# Boundary cases `kaal:entity:boundary-cases` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 2 claims that carry the concept tag `boundary-cases`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself. ## Every claim under this term 2 claims across 2 works, 2022 to 2026. **2022** - [4021599-008](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4021599-008) [failure/asserted] *(failure mode)* -- The boundaries between the different types of tokens are regularly blurred, so the securities token versus utility token distinction functions as a typical case distinction rather than a clean partition. > While the lines between the different types of tokens are blurred regularly,9 securities token are typically investment contracts, Wulf A. Kaal, Securities Versus Utility Tokens (2022). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4021599 **2026** - [7596939-004](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/7596939-004) [condition/stated] -- The Article disclaims the moral reading of its own slogan: rights follow stake is a boundary case about allocation, claiming no moral right for any intelligence system, with most of the framework being regulatory permission. > Should intelligent agents have legal rights? This Article sets that question aside and asks a smaller one that matters more in practice. An intelligent agent that earns a reputation record has something to lose. Wulf A. Kaal, Should an Intelligent Agent Have Legal Rights? (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7596939 ## Verify Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust. curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/boundary-cases.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.