In legalese contract, mutual intent to be bound is done in-sum; usually there is a signatures page at the end of an agreement.

Does this make sense for codeslaw contract recursions? Given in-sum is a synthesis of more fundamental objects.

Legal wrappers also rely on in-sum organization. For instance, https://wrappr.wtf is designed for 1 NFT per codeslaw entity. https://kali.gg is an example of a codeslaw entity summoning circle.

Minting an NFT, when done with gas fees and address signatures, is functionally equivalent to the formality of waxing a seal with a ring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_seal

When used as a seal, the minter is acknowledging and agreeing to the object under seal.

The Sealed NFT is created because of the minting process. If the NFT is in the possession of any address other than the minter, then the Seal is broken and the NFT becomes unsealed.

Unlike traditional seals, a Sealed NFT is part of a collection of NFTs. If these NFTs are minted as a natural count, the collection is an array of objects simple to client-side synthesize as an in-sum signatures iNFT.

More about iNFTs at the bottom of this article:

https://ape.mirror.xyz/Uzqcx5DgW_csqLIcrDAtgAWvE1c43kMhkDHORTEq_Pc

With Sealed NFTs, rather than 1 NFT per codeslaw entity, multiple codeslaw entities can operate under the same Seal of acknowledgement NFT collection.

This unlocks the network effects of multiple codeslaw entities for a single legal entity, since a codeslaw entity under Seal is one of the legal entity’s many nodes.

For instance, the following is an architecture in development by LexClinic so that it can mature into a shallow-nested hierarchy service organization.

In the array, entry #0 is the in-sum signatures iNFT generated by the client-side computer.

A legal entity can offer multiple Seal arrays to minters. Each array acknowledges a particular collection of signatures.

In the example below, a legal entity is expressed as two codeslaw entities by way of Seal: a SAFE and a KALI.

The legal entity’s #0 NFT reports the in-sum signatures iNFT codeslaw entities Sealed by the legal entity.

The surrounding codeslaw entities could exist under separate legal entity Seals, even if they mutually acknowledge certain Seals such as the retainer example below.

More about asset/liability balances onchain:

https://ape.mirror.xyz/IJKPA-ZBO74QzCNYNGxBBwBnxcSqv3irUodrWMigPdo

In legalese contract, mutual intent to be bound is done in-sum; usually there is a signatures page at the end of an agreement.

Does this make sense for codeslaw contract recursions? Given in-sum is a synthesis of more fundamental objects.

Legal wrappers also rely on in-sum organization. For instance, https://wrappr.wtf is designed for 1 NFT per codeslaw entity. https://kali.gg is an example of a codeslaw entity summoning circle.

Minting an NFT, when done with gas fees and address signatures, is functionally equivalent to the formality of waxing a seal with a ring.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_seal

When used as a seal, the minter is acknowledging and agreeing to the object under seal.

The Sealed NFT is created because of the minting process. If the NFT is in the possession of any address other than the minter, then the Seal is broken and the NFT becomes unsealed.

Unlike traditional seals, a Sealed NFT is part of a collection of NFTs. If these NFTs are minted as a natural count, the collection is an array of objects simple to client-side synthesize as an in-sum signatures iNFT.

More about iNFTs at the bottom of this article:

https://ape.mirror.xyz/Uzqcx5DgW_csqLIcrDAtgAWvE1c43kMhkDHORTEq_Pc

With Sealed NFTs, rather than 1 NFT per codeslaw entity, multiple codeslaw entities can operate under the same Seal of acknowledgement NFT collection.

This unlocks the network effects of multiple codeslaw entities for a single legal entity, since a codeslaw entity under Seal is one of the legal entity’s many nodes.

For instance, the following is an architecture in development by LexClinic so that it can mature into a shallow-nested hierarchy service organization.

In the array, entry #0 is the in-sum signatures iNFT generated by the client-side computer.

A legal entity can offer multiple Seal arrays to minters. Each array acknowledges a particular collection of signatures.

In the example below, a legal entity is expressed as two codeslaw entities by way of Seal: a SAFE and a KALI.

The legal entity’s #0 NFT reports the in-sum signatures iNFT codeslaw entities Sealed by the legal entity.

The surrounding codeslaw entities could exist under separate legal entity Seals, even if they mutually acknowledge certain Seals such as the retainer example below.

More about asset/liability balances onchain:

https://ape.mirror.xyz/IJKPA-ZBO74QzCNYNGxBBwBnxcSqv3irUodrWMigPdo