[wastedhours]

> What's the point?

>> I'm not a crypto-apologist

> This doesn't gain anything over existing legal contracts.

>> I think this interface might actually be clearer for some people who are financially uneducated, as it expresses their ownership percentage, debt obligations, and potential secured borrowing options in one go. Whilst a lot of it could be done without the crypto side of things if everything happens with the same bank/group of people, with buying and selling assets, you're working on trust with a bunch of different organisations and people, the ledger aspect could help with this.

I'm not arguing for it, merely point out the potential use case people would push for, and if it were to be pushed, I outlined why I think it could beat out existing legal contracts.

Would appreciate a rebuttal to my points.

[krrrh]

> Would appreciate a rebuttal to my points.

People already have a hard time dealing with contracts written in their own native tongues, why would they prefer having to read and validate source code? Even if a few standard blockchained contracts emerged for real estate deals that could be validated into human language, regular people are terrible at using and trusting software that they use irregularly. In some jurisdictions it is possible to buy and sell houses without involving lawyers or bankers, but most people use their services anyway because they are legally obligated to act in their client's interests, and they are experts at such things. Obviously you will also have to include the government-administered land title registry, an institution that have slowly evolved over centuries and works very well. There is no good reason to decentralize land titles, even if it were possible.

So even if bringing public-key encryption and software interpreters into a real estate deal were to introduce some efficiencies compared to dealing with word docs and paper copies that any country lawyer could amend and attest to without having to hire a Solidity developer and praying that it's one that can handle a weird contract addendum without introducing a bug, which is a big if, the costs and complexities would barely budge because there is a lot more that goes into a real estate transaction than validating contracts.

Crypto-apologists (I know you're not one) seem to include a lot of people who have never stressed out over a real estate deal, or worked on a helpdesk.

[wastedhours]

All fair points - but there's no reason not to involve legal counsel in smart contracts either (if we're talking in hypotheticals about a bank being ok issuing a smart contract for a mortgage, then I think we have to make the assumptive leap Solidity developers are two-a-penny), and the benefit of the solution I proposed is that your everyday interaction with your state of the contract is more visible than it is with the current system.

My proposal is less about the legal setup, and more about the ongoing interaction with the contract, which might aid with financial education, especially around equity (see how many people are caught up in interest-only mortgages), and debt leverage.

Whether you use a ledger or not depends on how it could actually work, but there aren't many other solutions that give transparency among multiple disparate parties, without a reliance on a credit agency (which, as we all know, has caused some... issues...).

Not sure whether I'm keen on that vision of the future or not, but I can definitely see the day where physical assets are represented by some digital manifestation/token.