In the case of real estate, it replaces the solicitor. And it facilitates the money transfer, so it also replaces the bank.

No. A dumb contract doesn't replace a solicitor and it doesn't replace a bank. You're just saying things now.

That's why you use smart contracts. You are just unwilling to consider any possibility that crypto could be useful.

You use a dumb contract in a situation where otherwise you'd need a solicitor? Please, explain.

In my country at least, the government charges lots of money (several thousands) to change ownership of real estate in a government managed ledger. That obviously could be replaced by crypto, which (in its basic form) is a distributed ledger. Ownership can be proven via the blockchain.

> That obviously could be replaced by crypto

Could.

So far you've been using the present tense, "the [dumb] contract replaces the solicitor", or such.

Obviously it doesn't. Or could you tell me in which countries in the world you won't, at present, have to pay the government to register real estate ownership changes in its ledger just because you paid the seller in a crypto-"currency"?

> That obviously could be replaced by crypto

It's not obvious at all that it could be replaced by crypto.