Why people continually can’t understand this, and keep saying “buh buh buh mysql and lawyer fees! No need for blockchain!” is a failure of imagination.
Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts.
Someone could sell you an NFT that represents 15% of their future earnings over the next 3 years, but the blockchain can't enforce that. Even if we had all payments occurring on the blockchain, the person could simply create a new blockchain wallet and give their new address to future employers, claiming $0 earnings for their original blockchain address. The NFT itself is only valuable if supported by the weight of real contracts in the real world with real enforceability.
Crypto tokens only stand alone when the crypto token itself is being traded. Actual value still requires consensus that the token is worth something (Bitcoin, Ethereum) or a real-world contract that stipulates that whoever holds the token has a claim to some actual rights or asset.
It's likely that most of the real-world contracts for something of actual value have stipulations that the crypto tokens are null and void if determined to be lost or stolen. The crypto tokens are largely a distraction.
>Many of the situations required in this article still require real-world contracts to make them work. The crypto tokens are additive on top of the contracts, but they don't replace contracts.
There is no duality of 'real-world contract'/'digital contracts'. The question is if a digital document and signatures are accepted by a judicial system. In 50 years every judicial system will accept some format of digital contracts.
The potential upside of 'tokenized' and standardized/automated legal documents are: less ambiguous interpretations, automatic resolution, simpler trading, and easier cross-border contracts ( to some extent ).
All of this is possible by human hands, but legal systems are not known for their digital innovation. ( They don't even use standard 'diffs' to negotiate contracts )
This all requires contracts as code capable of ascertaining external facts. As far as I know the only such facts that have been made to work are facts about the prices of other cryptocoins.
Furthermore, most of the benefits can already be obtained by registering a contract to be traded over a commodities exchange. There are, for example, weather futures being bought, sold, and adjudicated without any need or use for a blockchain.
Do meatspace contracts ascertain external facts? No, a court of law does. For most things that will likely never change. But if the contract is of a fungible nature, then allowing it to exist on a blockchain means ownership can be traded with no additional infrastructure required. This is why I prefer to call blockchain “market-as-a-service”...
The same is true of the Chicago Board of Options, established 1848. The blockchain adds nothing. It’s the snake oil of the modern age.
And you can’t add a twist on the standard options contract, or experiment whatsoever, as a software dev fooling around. With blockchain you can experiment in infinite ways instantly. There is no permission.
Again, the lack of imagination and the total “blockchain equals bad! All of this tech is stupid because I say so!” nonsense is exhausting. You don’t want to learn so you won’t learn.
So stop doing it. No one is forcing you to push these get rich quick scams.
In any case, it’s not hard to imagine an evolution in our legal regime where tokens can gain the force of legal contracts. And then tokens will do everything that paper contracts will do, which is to say nothing except declare the terms of some mutual agreement between some meatspace entities. (obviously this only makes sense for fungible contracts)
Tokens, on the other hand, are the favorite tool of scammers.
I don’t think cryptocurrency is near mature enough to replace traditional contracts, but technology changes a lot in 5-10 years.