> Why would I ever agree to let software ALONE enforce a contract? And if there is a human process to override the outcome of the contract, what advantage does it have over a "dumb contract".
The cost of enforcing and collecting on a smart contract is much cheaper. Depending on the dollar amount and use case I can see the advantage.
There may be standardized contracts for certain things, I don't know. If I'm wrong and there are no good use cases for smart contracts, they won't be used. It seems reasonable that they will find a use case, though.
Crypto and smart contracts have been around for awhile, and have certainly had enough hype and money thrown at them. So why aren't there any serious uses of these things yet?
How long did it take online travel booking, or ordering books from Amazon, to have a clear and growing market once the basic concept had been developed? How long did it take Instagram to get users? How about Stripe?
Why do people keep talking about how in the future we "will" do this and that other thing with blockchain, but years go by and we're not doing it?
Is it possible that the use case comes first and building out the tech comes second?
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I think this is a very reasonable projection. The technology isn't just going to stagnate, it's going to continue to evolve until it finds a useful place in the world. Having insured financial intermediaries executing smart contracts isn't a far fetched idea to me.
The cost of enforcing and collecting on a smart contract is much cheaper. Depending on the dollar amount and use case I can see the advantage.