I stopped around the time that 'Smart Contracts' were entering the mainstream as a buzzword (Late 2016? Early 2017?).

The moment that was, in retrospect, pivotal was being summoned to a meeting with some of our sales guys and an industry analyst as an 'authority' on blockchain (when really I'm just someone who had an interest in it). The analyst went on a long rant about how 'Smart Contracts' were going to revolutionise the insurance industry by being able to execute payouts automatically and how agreements were all going to be automated etc. etc. I tried to explain that 'Smart Contracts' weren't really 'smart' or 'contracts' and that what she was thinking about would probably be better described as 'Ricardian Contracts' (which don't require a blockchain to exist), but I could tell by the glazed over expression in her eyes that she was so sold on her notion of Smart Contracts that there was little to no chance that I was going to be able to dissuade her in a 15 minute discussion.

Yes, that's exactly it. It feels like a discussion about religion, astrology, alien probing, or homeopathic medicine. They have a shiny idea, and they are just not interested in hearing that it's not going to work.

I think it's interesting to consider whether a value token is the only possible incentive. There might well be other workable alternatives, possibly better from certain points of view if you can avoid or limit the mining arms race problem.