From a legal perspective, this is very interesting. The concept of escrow has existed for centuries I suppose. It needs three parties, A (origin), B (escrow) an

From a legal perspective, this is very interesting. The concept of escrow has existed for centuries I suppose. It needs three parties, A (origin), B (escrow) and C (destination). An escrow is only needed, because A and C don't trust themselves enough. Trust is a basic necessity in any contract and providing trust is a extremely valuable service. In (Austrian) civil law, there is something called "acquisition in good faith", which allows a third person under certain circumstances to lawfully acquire full and unrestrained ownership of a good from someone who does not have the rights to transfer full and unrestrained ownership of said good. Example: A wants to sell a laptop to C, but doesn't trust him until he has fully paid the price. They agree to use an escrow agent B. A gives B the laptop and C gives B the money/price. Now what happens if B doesn't acts in bad faith and decides to sell the laptop to the third party T? Well, if T isn't colluding or doesn't have to suspect that B is acting in bad faith, he (under certain conditions, that are most likely met in this case) can acquire full and unrestrained lawful ownership of that laptop. A is only left with claims on account of unjust enrichment against B, but has zero chance of getting his laptop back if T refuses to give it back. In that case it may not be problematic, because A only wanted the money, although he now has to take B to court and B maybe insolvent and so forth. The problem is more poignant if the laptop wasn't a laptop, but something very unique that has no equivalent monetary worth. And here smart contracts help: they make it impossible to transfer certain goods before certain conditions have been met. The ensure trust. That's why I believe this technology is very valuable. tl;dr: smart contracts are very valuable, because the ensure trust.