[cedilla]

It's literally an implementation of a Kafkaesque judge that can never be reasoned with, will never explain itself beyond pointing to the rules and can never be overruled.

Why this is supposed to be a good thing is never explained.

[giansegato]

Because it's global. I don't need to reason with anyone anywhere, I don't need to hire lawyers, I don't need to make a global enterprise fit local regulations that are often conflicting. I'm not saying it's recommended, or even reasonable. I'm arguing that is not utter nonsense in some peculiar cases IMHO

[cedilla]

I don't find any of these points to be convincing.

Storing data in a blockchain doesn't mean that local laws don't still apply. Even if the FBI can't prevent you sending money to a terror organisation with a smart contract, they will still arrest you for it.

Being able to reason with someone can be an advantage. With imperfect rules, having authorities involved that are allowed to have some discretion can be a huge boon.

And not having to hire lawyers? Well, you still have to hire someone who understands smart contracts, someone who writes them, and someone to negotiate them with whoever you want to close your contract with.

[giansegato]

I believe we're not saying opposing points of view. What I'm arguing for is moving corporate law on chain, mostly regulating relationships between shareholders, and keep everything else real world. In Europe for instance it's quite absurd how much bureaucracy you have the cope with to create operating entities in different countries within the same economic space. Everything else can stay the same - penal law in particular. It's a very fine line but I believe it can make sense in some instances