I think the bigger problem (which the example conveniently sidesteps) is that smart contracts don’t involve people. They involve _wallets_. I can have as many wallets as I want. Unless there is some external (centralized, trusted) unique identity mechanism, there’s no way to ensure the vote isn’t rigged. It also means that I could make a smart contract where I’m on all sides of the contract (e.g. say I’m trying to pump the market value of park-improvement projects…).

Outside of “a few neighbors who all know/trust each other and the public key for each other’s wallets” example, this all falls apart.

I've been to some HOA meetings. I think it's more likely that there's no consensus than that people agree that the park was improved. Even if the organizer did their best and spent a thousand bucks on supplies. There's no way to "make everyone whole again". Or maybe a majority of neighbors just aren't good people and realize they can get a nice park and their money back just by voting "no" as a bloc. All the fancy number theory hasn't really achieved anything.

The solution of course is to use a collection of oracles that report the state of the park to the blockchain. You would need to use enough oracles to be sure they aren't just your neighbors running them or being manipulated by your neighbors.

I'm only half joking. This example is a bad use case and web3 isn't going to replace literally every aspect of society.

It also assumes that neutral third party (should we call them judges, or jurors?) would act in good faith. What's stopping them from rolling with the majority? And how exactly is the problem of trust solved by trusting a third party? It would be laughable if it wasn't a straight faced affirmation. The "radically new" proposal is basically to recreate the old structures, just with new web3 labels. Is there a reason this would work better, only because it's proposed by software folk instead of politician folk? Or is it better only because it's proposed by "my gang"?

I think you're right that Web3 won't come close to displacing existing last-resort dispute handlers (courts, laws, etc). But it's dangerous to overlook the revolution lurking in "remove some friction from the system."

Uber removes some friction from hailing a taxi. AirBnB removes some friction from finding a room to rent. The internet removes some friction from sending messages.

Government has a monopoly.

Web3 (blockchain or not... the important feature is decentralisation) enables choice of governance - you can pick the "neutral third party". This destroys the governance monopoly and creates a marketplace.

But government laws and regulations still have precedence over smart contracts or blockchain transactions. “But it’s written in the smart contract” is not a valid excuse for breaking the law of the country you reside in, and will be thrown out in any court. So instead of replacing one governance system with another, you’ve create a second, subservient system that is overruled by the first, have you not?

That’s the part I’ve never understood. Sure, you could use a blockchain that is anonymous to try and avoid scrutiny and legal trouble, but at that point you’re basically just a criminal.

Yep yep. Your points are all valid and true, as far as I can see.

I think it would be interesting of governments started using this tech (Blockchain, smart contracts, etc) to improve existing systems. To me, I can see this tech being used to improve infrastructure in a lot of public services (library cards, driver license registry, etc)

Estonia has been doing that. I bet there is something that other countries can learn about what works and what doesn't

I think you’ve really nailed it here.

Libertarianism is so strong in the tech world that people have blinders on.