Legal point of view who owns a stolen Bored Ape

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
#46

Ar and KOII are not mined in the way BTC and Eth are mined.

AR is mined. It’s just based on proof of access, rather than proof of work. Rather than confirming the validity of changes to the blockchain in order to earn tokens, you provide access to stored data files.

But it’s the same process. The system only works as long as people are willing to offer their computing resources in exchange for the possibility of being paid in the native token - which native token only has value as long as people are willing to pay for the service being provided by the system.

There’s no way of knowing that Arweave is going to last 200 years (much less 600 years). It will only last as long as people keep choosing to use that service. If someone were to come along with a competing product that people preferred to Arweave (say it was faster or cheaper or was easier to use) and took away their users, then Arweave can disappear just like any other software service.

Albaby

2 Likes
#47

Atomic mints the NFT, contract and digital file on Arweave.

There is no blockchain for Atomic.

Koii is developed to show the Atomic NFT. The KOII token is for showing the public the art. It bridges to Eth.

Koii is nothing like Opensea IN THAT you can not sell the NFT on Koii.network.

#48

Yes Ar is mined.

I used the word issued. I do not know what that means legally.

But issued as in why people would create some demand in the process. Because you were questioning why the process would continue on or peter out. People are involved with Ar and KOII for different reasons than BTC or Eth.

#49

Atomic mints the NFT, contract and digital file on Arweave.

There is no blockchain for Atomic.

Koii is developed to show the Atomic NFT. The KOII token is for showing the public the art. It bridges to Eth.

Koii is nothing like Opensea IN THAT you can not sell the NFT on Koii.network.

So the NFT is on the Arweave blockchain. Got it. Again, you can’t “mint” a contract. An NFT is not a contract.

If you can’t sell the NFT on Koii, how are people going to buy these NFTs?

Albaby

1 Like
#50

How?

Remember Web3 is in development.

The bridge to Eth allows them to be sold for Eth. The bridge is specifically workable on Opensea.

I get that the contract is not a token.

You are in real estate. The contracts you write are not the property you see being bought and sold. You keep telling me that. Your contract ends up in two places, a filing cabinet and a digital file on a server.

#51

I used the word issued. I do not know what that means legally.

But issued as in why people would create some demand in the process. Because you were questioning why the process would continue on or peter out. People are involved with Ar and KOII for different reasons than BTC or Eth

No doubt. But only a vanishingly small number of human ventures - of any kind - last for as long as 200 years. Much less a technology venture in a nascent field.

Not sure I’d be willing to bet that a file posted on Arweave is more or less likely to still be around in a decade or two than one hosted/posted on an NFT issuer’s website, TBH. Keeping the lights on for a basic website (like, say, the Yuga Labs website) costs a lot less than the total amount of computing power needed to run a decentralized storage system like Arweave.

Albaby

#52

Arweave is not a business.

It really is a non profit to store all of mankind’s knowledge. Nothing more.

#53

How?

Remember Web3 is in development.

The bridge to Eth allows them to be sold for Eth. The bridge is specifically workable on Opensea.

Ummmm…are you sure?

That’s not really consistent with how bridges work. Bridges are ways that tokens can be “moved” from one blockchain to another. I use quotes there, because the tokens don’t actually themselves move from one to another. So a bridge that moves Solana to Ethereum accepts SOL on the SOL blockchain and issues “wrapped” SOL as an Ethereum token, and vice-versa. The WSOL gets used on the Ethereum chain (or exchanged for ETH), and then can get “moved” back to the Solana chain by reversing that process. The bridges maintain big pools of liquidity in these fungible tokens on both sides of the bridge to accommodate these transactions (which is why they’re a popular target for attack).

But that can’t work for the types of NFT’s you’re describing, because they’re far too large to actually be written to the Ethereum network. The gas fees would be astronomical.

I have no doubt that KOII tokens are bridged to ETH. But that wouldn’t mean you could sell your NFT’s on the Ethereum blockchain - or any blockchain they’re not native to. They’d be way too big.

