[jackpeterfletch]

No its fundamental.

In the trust fund example, you cant stop the recipient trading their key or wallet early, as you have no way to verify the human holding it.

Unless you keep that access with some legal guardian. In which case your security still sits in the legal system, as it would if you just used a trust fund. So whats the point?

Again in the company example, it only works if you both observe that the coins mean shares in company. Which you can only really enforce with a legal agreement, but again, why not just have a legal agreement that says you split your share?

They completely breakdown at the physical barrier. Darknet markets only work because the seller doesnt control the market and has a deposit. But apart from that they can transact anonymously, that part has nothing to do with blockchain.

[jcoffland]

What's to stop someone from trading a normal trust fund away? The recipient can simply take out a loan with the trust as collateral.

[SeckinJohn]

how do you prove to the bank the non-existence of a clause that would void the trust if this is done(and noticed)?

the main point I tried to make above was this: in normal life there is the "human factor"; like, if you look at a situation, you can reasonably comment on whether it's a positive situation from an actor's perspective; whether the actors were engaging in fraudulent activity etc. In digital-only world, there is no such thing as "probable cause", "reasonable doubt" etc.

which makes the application of smart contracts to real life intractable(IMHO borderline impossible for complex situations for the near future[~10 years?]).