This is not the first time "service by airdropped NFT" has been allowed. However, unlike previous situations, which (to my understanding) were all through metamask and on account based blockchains, this is the first time someone has suggested sending service to a bitcoin UTXO by an NFT (which presumably is a rune, inscription, or maybe an OP_RETURN?). How this is supposed to actually work is a mystery, with the opinion eliding over any substantive detail.
Here, Plaintiff similarly used a “blockchain investigation” company to identify the digital wallets to which Plaintiff’s counsel would send the NFT. Meyers Decl. ¶ 8 and Ex. D. Plaintiff’s forensics expert, Coinfirm, identified the external accounts to which the Doe Defendants transferred Plaintiff’s BTC. See id., Ex. D at 14. As in CipherBlade, LLC, the Court finds that service on the external accounts is reasonably likely to apprise the Doe Defendants of this action.
and
Service by NFT here would protect the Doe Defendants’ due process rights because there is a strong likelihood that the Doe Defendants have access to the identified external accounts to which Plaintiff’s BTC was transferred. Plaintiff’s only interaction with the Doe Defendants was through his Coinbase wallet. The Doe Defendants’ transferring of Plaintiff’s BTC was the “sole conduit[] of the purported harm.”
True insanity.
Also, for reference, this is the addressed referenced in the case.