>>The DAO event illustrates this but even more, the real ugly will rise when smart contracts are used for all of the really abuse which normal contracts have fa

>>The DAO event illustrates this but even more, the real ugly will rise when smart contracts are used for all of the really abuse which normal contracts have facilitated - usury, debt-peonage, sex-trafficking and so-forth. Basically, it facilitates putting the weak at the mercy of the strong in uncontestable fashion. If certain voluntary interactions between consenting adults with different levels of power are "abuse", according to you, then I'd argue there are far more fruitful ways of addressing the problem, that are less disruptive to non-abusive interactions, than indiscriminately forbidding people from utilitizing smart contracts to interact, or trying to discourage people from developing smart contract technology. The latter is profoundly unethical in its lack of consideration for others' rights. As an example of one of these better ways, those in vulnerable circumstances, who could be exploited in ostensibly voluntary interactions, could be put under the guardianship of a competent authority, and have restrictions placed on them to prevent them from entering into abusive situations. This is a more sensible approach than attempting to turn the entire world into a safe space for adults who are not capable of wielding the freedom to choose what agreements they enter into. While on this track, you may also want to consider restricting the right of these vulnerable people on who they may vote for, as obviously the state will know better than them as to which political candidates seek to abuse them. Just as a curiousity: what is your profession? Might you have some financial conflict of interest in the dilemma of whether people at large will be able to interact without centralized intermediaries like regulators and lawyers as acting as gatekeepers?