contracts

I believe the reality is that Ethereum-style contracts would increase efficiencies in more routine, less controversial contracts and the state would remain the final recourse in more extreme cases.

And in fact, contracts backed by a legal system are routinely struck down if either of those cases occur.

Union contracts do not universally (or even normally) require all people in the same position to get the same pay.

The only use case this software fits with is is handling contracts where one party does not trust the other.

A lot of companies use No Raid clauses in both employee and client contracts specifically to prevent that type of thing.

The labels take most of the money because artists have agreed to very one-sided contracts.

As far as people obfuscating with complex contracts, yes, of course they will do that.

The purpose of contracts is to solve a game-theoretic problem: it is to our mutual benefit to cooperate in some way.

There is a big difference between wet and dry code, as Nick Szabo, the original inventor of 'smart contracts' put it.

That problem is orthogonal to the discussion and not absent in real contracts either.

New ideas could spread from private to public spaces automatically through smart social contracts.

This is just one, very basic example of a society run by smart contracts.

Few contracts would be irreversible, and few holders of contracts would resist reversal, if physical violence from the state were brought to be bear, even if the issue had already been "settled" by software.

I had multiple recruiters try to offer me a six-month contract in another state, despite my profile on every job site saying both "unwilling to relocate" and "full-time only, no contracts".

Contracts that are mutually beneficial typically don't need to be enforced because they are not often broken.

Contracts are almost by definition mutually beneficial, at least nominally.