Before we begin, a bit of a rant, feel free to skip. For most of this year, I have focused on diving deep into the unique properties of public blockchains, while dismissing a lot of the overhyped things that don’t really make sense. Turns out, the deeper you look, the more obvious the true value of public blockchains becomes, and the more useless the narratives seem. This series of posts is now book length, and can be aptly titled “Blockchains and objectivity”. I don’t see people talk about this crucial feature of blockchains, so I’ll continue writing about it off and on when I feel like it.

I’m grateful to see these posts get less backlash than they used to in 2021/22 - my intention has never been to be “negative” or “bearish”, but rather because I believe to get the best out of blockchains we must understand where their unique opportunities lie. We will build better applications by understanding, rather than just throwing hopium, delusion, and handwaving at the kitchen sink. I’ll continue to use a heightened tone for effect. With that out of the way…

I have often mentioned how “smart contracts” are a bit of a misnomer. But first, what is a “contract”? According to Google,

a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

Simplified further, as per Britannica,

Contract, in the simplest definition, a promise enforceable by law.

Great, so how does one define law? That’s a lot more complicated, and wherein lies the problem with the smartness of “smart contracts”.

We are extraordinarily complex beings, and our societies are even more complex. It has taken over 10,000 years across billion of people and thousands of social groups with delightfully diverse desires and beliefs to get here. Law is a dynamic, shifting process that is continuously changing to keep up with the latest advancements in science, technology, and most importantly, philosophy.

I have repeated countless times that public blockchains are limited to only objective inputs and outputs, and it goes without saying law is entirely subjective.

You need millions of lawmakers over millennia working together to constantly update the law, you need billions of citizens voicing their opinion to inform lawmakers, and you need lawyers and judges to interpret said law in its endless nuances.

None of this is remotely possible on public blockchains - indeed, we can see DAOs fall back on traditional methods of organisation to compensate for the lack of objectivity. If blockchains could do subjectivity, then DAOs would actually be autonomous - but ironically, DAOs exist because these processes cannot be performed autonomously.

By restricting law to objectivity, we can only really do the dumbest possible contracts, which have clearly defined, objective conditions.

Of course, a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek, and many will argue that “smart contracts” are neither smart nor contracts and these are just semantics. Certainly true. I’ll also point out that law is not the only subjective field - it’s pretty much everything in our livelihoods, we are an endlessly subjective civilisation.

Obviously, objective applications can certainly be valuable, but it’s also imperative to remember public blockchains and crypto are not a panacea. Perhaps more importantly, forcing subjective usecases on to blockchains are not just useless, but it can also be actively dangerous in trying to force law onto public blockchains, obfuscating risks associated to users, and then letting some plutocratic cabal decide the subjective matters.

Instead, the best possible outcome is for public blockchains to be integrated into proven, democratic legal systems. It actually smartens up our dumb contracts.

Finally, no, I'm not going to mention a benevolent AGI until we see some concrete evidence for that being a future possibility.

Before we begin, a bit of a rant, feel free to skip. For most of this year, I have focused on diving deep into the unique properties of public blockchains, while dismissing a lot of the overhyped things that don’t really make sense. Turns out, the deeper you look, the more obvious the true value of public blockchains becomes, and the more useless the narratives seem. This series of posts is now book length, and can be aptly titled “Blockchains and objectivity”. I don’t see people talk about this crucial feature of blockchains, so I’ll continue writing about it off and on when I feel like it.

I’m grateful to see these posts get less backlash than they used to in 2021/22 - my intention has never been to be “negative” or “bearish”, but rather because I believe to get the best out of blockchains we must understand where their unique opportunities lie. We will build better applications by understanding, rather than just throwing hopium, delusion, and handwaving at the kitchen sink. I’ll continue to use a heightened tone for effect. With that out of the way…

I have often mentioned how “smart contracts” are a bit of a misnomer. But first, what is a “contract”? According to Google,

a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

Simplified further, as per Britannica,

Contract, in the simplest definition, a promise enforceable by law.

Great, so how does one define law? That’s a lot more complicated, and wherein lies the problem with the smartness of “smart contracts”.

We are extraordinarily complex beings, and our societies are even more complex. It has taken over 10,000 years across billion of people and thousands of social groups with delightfully diverse desires and beliefs to get here. Law is a dynamic, shifting process that is continuously changing to keep up with the latest advancements in science, technology, and most importantly, philosophy.

I have repeated countless times that public blockchains are limited to only objective inputs and outputs, and it goes without saying law is entirely subjective.

You need millions of lawmakers over millennia working together to constantly update the law, you need billions of citizens voicing their opinion to inform lawmakers, and you need lawyers and judges to interpret said law in its endless nuances.

None of this is remotely possible on public blockchains - indeed, we can see DAOs fall back on traditional methods of organisation to compensate for the lack of objectivity. If blockchains could do subjectivity, then DAOs would actually be autonomous - but ironically, DAOs exist because these processes cannot be performed autonomously.

By restricting law to objectivity, we can only really do the dumbest possible contracts, which have clearly defined, objective conditions.

Of course, a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek, and many will argue that “smart contracts” are neither smart nor contracts and these are just semantics. Certainly true. I’ll also point out that law is not the only subjective field - it’s pretty much everything in our livelihoods, we are an endlessly subjective civilisation.

Obviously, objective applications can certainly be valuable, but it’s also imperative to remember public blockchains and crypto are not a panacea. Perhaps more importantly, forcing subjective usecases on to blockchains are not just useless, but it can also be actively dangerous in trying to force law onto public blockchains, obfuscating risks associated to users, and then letting some plutocratic cabal decide the subjective matters.

Instead, the best possible outcome is for public blockchains to be integrated into proven, democratic legal systems. It actually smartens up our dumb contracts.

Finally, no, I'm not going to mention a benevolent AGI until we see some concrete evidence for that being a future possibility.