Even folks into the deep end of crypto ignore their own "code is law" ethos if the outcome is unfavorable (see cases of incorrect transactions, DAOs ignoring decisions, etc). Why'd one expect crypto rules to be binding outside of its universe then?
It's not about whether the rules are binding. If the rules have the support of the users and so do their violations, then it's all good.
I mean, maybe you should think twice about participating in a rule set that comes with a community that feels the need to break the rules regularly, but that's all somewhat orthogonal to the language used to express those rules.
NFT's are the adversary-resistant equivalent of mutexes and semaphores. It seems short sighted to think that we'll never need that.
Even if trust in crypto never improves, there's still room for trust in cloud providers to degrade. That is, regrettably, the typical direction when it comes to companies.
