While I'm generally not a language prescriptivist, I gotta say no here. In real life, up until now, AFAIK we have NEVER used the word "contract" to refer to the underlying act that the contract is about. We've ALWAYS used it to refer to the associated documentation/statements of intent about the humans involved.

"Building a house" is not a contract. It's an act.

They're NOT CONTRACTS. They're automated transaction robots.

> up until now

I gave up telling people not to call cryptocurrency "crypto" — I would suggest suggesting a better term, or expect to be disappointed/it to continue.

Again, different -- This isn't a mere choice of word thing. It's that uninformed people are making harmful, and perhaps even stupid, choices because they are relying on an effectively false phrase -- where the "real version" of the thing is essentially a safety mechanism, and overzealous tech bro types absolutely incorrectly believe that their thing can replace the real thing.

Now, as a lawyer, I could just sit back and wait for the f**ups to happen and get paid cleaning them up -- and I might -- but also, I like the idea of warning people as well.

In a world where people think the phrase "autopilot" means the pilot of the plane can take a nap, I think we're doomed to disappointment.