No, Real World Ownership Is Not a Use Case for Blockchain
Leif Gensert
May 16
3 my last post with a supply chain management example. But the use case proposals go much further than that.
Beyond the supply chain a lot of startups try to implement a use case around recording and transferring ownership of something. After all that’s what cryptocurrencies are all about, so why can’t we do that for everything. One example I’ve seen multiple times is recording ownership of art or luxury goods.
Let’s think this through with an extreme example. Assume we have a globally accepted blockchain that records all art transaction. The whole world went through a rigorous process and we recorded all past transaction and issued keys to the rightful owners. The French state now has a private key with which they can prove that they own the Mona Lisa and they also recorded on the blockchain that the piece is currently on display in the Louvre. Within this process we avoided silly scenarios like
some rando suddenly owning the Mona Lisa. The initial migration was a success.
I personally believe that is already a pipedream but bear with me.
Think of this scenario. The French government has a top notch security protocol in place to secure the private key to the ownership of the Mona Lisa. But we have a change of government and some high ranking government official gets corrupted. They have access to the keys and he uses them to transfer the Mona Lisa to one of his rich buddies Joe Shmoe.
What happens now? According to the blockchain Joe Shmoe is the rightful owner. Can he just enforce that ownership against the French government and force the Louvre to move the Mona Lisa to his beach house in St. Tropez? Or can the French government force him to reverse the transaction. But what if he is smart enough to destroy the private key? Transferring ownership at this point becomes virtually impossible.