Blockchain Papers

Chinwoo Kim

No abstract is available for this record.

Eva Mouial-Bassilana, Enisa Hizmaj, Grégory Fuster

International audience

Han Jong Kyu

No abstract is available for this record.

Eric D. Chason

Having recently celebrated its ten-year anniversary, Bitcoin should be considered a qualified success. In October 2020, each unit1 was worth about $10,700, and the entire market capitalization was approximately $200 billion.2 Bitcoin is a significant economic force with sizable market value. Despite this success, however, Bitcoin has not been widely adopted as a method of payment, which was its intended use.3 By providing a template for a durable cryptocurrency, Bitcoin also blazed a path for other cryptocurrency projects. In terms of market capitalization and current importance, Ethereum is comfortably in second place.4 In October 2020, it had a market capitalization of approximately $40 billion.5 Unlike Bitcoin, however, Ethereum was not designed primarily to serve as a method of payment. Ethereum supports a system of sophisticated “smart contracts” that would not work on the Bitcoin system. Smart contracts and cryptocurrencies have sparked considerable interest among legal scholars in recent years, and a growing body of scholarship focuses on whether smart contracts and cryptocurrencies can sidestep law and regulation altogether.6 Bitcoin is famously decentralized, without any central actor controlling the system. Its users remain largely anonymous, using alphanumeric addresses instead of legal names. Ethereum shares these traits and also supports smart contracts that can automate the transfer of the Ethereum cryptocurrency (known as ether). Ethereum also supports specialized “tokens” that can be tied to the ownership of assets, goods, and services that exist completely outside of the Ethereum blockchain. The goal of this Article is to evaluate the degree to which cryptocurrencies and smart contracts can operate outside the reach of law and regulation. By some accounts, cryptocurrencies and smart contracts will revolutionize private law.7 Some argue they have the potential to displace contract and property law. For example, in a previous article, I argued that Bitcoin represents a system of private property that exists wholly outside of traditional legal structures.8 In this Article, I will argue that a complete revolution is not inexorable.9 Facing the technical and complicated nature of this subject, we should keep in mind a simple fact: cryptocurrencies and smart contracts are computer data and computer programs. To a large extent, they will have legal force only if given force by judges, regulators, and legislators. Part II describes Bitcoin and how it creates a system of property that exists outside of legal structures. Bitcoin is special because it controls no external assets (like securities, dollars, or gold). It is purely “notional” property that exists only on a computer file. Part III describes Ethereum and how it builds upon the principles of Bitcoin. The primary innovation of Ethereum is smart contracts, which allow for variable and conditional transfers of cryptocurrency. To be of commercial value, however, smart contracts must incorporate economic or financial information (e.g., interest rates or exchange rates). Ethereum allows users to incorporate this information using third party “oracles.” While oracles allow for sophisticated transactions, their presence illustrates some of the limits of smart contracts. Part IV extends the discussion of Ethereum and explains how many developers use it as a way to effectuate property transactions. Tokens are specialized smart contracts used to represent ownership of assets or certain privileges. Conceivably, ownership in any asset— homes, cars, etc.—could be represented by Ethereum tokens. Rather than using a deed of transfer, owners could simply transfer the representative tokens. Part V develops what this Article calls a “remote-computer model” of Bitcoin and Ethereum. Because Bitcoin and Ethereum are computer programs and computer data, we can view each as constituting a single computer. This hypothetical computer is remote in the sense that judges, regulators, and legislators can exercise little control over it directly. The remote computer controls ownership of cryptocurrency units, leaving direct cryptocurrency transactions outside the scope of traditional legal institutions. That being said, smart contracts often purport to control external resources and rights. For example, a smart contract might purport to control the transfer of land or stock in a corporation. These transactions have effects outside the hypothetical remote computer and can potentially be subject to control by legal institutions.