Albaby

1 Like
#54

Arweave is not a business.

I didn’t say it was. That doesn’t mean it’s going to last for very long. Lots of non-profits disappear over time as well.

As far as I can tell, the Arweave system “matches” people who want to pay to store digital information with people who are willing to be paid to store digital information. Not in a one-to-one way, which is subject to trust and verification issues, but in a decentralized way. People storing information pay for the service in AR tokens, and the people who are mining (storing) get paid in AR tokens for their efforts in the same way that miners do in other blockchains. No one has to coordinate the system, and no one’s centrally in charge of it.

But that doesn’t mean it’s at all durable. If people stop turning to Arweave for their storage needs, then the miners will stop storing data on their computers. Without people continuing to buy AR to pay for storage, the value of the AR will collapse - and so the miners will have no incentive to keep providing the service.

Albaby

(I also very much doubt it’s a non-profit venture, given the number of pre-mined AR tokens).

#55

I have no doubt that KOII tokens are bridged to ETH. But that wouldn’t mean you could sell your NFT’s on the Ethereum blockchain - or any blockchain they’re not native to. They’d be way too big.

Al,

I am hardly all that and a bag of chips knowledgeable on this topic. But I have read what Opensea wants. They want people to use the storage of either the IPFS or Arweave.

Yes I think as you do the bridge is KOII to ETH. That I can be paid in Eth on Opensea as Opensea seems to be indicating. It is rare in that it is only Opensea so far. Web3 is more developmental. It will change over time what will be done.

There is little room on a blockchain for much data. Making it usually a must to work with storage.

Again your property contracts reside generally unfixed or glued to the underlying property being sold. You physically do not bury the contract on the piece of land.

I told my dad of our conversation. His immediate response was you have the wrong lawyer. Meaning he needed information on the taxes his mother would owe when selling property in Dublin. His accountant kept talking about himself not giving him any answer. One day playing golf he was introduced to a tax accountant and he asked. That moment the answer was given, taxes owed in Ireland not America where she just arrived as an immigrant.

I need another lawyer, sorry. LOL

#56

I got the impression from my early readings Arweave is a foundation.

The LOC and entities like that are storing everything at very low cost on it.

Arweave was not designed for NFTs. Hence Atomic and Koii.

#57

That I can be paid in Eth on Opensea as Opensea seems to be indicating.

Al,

Let’s put this another way. I know I can not be paid in KOII. KOII is not on an exchange yet. I get 5 free KOII. I need 200. I need my animations to garner views to earn more KOII. Opensea lets me sell the animations on their platform. Listing them for Eth.

#58

I need another lawyer, sorry. LOL

Oh lord, yes. Please, do that. Not “another” lawyer, since I’m not your lawyer - but if you’re actually planning on spending any real effort on this as a business venture, speaking to a lawyer would be very advisable.

I know I’m not an expert on crypto. But these statements about crypto and NFT’s (not just yours, but the crypto enthusiasts in general) are so inconsistent with really core, first-year contracts law principles that I’m very curious to see why people think they’re true. Like trivially, the idea that code can be a contract, rather than just something that memorializes a contract (like a PDF of an agreement) or a means of executing a contract (the way a Fexex truck delivers products to you).

As to the Koii/Atomic/Arweave ecosystem, from what I’ve been able to glean you can’t mint the same type of NFT’s that you see for sale on all the main NFT sites (like Mintable or OpenSea). Those are tokens on the Ethereum blockchain, and you can use those sites to transfer ownership of the NFT’s. The Koii folks describe what you can set up on Arweave using the Atomic protocol as an NFT…but it appears that they’re not actually a token. It’s just the stuff you need in order to mint a token on a chain on which tokens can be minted - which I don’t think you can do on Arweave, apparently. Koii tries to monetize people doing stuff with their “NFT’s” other than selling them (displaying/viewing). I’m not sure they’re technically NFT’s, since they don’t appear to have the attributes of a token - but I’m sure that term isn’t formally defined anywhere, so they can probably call their product whatever they want.

