Buy someone who can't change their NFT. If they decide they don't like his digital photos, should he have the right to a refund? Some Westerners have come to test this according to a 25-year-old law.

Disgruntled buyers claim that their right to a refund is protected by a 1997 EU national law that requires all individuals and companies engaged in "remote control of marketing"-that is, to buy and sell goods that are not completed in person-to allow customers a 14-day buffer period to get a refund. However, due to the differences in digital goods, the law requires that if customers are informed in advance, the 14-day period can be waived.

Although the description of the law will inevitably begin in court, many extremely important warnings should be considered, especially considering that the law was enacted before the ubiquity of data products and services. To put it simply, the law was enacted at the time of the advent of Internet technology, let alone a digital currency like NFTs, so its scope is much smaller today.

Just as it is not suitable for the state of the NFT market system, it is fully considered that "this order is not suitable for contracts signed with communication operators based on the use of publicly paid mobile phones". What is the difference between a contract based on the use of a public telephone booth and a contract based on blockchain technology? Apart from the delivery system, there are no substantive items, and the purpose of paying attention to this law is to prevent customers from being extorted by merchants, which have been proved to be different from what consumers wanted at first.

From the source, the application of this order to concession foreign exchange dealers will have consequences for the trademark law and the new trademark law. It is very important that, by definition, each NFT is unique, and all refunds and lost NFT inevitably represent the destruction of intangible capital. Compared with the 1997 EU directive, the goods transported are basically homogeneous, so buyers looking for refunds and returns are not easy to destroy the goods and will not prevent merchants from reselling them.

In addition, allowing a refund will clear the ultimate goal of scarce resources for new avatar projects-most likely to completely eliminate their usefulness. Take the lonely ape golf driving range NFTs as an example. The most significant recycling for BAYC was $3.4 million in # 8817-which was forged at a price of about $1000 in April 2021. Its rarity is partly a product of the "golden dog" era, a trait shared by less than 1 per cent of BAYC NFTs in the market.

Naturally, if buyers do not like the NFT that these people receive arbitrarily in the currency link, they can simply apply for a refund. It is safe to say that this kind of "1%NFT" will become more and more common, as buyers will keep looking for a refund until they get the NFT they want. If you follow the logic of this kind of thinking, there will be no rare informal financial organizations in all corners of the sales market.

The reality is that laws tied to digital money do not keep pace with technology, so there is a natural temptation to rely on outdated, irrelevant regulatory specific guidance, for better or worse. But if we keep up with our efforts and the company keeps pace with the times and sincerely serve the users, we can converge to a new balance and generate value in all areas of the expression.

Cristus, Mark Lipawi. is the chief operating officer and co-founder of Living Opera, a Web3 multimedia startup anchored in classical music, and a research affiliate at Columbia Business School and Stanford University. He also holds doctorate degrees in economics and management science and engineering from Stanford University.