Here's a thought that keeps circulating in crypto circles: what if the concept of "ownership" is fundamentally flawed?

The argument goes like this—when governments maintain a monopoly on force, they technically hold the ultimate authority over any asset you think you possess. Your property exists only as long as the state permits it. They can freeze it, seize it, or redefine its status overnight. In that sense, maybe what you call "ownership" is really just a lease agreement you never explicitly signed.

This idea hits differently in the Web3 space. It's the philosophical backbone behind self-custody, private keys, and decentralized systems. If traditional ownership is conditional on state permission, then blockchain-based assets—where you hold your own keys—represent something genuinely different: property that doesn't depend on anyone's monopoly on violence to remain yours.

Whether you buy this argument or not, it's worth sitting with.