It wouldn't work, almost nothing people want to do with smart contract can actually work because those people tend not to actually understand what a smart contract is or what it can actually do and what it can't do. Virtually every smart contract proposal is DOA due to a misunderstanding of their nature.
I didn't need to, the comment I replied to already addressed a valid why. Smart contracts can't enforce access to funds without locking the funds up from other use, and that's not how things work in the real world. Pensions aren't savings accounts where funds are locked up ready to be used in a black box. They can't interact with the real world without trusted oracles, but we already have that in the real world and they're only real use is when they can do something deterministic on chain. In short, they're largely hype without a real problem to solve... so far.
You're just claiming it's impractical today, not technically infeasible for any reason.
1. Pensions don't currently work like this
There are many thousands of different pension systems across the world.
It stands to reason that you could create new system, and if it had significantly attractive advantages, people would use it.
2. Trusted oracles are a problem
Yup, we need more decentralized services that smart contracts can take advantage of. Wait a few years, they're coming.
3. Smart contracts are only useful for deterministic changes
Making deterministic change is precisely what you want. Do you mean statically defined? Because that's obviously not correct. And are you considering a new system specifically designed for pensions?
Virtually all innovative technology is "hype" until it isn't. I agree we have a ways to go.
