> After a decade, there are no examples of widely used smart contracts or even long-running projects that haven't been fueled by boom and bust speculation cycles
MakerDAO, Aave, Uniswap, Ethereum Name Service, and OpenSea are all long-running smart contract projects that have weathered multiple speculation cycles chugging along all the same.
> Every time there is a "code is law" gone wrong with large $ at stake, people immediately fall back to real life police.
It's one potential recourse. As opposed to legal contracts, where falling back to real life police is the only recourse.
Code is not law, but it does solve the "possession is 9/10 of the law" issue by aligning possession with legal ownership more closely than legal contracts do, so that the law has to get involved a lower percentage of the time. This is especially helpful for low-value contracts in the hundreds of dollars or less where it's not economical to involve a lawyer. Same for cross-border contracts where international litigation is infeasible.
> There is both a ton of money in crypto and it has completely failed to reach its promised potential.
Smart contract tooling has only been mature since about 2018 or so. Blockchains have only started scaling since about 2021. Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency-related company, didn't launch their chain until 2023. Sharded data availability won't even be in production on a major blockchain until next year, with Ethereum's PeerDAS. Zero knowledge proof technology is both in its infancy and developing extremely rapidly. In other words a text-based browser isn't going to host a video stream over a dial-up connection. These roadmaps are long, and it takes time for new breakthroughs in math and computer science to mature, standardize and reach production.
> The largest uses in the next half decade will continue to be scams, pump-and-dumps, speculative frenzies, and money laundering.
The "largest" uses aren't really relevant unless you're trying to make an overarching moral judgement and say "blockchains are bad", which whether true or not, I think is an observation about as useless as "knives can be used to hurt people".
If you're trying to determine whether a tool has any legitimate helpful uses, look for an increase in its legitimate helpful uses.
MakerDAO, Aave, Uniswap, Ethereum Name Service, and OpenSea are all long-running smart contract projects that have weathered multiple speculation cycles chugging along all the same.
> Every time there is a "code is law" gone wrong with large $ at stake, people immediately fall back to real life police.
It's one potential recourse. As opposed to legal contracts, where falling back to real life police is the only recourse.
Code is not law, but it does solve the "possession is 9/10 of the law" issue by aligning possession with legal ownership more closely than legal contracts do, so that the law has to get involved a lower percentage of the time. This is especially helpful for low-value contracts in the hundreds of dollars or less where it's not economical to involve a lawyer. Same for cross-border contracts where international litigation is infeasible.
> There is both a ton of money in crypto and it has completely failed to reach its promised potential.
Smart contract tooling has only been mature since about 2018 or so. Blockchains have only started scaling since about 2021. Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency-related company, didn't launch their chain until 2023. Sharded data availability won't even be in production on a major blockchain until next year, with Ethereum's PeerDAS. Zero knowledge proof technology is both in its infancy and developing extremely rapidly. In other words a text-based browser isn't going to host a video stream over a dial-up connection. These roadmaps are long, and it takes time for new breakthroughs in math and computer science to mature, standardize and reach production.
> The largest uses in the next half decade will continue to be scams, pump-and-dumps, speculative frenzies, and money laundering.
The "largest" uses aren't really relevant unless you're trying to make an overarching moral judgement and say "blockchains are bad", which whether true or not, I think is an observation about as useless as "knives can be used to hurt people".
If you're trying to determine whether a tool has any legitimate helpful uses, look for an increase in its legitimate helpful uses.