Legal scholar. Her argument is that capital is not a thing but a legal coding: a claim on an asset plus the legal attributes that make the claim enforceable and portable across jurisdictions.
The move worth stealing. Pistor does not ask *what is capital* — she asks *who coded it and where*. The same asset yields different rights depending on which legal system recognised it, in what order, and with which priority against other claimants. Capital is not discovered; it is issued.
Why it bites here. Every token is a legal coding pretending to be a technical fact. Liquidity is visible on the chart; issuer jurisdiction, priority, and enforceability are not. So the market prices the visible half and is blind to the half that decides who wins when things go wrong.