Albaby

2 Likes
#59

Opensea lets me sell the animations on their platform. Listing them for Eth.

No, they don’t. They let you sell tokens that are tethered to the animations on their platform. The tokens aren’t the animations. You’re not selling animations - you’re selling tokens.

You see, it’s little imprecise statements like that can lead to some problems down the road. As mentioned in the other post, speaking to a lawyer about what you’re doing (if it’s more than just trying to hawk some files for pocket money) might be advisable.

Albaby

2 Likes
#60

Oh lord, yes. Please, do that. Not “another” lawyer, since I’m not your lawyer - but if you’re actually planning on spending any real effort on this as a business venture, speaking to a lawyer would be very advisable.

I know I’m not an expert on crypto. But these statements about crypto and NFT’s (not just yours, but the crypto enthusiasts in general) are so inconsistent with really core, first-year contracts law principles that I’m very curious to see why people think they’re true.

Perhaps of interest to the three people still following this thread. I ran across this video not long about by a lawyer discussing what NFTs are, the legalities of NFTs as contracts, and downstream risks for NFT creators and buyers–many of the things being discussed in this thread. And yes, he mentioned first year contracts law, which prompted me to post this.

I normally don’t like watching videos to learn things (prefer reading) but I thought this was a very nice summary. In a nutshell, when you buy an NFT you are not buying the art, you are not buying the copyright (if you buy on the blockchain), you might be buying a license, but you probably are not even buying that, especially is you are a downstream buyer. And if there are deliverables like being able to view the .jpg (due to broken address, say) or maybe royalties that aren’t being delivered, how does the downstream buyer enforce that contract? And would there even be a contract? If the buyer thinks he’s not getting what was described it could be trouble for the seller.

https://youtu.be/C6aeL83z_9Y

In short, I wouldn’t enter any NFT business venture without first consulting a skillful attorney.

6 Likes
#61

Like trivially, the idea that code can be a contract, rather than just something that memorializes a contract (like a PDF of an agreement) or a means of executing a contract (the way a Fexex truck delivers products to you).

Al,

That is exactly how I see it, once again another KISS moment. I never said other wise. There is a contract there.

#62

The tokens aren’t the animations. You’re not selling animations - you’re selling tokens.

Al,

First another KISS moment. But that aside.

I sell prints. I make a digital file and then license the images on the prints. The people selling the print pay me the licensing fee. All I have is a digital file and the copyright of my property on the digital file the aesthetic.

I will be selling a specific copy of the digital file of the animation. I am selling the animation.

How am I not selling the animation? Yes I can sell the animation endlessly as copies, hence copyrights.

#63

I will see your video tomorrow. It is 1035 here in Dublin currently.

I agree expert legal advice is necessary.

I have a second business a partnership in the industry that I can not detail here. We will be needing extreme guidance on the legalities. It is a huge job.

I have discussed and read extensively on the topic. I am not trained in the law that does not count for a larger venture.

As has been in the industry the legalities were handled like crap. For the most part the legalities are still handled like crap. I am totally aware of that. I am taking a less worn path to cover as many of those bases as possible.

I am doing so seeking legitimacy. Not with you reading this. I am seeking legitimate transactions. The next generation Arweave, Atomic and Koii have worked hard to address their individual unique problems in the chain of minting an NFT. While I am not excellent in describing their processes, these companies have come a good distance. The legal issues presented by Al over complicate things. What I am doing is using one copy and selling it.

The value of that copy is based on the value in the marketplace. Digital files for a print are limited in their licensing to the value of a premium over the price of the print. The value of prints is low because the supply is endless.

Copies of the digital file for printing can be endless. Same for a work of art used in an NFT. But that singular copy has a different function. As the recognized copy for the NFT if the marketplace values the art then the NFT or token is more special in the marketplace.

