I imagine very few people would be interested in smart contracts if it became a defacto legal standard in the US and Europe that these contracts are unenforceable.
Of course this doesn't address contracts being written out of Russia or traditional financial havens, but how valuable is a vehicle which can't be used to move assets into or within the US or Europe?
I think the question of enforcement is the wrong one.
Sure, but those are backed by different legally binding contracts which also give legal recourse to buyers. My point is that unlike other types of synthetic assets these seem to have no legal backing and could quite conceivably be regulated out of existence in the future.
Are these assets backed by legally binding contracts? If the answer is no it doesn't seem like a stretch.
If I sold you a stock in my company that gave you none of the traditional shareholder rights I'd also call those shares "fake", which seems to be what's going on here.