代币物权法

Juliet M. Moringiello, Christopher K. Odinet
{"title":"代币物权法","authors":"Juliet M. Moringiello, Christopher K. Odinet","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3928901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Non-fungible tokens—or NFTs, as they are better known—have taken the world by storm. The idea behind an NFT is that by owning a certain thing (specifically, a digital token that is tracked on a blockchain), one can hold property rights in something else (either a real or intangible asset). In the early part of 2021, NFTs for items ranging from a gif of a pop-tart cat with a rainbow tail, to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s first tweet, to a New York Times column (about NFTs!) have sold for millions of dollars over the internet. Promoters assert that NFTs are the “future of digital property,” and that they herald a day when “government will lose its unique power to mint currency and protect property.” And these promoters reach beyond the typical crypto crowd. Giants of finance and industry are promising to extend the use of NFTs to securities, industrial assets, and real estate in the coming years. Moreover, this crypto token craze comes at a time when the American Law Institute and the Uniform Law Commission are in the midst of recommending revisions to U.S. commercial law to accommodate the digital age. In this Article, we take a more sober look at the tokenization phenomenon and, in doing so, describe what exactly it means when it comes to property rights. What can a purchaser of a token expect? How is a token actually connected to the underlying asset, if at all? What does the law—not the hype—have to say about it? We show that tokenization under the law actually has a long history, backed by practical economic considerations and animated by strong theoretical underpinnings. We also show that NFTs have neither of these attributes. Additionally, our Article surveys a dataset of terms of service from the most prominent NFT platforms in order to exploit both their disconnect from real legal effects and their puzzlingly contradictory promises about the relationships between buyers, seller, and the platform. Our project aims not only to inform current commercial law reform efforts, but it also offers a policy prescription for policing the NFT market.","PeriodicalId":142664,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","volume":"313 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Property Law of Tokens\",\"authors\":\"Juliet M. Moringiello, Christopher K. Odinet\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3928901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Non-fungible tokens—or NFTs, as they are better known—have taken the world by storm. The idea behind an NFT is that by owning a certain thing (specifically, a digital token that is tracked on a blockchain), one can hold property rights in something else (either a real or intangible asset). In the early part of 2021, NFTs for items ranging from a gif of a pop-tart cat with a rainbow tail, to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s first tweet, to a New York Times column (about NFTs!) have sold for millions of dollars over the internet. Promoters assert that NFTs are the “future of digital property,” and that they herald a day when “government will lose its unique power to mint currency and protect property.” And these promoters reach beyond the typical crypto crowd. Giants of finance and industry are promising to extend the use of NFTs to securities, industrial assets, and real estate in the coming years. Moreover, this crypto token craze comes at a time when the American Law Institute and the Uniform Law Commission are in the midst of recommending revisions to U.S. commercial law to accommodate the digital age. In this Article, we take a more sober look at the tokenization phenomenon and, in doing so, describe what exactly it means when it comes to property rights. What can a purchaser of a token expect? How is a token actually connected to the underlying asset, if at all? What does the law—not the hype—have to say about it? We show that tokenization under the law actually has a long history, backed by practical economic considerations and animated by strong theoretical underpinnings. We also show that NFTs have neither of these attributes. Additionally, our Article surveys a dataset of terms of service from the most prominent NFT platforms in order to exploit both their disconnect from real legal effects and their puzzlingly contradictory promises about the relationships between buyers, seller, and the platform. Our project aims not only to inform current commercial law reform efforts, but it also offers a policy prescription for policing the NFT market.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"313 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3928901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Other Regulation that Pertains to Consumer Markets (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3928901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

不可替代的代币——更广为人知的说法是nft——已经席卷了世界。NFT背后的想法是,通过拥有某种东西(具体来说,是在区块链上跟踪的数字代币),一个人可以持有其他东西(实物或无形资产)的产权。2021年初,从一只长着彩虹尾巴的馅饼猫的动图,到Twitter首席执行官杰克·多尔西的第一条推文,再到《纽约时报》的一篇专栏文章(关于nft !), nft在互联网上的售价已达数百万美元。支持者声称,nft是“数字财产的未来”,它们预示着“政府将失去其独特的铸造货币和保护财产的权力”的那一天。这些推动者的影响范围超出了典型的加密货币人群。金融和工业巨头承诺在未来几年将nft的使用扩展到证券、工业资产和房地产。此外,这种加密代币热潮正值美国法律研究所和统一法律委员会正在建议修改美国商业法以适应数字时代。在本文中,我们将更清醒地看待代币化现象,并在此过程中描述它在财产权方面的确切含义。代币的购买者可以期待什么?如果有的话,代币实际上是如何连接到相关资产的?法律——而不是炒作——对此有何看法?我们表明,法律下的代币化实际上有着悠久的历史,得到了实际经济考虑的支持,并受到强大理论基础的推动。我们还展示了nft没有这两个属性。此外,我们的文章调查了来自最著名的NFT平台的服务条款数据集,以利用它们与实际法律效果的脱节,以及它们对买方、卖方和平台之间关系的令人困惑的矛盾承诺。我们的项目不仅旨在为当前的商业法改革工作提供信息,而且还为监管NFT市场提供政策处方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Property Law of Tokens
Non-fungible tokens—or NFTs, as they are better known—have taken the world by storm. The idea behind an NFT is that by owning a certain thing (specifically, a digital token that is tracked on a blockchain), one can hold property rights in something else (either a real or intangible asset). In the early part of 2021, NFTs for items ranging from a gif of a pop-tart cat with a rainbow tail, to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s first tweet, to a New York Times column (about NFTs!) have sold for millions of dollars over the internet. Promoters assert that NFTs are the “future of digital property,” and that they herald a day when “government will lose its unique power to mint currency and protect property.” And these promoters reach beyond the typical crypto crowd. Giants of finance and industry are promising to extend the use of NFTs to securities, industrial assets, and real estate in the coming years. Moreover, this crypto token craze comes at a time when the American Law Institute and the Uniform Law Commission are in the midst of recommending revisions to U.S. commercial law to accommodate the digital age. In this Article, we take a more sober look at the tokenization phenomenon and, in doing so, describe what exactly it means when it comes to property rights. What can a purchaser of a token expect? How is a token actually connected to the underlying asset, if at all? What does the law—not the hype—have to say about it? We show that tokenization under the law actually has a long history, backed by practical economic considerations and animated by strong theoretical underpinnings. We also show that NFTs have neither of these attributes. Additionally, our Article surveys a dataset of terms of service from the most prominent NFT platforms in order to exploit both their disconnect from real legal effects and their puzzlingly contradictory promises about the relationships between buyers, seller, and the platform. Our project aims not only to inform current commercial law reform efforts, but it also offers a policy prescription for policing the NFT market.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Property Law of Tokens Gender in the Competition Law Curriculum? 보험시장에서의 거래구조 문제와 소비자보호제도에 대한 소비자평가 연구(Consumer Evaluation of Transaction Structure and Consumer Protection System on Life and Non-Life Insurance Markets in Korea) Predatory Pricing in India Personalized Choice of Private Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1