To someone with a hammer, every problem is a nail. Web3 seems like it's primarily a horde of crypto-maxis running around hitting every damn thing with a smart contract, and see what sticks.

This is, arguably, going to be better than violently caging people, in some circumstances.

I take the GF comment to be maybe virtue-signally, but mostly pointing out that our legacy law system has an awwwwwful lot of people in jail. Maybe that jail-shaped hammer is not as useful as you think it is?

What is the virtue that I am signaling? Is the ability to have objective opinions outside of the socio-cultural mythology a virtue?

To give another perspective on my "the current legal system exclusively works via the use of force" argument, look how effective the legal system is against banks, Google, Facebook, etc where use of forceful caging is not applied.

What virtue am I signalling? Are objective observations about how the world and society functions considered some kind of virtue now?

I was responding to the argument that "courts" and "fellow citizens" make the legal system work, when in fact courts are just proxies for use of force. Use of force makes the legal system work, everything else around it is just the cushy stories about law, order and justice we cooked up for ourselves to collectively agree with.

And this is in stark contrast to how a contract running on the Ethereum VM gets enforced.

I am certainly not suggesting we should implement laws against violence like the murderers you mention on a blockchain. I am talking about laws governing financial transactions, companies, and other economic related activities between nonviolent but nonetheless potentially fraudulent actors.