I think ownership-like-property will end up being a rather small part of the NFT's future role because you need everybody's cooperation re: agreeing that such-and-such blockchain pointer corresponds with something actually valuable. The incentives are backwards: if you're the one claiming to have power because you command this fleet of abstractions, then the people you claim to have power over have an incentive to disengage with those abstractions.
Ownership-like-responsibility, on the other hand, is a place I can see NFT's sticking. Like: the calls get routed to whoever has the on-call token. If the token is for something that most people don't want, then everybody except the holder has an incentive to buy in.
Also, shaming (e.g. for the purpose of directing sabotage). If you want to oppose something, it's no good to just pick a fight with whatever you see that happens to resemble that thing, you ought to go find the strongest example of whatever you want to oppose, and go interfere with that. NFT's could help us have consensus about such things so that we can collectively create incentives to not be the most prominent example of a problematic practice.
Ownership-like-responsibility, on the other hand, is a place I can see NFT's sticking. Like: the calls get routed to whoever has the on-call token. If the token is for something that most people don't want, then everybody except the holder has an incentive to buy in.
Also, shaming (e.g. for the purpose of directing sabotage). If you want to oppose something, it's no good to just pick a fight with whatever you see that happens to resemble that thing, you ought to go find the strongest example of whatever you want to oppose, and go interfere with that. NFT's could help us have consensus about such things so that we can collectively create incentives to not be the most prominent example of a problematic practice.