In my book “Before Babylon, Beyond Bitcoin” I made the point that the “smart contracts” of the blockchain world are not smart and are not contracts, and mentioned in passing Vitalik Buterin’s comment that he wished that with hindsight he had used the word “persistent script” instead. Gartner’s Avivah Litan recently made a similar point, noting that “the benefits and logic of smart contracts are not understood by all parties” (or indeed, I might add, any of the parties in some of the use cases I have seen).
(I did have an effort to introduce the new term LAPPS (i.e., Ledger APPlicationS) so as to have a simple and natural term, but it never gained traction. I suppose the whole “smart contract” thing has just become too embedded.)
I was reminded of these comments when I was reading Maria Grazia Vigliotti and Haydn Jones “The Executive Guide to Blockchain”. They have a nice subsection on “A Brief History of Smart Contract” that summarises the key characteristics — that they should be verifiable, observable, enforceable and have privity — and make an interesting distinction between smart contracts in the sense of immutable code on a shared ledger and smart contracts in the sense of legal agreements that can be (partly) implemented using immutable code on a shared ledger.