I agree, but those cases are VERY LIMITED. They would have to be something where the slowness and clunkiness of a blockchain is worth it. Anything private and small? Blockchains are stupid there.

The integrity of finance is worth slowness and clunkiness.

On that, I agree. I think DeFi (even more than day-to-day currency) is the true "killer-use" of crypto. But I think what I'm seeing with e.g. DAOs and on-chain governance is that "governance" here (unlike real life) really does need to be very libertarian. Set it and forget it to the extent you can, otherwise you invite humans and and their pesky incentives to screw around with things.

Agreed. While DAOs may offer benefits over traditional corporations in some applications, the real value proposition in public blockchains is provided by immutable smart contracts which eliminate the vulnerabilities introduced by governance.

Yes. But also, as a lawyer, I hate the phrase "smart contract" with the fire of a thousand suns. They are very useful and have important applications -- but they are not smart, nor are they contracts. "Automated blockchain bots" or something is far closer to the truth.

I prefer the term programmatic contract. Contract is somewhat of a misnomer, but conveys the idea that two parties can use it to trade in accordance with some defined terms. I think the 'smart' is an attempt to convey the idea that the application acts like a contract that self-executes. 'Programmatic' might do a better job of conveying that aspect of it too.