πŸŸͺ When crypto is more like a car than money

The BreakdownΒ·Β·4 min read
Crypto/Web3FinanceOther
Share𝕏in

AI Summary

Byron Gilliam explores the legal tension between 'nemo dat' (no one can give what they don't have) and European-style possession-as-title principles as they apply to cryptocurrency ownership. The piece uses stolen cars, looted art, and cash negotiability as analogies to argue that crypto cannot simultaneously guarantee transaction finality and restore justice to theft victims. The Arbitrum DAO's $70M ETH confiscation from North Korean hackers is cited as a real-world example of this irreconcilable tradeoff.

Key Facts

βœ“Arbitrum DAO's $70M ETH confiscation from North Korean hackers exposes a fundamental conflict between crypto's promise of transaction finality and the legal principle that thieves cannot transfer ownership.
βœ“US law follows *nemo dat* (stolen goods retain original title), while most of Europe and Louisiana treat possession as equivalent to title β€” and cash/crypto sits in a third category where negotiability overrides history.
βœ“Stani Kulechov (Aave founder) argues stolen crypto never belonged to hackers, but the author concludes you cannot have both blockchain finality and theft-victim justice simultaneously.

Author Takes

BearishThe Breakdown

Crypto ownership and transaction finality

Crypto cannot simultaneously deliver transaction finality (which makes markets work) and nemo dat justice (which makes common sense) β€” you have to choose one, and the two are irreconcilable.

Related topics

More from The Breakdown

πŸ“°Today⚑FeedπŸ“‘SignalsπŸ’°Capital