this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
633 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59559 readers
3548 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In a highly simplified way: total risk of insuring from theft is roughly other-risks * theft-risk, so if theft risk is 0, it means that other risks, such as insanelly high risks in asset valuation are irrelevant to the total risk which will always end up as 0.
So it makes sense that being paid to insure that which cannot be stollen against theft is risk-free money quite independently of all else. (Of curse, if something has a non-zero probability - even if tiny - of being stolen none of that holds)
I think that's the whole humourous point the previous poster was making: that which NFT promoters kept on telling us guarantees unique ownership which cannot be taken by others (and hence cannot be stollen) turns out that it can.