This is a great framing. The author had addressed this question in an earlier part of his book, and I summarized it in which he came to the conclusion that "most smart contracts aren’t actually legal contracts". It is in this context that this author is attempting to deconstruct the improperly framed terms to give a new framework in which the law may be more congruous. In this, the author does not offer new terminology. I believe that was intentional in the context that the propositions of “smart contracts not actually being contracts” and “looking at digital property as personal property” may not be widely accepted by the community; and by proxy it may have been premature to come up with new terms before the arguments are accepted.
4 Likes