Marketplaces and art are speculative. This may frustrate some here. The value dropping out of an NFT is based on changes in the marketplace that are speculative.

Most NFT and their denoting art have no value. This may confuse some who are worried in the first place. There are often reasons why a work of art associated with an NFT has value. Most laypeople looking wont see or get the reasons for themselves. Most will distrust the rational given by someone who knows. The market giving high values is always labeled as a con by the laypeople. That is necessarily true.

Understanding the value or lack of value in a work of art matters. If you can not understand art appraisal then this conversation seems to label any of a con. That is common.

#64

I will be selling a specific copy of the digital file of the animation. I am selling the animation.

Because that’s not how NFT’s work. You’re not selling a digital file of the animation. You’re selling a token on the blockchain. That token will probably contain metadata describing the animation - but the purchaser isn’t getting any ownership rights in that metadata, or the animation. They’re not even getting a copy of the file.

Have you spent any time actually learning about what an NFT actually is, technically? You can’t just say KISS and make the actual properties of the NFT disappear, or become irrelevant. I’m hardly an expert on NFT’s, but (again) I think you’re making some statements that are inconsistent with the core concepts of what these things are.

Albaby

6 Likes
#65

They’re not even getting a copy of the file.

Al,

Again you are missing it. Yes they are getting a copy of the animation. With Atomic it is bundled as a digital file with the contract. In computer language or APIs things are within reach. More than so than a title deed for a property you handle that is not stored on the site of the property being bought.

I agree with the IPFS format you’d be right. That is the majority of cases so far. I know better.

Let me put it this way. When I sell an image of mine as a print through my distributor the canvas with the image is shipped. The digital file I use is shared only with the print on demand company and the print factory the POD company sources. I do not give over the file. The customers get the likeness or a copy of the aesthetic. It is not ownership.

When I sell a print the copyright and ownership does not exchange hands. People still buy the print that is used and give me a premium for the likeness or copy of my artwork. It is not the original. I claim they get a copy. No sweat so what? I have sold a print for as much as $1750. Only $250 of that was the canvas costs. My pay was $1500. I set my prices.

It is totally good with me I am using my art to uniquely denote a token and sell it with the contract and a copy of the digital file using Atomic and the ultra long storage of Arweave.

Remember with Arweave’s foundation, or that sort of thing, the one time payment means I can push off or whatever and the storage is not interrupted for the future token owners. The server operators can come and go and the redundancies built into the storage will see the storage transferred into those longer terms realities with success.

Remember any canvas oil painting can get destroyed just as easily as all of your concerns about how trustworthy buying a digital good is for over one century.

The reason I am saying KISS is because you are chase your tail in your reasoning. You have a bias that every aspect of this is quicksand. You are not predicating anything in any other regard. With Arweave/Atomic/Koii that is not true. I can not go along in my own case with any of your scenarios.

OTOH I totally agree with you when people use the IPFS you are totally correct. If that is all you are addressing we are in agreement.

I will go you one better. Opensea suggests using Pinata with the IPFS storage. Pinata needs monthly payments to “pin” the file in the file system. The reason, the IPFS has a delete system that deletes anything eventually if it is not pinned. There is some tricky literature saying that your file wont disappear. But I get the sense that unless I make payments to Pinata for the rest of my life my file would be deleted. Opensea is a bit suspect to me literally pushing Pinata in the big print and mentioning Arweave as something Opensea will work with in the small print. Oy!! Pinata is so expensive I do not trust Opensea in this process.

Between us there is a mix of things happening here. You have an education in the law enough here to be dangerous. I have studied this intelligently enough to be dangerous. Neither of us are experts in the actual law. Most of the law is actually ahead and not on the books yet.

I am not sure there is any such thing as a legal expert in this because there have been very few precedents yet. There are only the beginnings of any rulings. We both see this as a disaster for the majority usage IPFS. It is a disgusting system.

1 Like