and props up its very value.
Now a thief has stolen a well-known NFT into which significant investment has been made to bolster upcoming production and licensing. Then the thief re-sold the NFT to what appears to be a third, innocent party. The thief is in the "ether," so to speak, protected by the very technology that titles the art, and props up its very value.
Scam GutterCats clone site. I’m crazy careful with separate wallets and security but still got got. Luckily it’s art not crypto so they can be traced. For anyone that bought them, we can work something out.
— Seth Green (@SethGreen) May 17, 2022
Three things appear clear at this point:
- NFT ownership battles are going to rage in the courts for years before they are settled law;
- Lawyers will get richer than owners, and;
- Settled law around traditional titled ownership (trademarks, internet domains, etc.) appears to be much more defensible for years to come.
I suspect Seth Green wishes he had utilized standard ownership documentation and protections, after pumping tens of thousands of dollars into promotion of the intellectual property, and missing the opportunity he had secured. It's value now is certainly not based on its blockchain ownership titling.
No comments:
Post a Comment