Oppression on the Blockchain

Abstract

When Ethereum (ETH) shifted from a Proof of Work (PoW) protocol to a Proof of Stake (PoS) protocol, not all users were enthused. We use Ethereum’s shift from PoW to PoS as a case study for the broader question of whether developers of a blockchain owe its members certain fiduciary or fiduciary-like duties. We argue that if done properly, in accordance to the rules governing the blockchain, then developers do not necessarily owe fiduciary responsibility to other members of the chain, but they nonetheless may owe fiduciary-like responsibilities to users inadvertently and negatively impacted. We argue these users may be entitled to an oppression claim akin to what minority shareholders may be entitled to in the corporate law context.