While I agree, I think you could make similar arguments about the contents of legal contracts today. The overwhelming majority of users of say, Kickstarter or online stock brokerage systems do not read the contracts they are asked to agree to, and if they attempted to would be incapable of understanding them anyway. So I think that argument is a bit of a red herring.<p>The advantages of Ethereum are in eliminating 3rd party trust and the costs that come with it. Right now if you want one of these simple financial services, there is both a direct financial cost associated with it and the implicit risk-expense of trusting someone else with your money. This is a drain on the global financial system that just doesn&#x27;t need to exist anymore.<p>The idea that Ethereum or things like it will supplant the legal system is of course, absurd on its face. That will not happen. But what we may start to see, in my opinion, is the co-mingling of the two, and contracts being written with deterministic, executable components alongside more traditional legal verbiage.<p>Fundamentally there are some things that are amenable to mechanization and some things that are not. But right now <i>both</i> are encoded in human language. And the use of either one for the other&#x27;s optimal purpose is perverse and unnecessarily expensive.