First NFT restraining order served to anonymous hacker

share to other networks share to twitter share to facebook

NFTs continue to baffle the mind of many, with most viewing them as ugly drawings of monkeys that somehow cost thousands of dollars. While cryptobros try to stuff NFTs into movies or video games, others have wilder ideas. Case in point: a hacker was served NFT restraining order, baffling the world.

NFTs are typically used as ways to make money on crypto investments, so seeing them take part in a law-making decision is head-scratching, to say the least. However, an NFT restraining order is legally binding… at least in some places.

Hacker gets served with NFT restraining order

Advertisement

Cointelegraph reports that international law firm Holland & Knight decided to serve an anonymous hacker with an NFT that was created and airdropped by their asset recovery team. It’s the first time an NFT was used to serve someone justice and we’re not sure why they decided to do this.

Oddly enough, Holland & Knight decided to boast about using their “service NFT” by going on Twitter and claiming that the firm is the first one ever to do this. Why this is worth bragging about is not known by us, but companies often pretend NFTs are a big deal so it’s nothing new.

“Holland & Knight has become the first law firm to serve a defendant by #NFT, which was created and airdropped by our Asset RecoveryTeam,” wrote the firm’s Twitter account.

For those curious, the anonymous hacker was given a cease and desist NFT for hacking LCX, a Liechtenstein-based cryptocurrency exchange. The hacker’s attack led to LCX losing almost $8 million, whilst also losing Ether (ETH), USD Coin (USDC), and other cryptocurrencies.

Read More: Sir Anthony Hopkins continues pro-NFT posts, angering the internet

Will service NFTs become the norm?

If the news regarding service NFTs wasn’t nauseating enough, it looks like this might become the norm with some law firms. Apparently, the use of service NFTs was approved by the New York Supreme Court and we’re not sure why. LCX claims this provides legitimacy and transparency to the NFT market but we don’t see it that way.

“This innovative method of serving an anonymous defendant was approved by the New York Supreme Court and is an example of how innovation can provide legitimacy and transparency to a market that some believe is ungovernable,” claims LCX.

Does this mean we’ll be seeing more defendants getting served with these service NFTs? Considering the investments many businesses have committed to, we wouldn’t be surprised if firms start using more NFTs in the future. What a terrible future.