,
7 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
I've been diving into a legal problem that #KeysAreNotAssets—a court judgement should not compel you to transfer keys, as they are not designed to be transferred. Instead, the court should only ask you to transfer the digital assets held by the keys and controlled by you.
While investing this problem, I ran across a very old legal concept of "feoffment with livery of seisin" which oddly corresponds more accurately to use of keys on blockchain, as it not a contract but is evidence that a transfer took place. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Livery+of+Seis… /ht @scottldavid
Another topic related is that there may be some general doctrine in contract law that prevent courts from compelling "specific performance" when there could be harm to the promisor or to their autotomy. Thus a key which protects many things shouldn't be compelled. /ht @connbrown1
As keys may also control private information I would like see that courts be prohibited from compelling keys as a remedy for civil cases. Instead, any payment of digital assets owed as a result can be satisfied through a transaction to the control of the party seeking the remedy.
This way, an individual can retain their own autonomy over their digital identity and private information while also satisfying any obligations that would arise out of a breach of contract, divorce claim, or other similar legal matter.
I hope to be able bring this up as a topic during the Wyoming legislative Blockchain Task Force meeting on May 6-7th in Jackson as it is an interesting intersection of digital assets & privacy, well suited for what Wyoming has been doing. wyoleg.gov/Committees/201… /cc @CaitlinLong_
