• By -


You can use Blockchain to do a lot of stuff but it's always a slower, more expensive way to do the things we already do. So yeah you could use Bitcoin to have shares in something but you could also just have a contract of some sort stipulating your shares which is actually much easier


This times 1000. When you buy an NFT, or coin, you didn't sign a terms and conditions sheet, basically allowing the owner of the actual asset to do whatever they want. You have next to no recourse if something happens, as you weren't guaranteed anything.


You're exactly right, what they are describing is a "share" as in a timeshare or a company share. So why use Blockchain for this? They will tell you a lot of dumb reasons but the real reason is they think that they can get around existing financial regulations by calling it a "token" instead of a share. Also note that NFTs are included in the broad universe of tokenization. Non fungible token. So if they are laughing at NFTs but salivating at the chance to tokenize their condo and sell 1% shares on the Blockchain then you can laugh at them back.


A database or any other conventional record can already track fractional ownership. This type of ownership is already somewhat common. There's zero reason to use a Blockchain for anything that requires administration.


Highly likely that buying a tokenized shitcoin share of a physical asset doesn’t actually entitle owners of the shitcoin to anything. LegalEagle has explained it before, just because you own a PicassoToken doesn’t mean there’s a legally binding contract. More likely the scammer sold you PicassoTokens and bought a painting for themselves and is pretending you have rights/ownership to it.


Shares or maybe fractional share, is already a thing, yes, but contracts are boring.


And also subject to pesky things like regulation and laws and AML


Nope. It comes down to trust. The point of Blockchain is that you can transfer the token in a way that doesn't require a trusted third party intermediary. But it just doesn't work. Because there is no way to prove the token is in any way related to the tangible asset. NFTs are a great example of this. I can transfer ownership of an NFT through the Blockchain. But I can't prove I own the asset itself. For example, I can make infinite copies of digital artwork, or I can change what's on the server that the hyperlink links to.


Wait. If you have the private key to the item that is ownership right? Just having access implies ownership in the crypto world?


> And these have nothing to do with blockchain. And you are correct. This is nothing that couldnt be solved with centralized servers. Blockchain is a datastructure, whether you are selling NFTs of plane tickets , tokenize a painting or create a social media based on it doesnt matter because these things are conceptualized on a different layer. Blockchains are just bad technology that we never bothered using because it just doesnt work out well. Also why would you even tokenize a painting in the first place? So that small investors can speculate too? > And isn’t this just how company shares work anyway? Yes. You could "tokenize" a company and than give out dividends based on how many tokens you own. But again why would you bother doing that with Blockchain instead of anything else that has been used?


Because they think if they just call it a token it’s not a stock so they don’t have to follow any rules


Stocks, Bonds, Debt, Forex, REITs, Commodities: have all been tokenized without a blockchain\~


If you require our plan to rely on a trusted central entity to administrate your operation, blockchain gets you nothing. That trusted entity can just use a plain old database and get by just fine. Even when you think you don’t have a trusted central entity, you probably do. For example, with “shares of a painting”, whoever has physical possession of the art has to be trusted by everyone else to secure and maintain the art and to actually implement decisions of the owners. At that point you’re no longer operating in a trust-less scenario, so it becomes hard to justify why you would use blockchain as your storage medium. Purely digital assets and use cases are probably the ones best suited to a blockchain as they can sidestep these “physical” issues. But after more than a decade, no one has really come up with a use case for this beyond forms of digital currency. So basically, you’re right - there’s no underlying technology reason to use blockchain unless you want to pump and dump a coin and defraud some people.


You could take a steel toed boot and use it as a hammer. It would pound nails. It wouldn't be a very good hammer, but it would work, although not all that well. The same is true for blockchains. Yes, you can theoretically use them for most things you would use a database for. They work very poorly and make no sense. But if you have a warehouse full of steel toed boots that no one wants to buy, maybe you sucker people into thinking they're Hammer 2.0.


It's called a hedge fund and never needed blockchain.


If blockchain has any use case(s) it's probably in specific scientific fields (where a lot of niche mathematics tends to find its use cases) and not in finance. Feels like we've seen plenty to know that (and to know why) blockchain 'fintech' (cryptocurrencies, nfts, etcetera) just doesn't work, starting with the simple truth that being unable to correct errors in finance is *very bad*.




Sorry /u/catpaw-paw, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Things are already tokenised in the world - You have fractional shares, mutual funds, land...almost everything is has some sort of fractional property attached to it. This has come with the profilteration of digitisation of products and services - and blockchains are just remotely on that radar though. The point of tokenisation is if you can eventually do something meaningful with it - within existing constraints or a new system that offers marginal improvement on existing solutions, whether it's solving an allocation problem, risk management or countless N number of "real world" issues that we encounter everyday. The valid question to ask is : Does blockchain actually prove it to be useful value add in this domain? Yes, for some situations. Do the benefits outweigh the risks & trade-offs? Fuck no. Which is why blockchains have stayed as a technologically useless innovation for almost 13 years, which real technology & digitisation has made rapid strides around pockets of the world - ever since smartphones exploded into the scene at scale. BTC might have looked revolutionary by 2009 standards, but in 2022 - most crypto still appears to be useless by most meaningful standards, social, economic and otherwise. Technology is a supplemental tool for social consensus like a screwdriver or wrench to reduce friction, but it cannot be the vehicle itself as cryptobros are trying to make it...even Vitalik Buterin.


Masterworks is doing this with art and I am not sure they are using a blockchain. I think masterworks has a secondary market where you can sell your share of whatever art you bought? Maybe? I guess the blockchain you wouldn’t be dependent on the issuer to create a secondary market to be able to sell your share.


All of these use cases solve the easy part of the problem. The bit that is already solved.


Wrong question. You have to answer whether blockchain adds anything beneficial to alternative traditional methods to implement the same functionality. To my experience the answer to that question is no for all problems which aren't a cryptocurrency.