Above all, legal frameworks regarding cryptocurrency are either nonexistent or in their infancy. Attempts to apply existing legal conceptual frameworks to crypto are not going to be entirely successful. New ways of conceiving and languaging what currency is and what legal rights exist around creating, possessing, and transferring it are necessary.

I like how simply you addressed the topic and want to point out this part for those still confused as to the legality of forking a chain:

If someone creates a fork that doesn’t contain a user’s stake from a previous fork of the software, the user who “lost” his stake can simply start another version of the software on his own computer that still has his stake (he creates a fork where his stake still counts) and optionally convince others to run his version that has his stake, instead of the fork that doesn’t have his stake.

This is similar to "if you don't like how you are being governed, declare independence." Create your own sovereign nation-state. The difference is it is digital and there is effectively no limit to the amount of chains that can exist simultaneously. So applying old scarcity-based concepts of ownership of real-estate are not going to cut it when it comes to crypto real-estate.

That being said, there is no way to stop people and governments from trying. They will continue to attempt to conceptualize what blockchain is in terms of what is known until the differences from traditional monetary forms come into clearer relief over the years heading into mass adoption.

Looking forward to the second part you mentioned!