This article argues that there are many questions that lawyers might ask, and conversations that they might have, about smart contracts; that some questions that are asked are more important than others; and that there are some questions that are not asked but which should be asked. First, it is argued that the question that preoccupies ‘coherentists’ (concerning the application of the law of contract to smart contracts, and the fit between smart contracts and the paradigmatic ‘fiat contracts’ that are recognised by the law of contract) is neither as puzzling nor as important as might be supposed. Secondly, it is argued that, if there are concerns about the acceptability of smart contracts, then the conversation that needs to be had is of a ‘regulatory-instrumentalist’ nature; in particular, if the question is one of public policy restrictions on the use of smart contracts, then the appropriate balance of interests needs to be made by an institution that has both the necessary mandate and the appropriate mind-set. Thirdly, it is argued that there are conversations that we currently do not have but which urgently need to be had. Blockchain is a potentially transformative technology and it is important to have more fundamental conversations about the kind of community that we want to be.

中文翻译：

---

监管适应性：金融科技、有趣的钱和智能合约

本文认为，律师可能会提出许多关于智能合约的问题，以及他们可能会进行的对话；提出的某些问题比其他问题更重要；并且有些问题没有问，但应该问。首先，有人认为“连贯主义者”所关注的问题（关于合同法在智能合同中的应用，以及智能合同与合同法承认的范式“法定合同”之间的匹配）既不是令人费解，也没有想象的那么重要。其次，有人认为，如果对智能合约的可接受性存在担忧，则需要进行的对话具有“监管工具主义”性质；特别是，如果问题是对使用智能合约的公共政策限制之一，那么需要由具有必要授权和适当心态的机构来实现适当的利益平衡。第三，有人认为有些对话我们目前还没有，但迫切需要进行。区块链是一种潜在的变革性技术，重要的是就我们想要成为的社区类型进行更基本的对话。