A security is a fictional asset used to represent higher level operations one can conduct on an underlying asset. Basically it's all the made up tradable assets.
The specific definition varies depending on jurisdiction but if I remember correctly the SEC goes with something like any token that is used to transfer unrealised value between traders or across time.
About your example, I understand that but I'm sorry to see that all examples we collectively come up with for smart contracts are even more constrained than hello worlds and in my humble opinion unfit for the "real purpose" of the EVM. The same line of reasoning applies to bitcoin: it's not a wallet to pay your coffee or receive your salary, but an alternative to banks/payment processors when you need it.
Likewise in my opinion again, the EVM isn't made to replace informal contracts or legal/notarial/... affairs but to provide an alternative when the costs/benefits of contract law aren't fit for your use case.
Thanks. I wonder why it's called "security" (as in, safety from attacks).
> I understand that but I'm sorry to see that all examples we collectively come up with for smart contracts are even more constrained than hello worlds and in my humble opinion unfit for the "real purpose" of the EVM. The same line of reasoning applies to bitcoin: it's not a wallet to pay your coffee or receive your salary, but an alternative to banks/payment processors when you need it.
Fair enough, though I think that we need both, and preferably together. Those trivial examples are actually useful to people the very first time they try to understand the basics of cryptocurrencies and smart contracts. And after that, when someone gets the basic mechanics of the process, I think an example should follow with a description of actual use, and how the same mechanics facilitate it.
> Likewise in my opinion again, the EVM isn't made to replace informal contracts or legal/notarial/... affairs but to provide an alternative when the costs/benefits of contract law aren't fit for your use case.
I agree, I see it this way too. I cringe when I see people hopeful for replacing legal system with ETH, because that would be just plain dumb. But an alternative option to use when it fits better? I'm very much in favour.
As far as I understand the term security refers to the properties of such assets that make them useful to hedge or otherwise balance the tradebook without having to worry about the concrete underlying assets' particulars.
A security is a fictional asset used to represent higher level operations one can conduct on an underlying asset. Basically it's all the made up tradable assets.
The specific definition varies depending on jurisdiction but if I remember correctly the SEC goes with something like any token that is used to transfer unrealised value between traders or across time.
About your example, I understand that but I'm sorry to see that all examples we collectively come up with for smart contracts are even more constrained than hello worlds and in my humble opinion unfit for the "real purpose" of the EVM. The same line of reasoning applies to bitcoin: it's not a wallet to pay your coffee or receive your salary, but an alternative to banks/payment processors when you need it.
Likewise in my opinion again, the EVM isn't made to replace informal contracts or legal/notarial/... affairs but to provide an alternative when the costs/benefits of contract law aren't fit for your use case.