Bálint Ferencz

Though there are some initiative in order to give legal foundation for smart contracts, its legal status is still not settled. Most of the examination of smart contracts has been presented by common law scholars and practitioners while fewer civil law jurists shared their views on the matter. However, there seems to be a tendency that the representatives of the common law are reluctant to accept smart contracts as legally binding contracts while civil law jurist apparently are more open to that. The aim of the present article is to find out what the core principles and values are which make this difference. While evaluating the approaches in this respect, some additional thoughts will be added why the civil law may be more tolerant towards to smart contracts. The main purpose of the article is to highlight the different aspects as regards the smart contracts.<br/>

Cristina Pérez Solà

No abstract is available for this record.

Shaanan Cohney, David A. Hoffman

No abstract is available for this record.

Cătălina Goanță

No abstract is available for this record.

Susannah Wilkinson

Automation is taking hold in different aspects of business across every industry and every sector. Consistent with this trend, the notion of embedding automation into legally binding contracts is also gaining momentum. COVID-19 is fuelling digital transformation and has highlighted frustrations with static contracts that sit disconnected from digital processes and systems. As automated ‘smart contracts’ become more common, lawyers have been grappling with how to preserve the legal integrity of the contract whilst harnessing the benefits of automation and digital connectivity. Automation of contract performance is a field lacking in standard definitions. This paper proposes a framework to assist discussion and development of legally enforceable automation of contract performance and explores high level features of contracts along the spectrum of contract automation by proposing an initial model for the levels of automation (and digitalisation). This model draws analogies with the SAE International J3016 “Levels of Automation” widely adopted for autonomous vehicles.

Johanna Caterina Faliero

No abstract is available for this record.

Natasha Blycha, Ariane Garside

No abstract is available for this record.

Javier M. Rodríguez Olmos

Spanish Abstract: el contrato inteligente (smart contract) es una tecnología que permite la ejecución automatizada de un comando que sigue la lógica “si X entonces Y”, ante la verificación de una condición preestablecida. En combinación con la tecnología blockchain el contrato inteligente adquiere las características de descentralización, inalterabilidad y, sobre todo, de irreversibilidad. En este escrito se analiza el impacto del contrato inteligente en el derecho contractual, a partir de la distinción fundamental entre contrato inteligente y ‘contrato legal inteligente’. A partir de esa distinción se revisan algunas cuestiones que plantea esa tecnología al confrontarla con ciertos aspectos del contrato: su formación, su ejecución, su interpretación y la protección contractual del consumidor. El análisis lleva a concluir que el contrato inteligente, cuando cumple una función dentro de un contrato en sentido jurídico, no puede escapar a la influencia de los principios y reglas del derecho contractual. English Abstract: Smart contracts are a technology which enables the automated execution of a “if this-then that” function, upon the meeting of a predetermined condition. Combined with blockchain technology, Smart contracts become descentralized, tamper-proof and above all irreversible. This paper focuses on how Smart contracts impact on Contract law. On the basis of the distinction between Smart contract and ‘Smart legal contract’, I examine some issues arising from the interacción of Smart contract technology with some aspects of contract’s life cycle: formation, performance, interpretation, and contractual consumer protection. The outcome of the análisis Will show that Smart contracts, whenever they are imbedded in the context of a contract in a legal sense, cannot avoid the principles and rules of Contract law.

Cristina Argelich Comelles

El presente trabajo ofrece soluciones a los problemas juridicos que plantean los smart contracts, por tratarse de clausulas contractuales autoimplementadas en un codigo informatico que autoejecuta su contenido. Estos versan sobre su discutida naturaleza juridica, la adhesion del consumidor 2.0 mediante Blockchain, su personalizacion con Ethereum, los errores de programacion y la responsabilidad civil, la proteccion y encriptacion de datos de caracter personal, y la formacion y ejecucion del contrato. Las dificultades que plantean los smart contracts requieren de una regulacion europea, inspirada en las legislaciones existentes en algunos territorios de los Estados Unidos y Francia, asi como en los estudios formulados en el ambito de UNIDROIT y la CNUDMI.

David A. Paulus

No abstract is available for this record.

Vincenzo Zeno-Zencovich

No abstract is available for this record.

Florian Martin-Bariteau, Marco Pontello

No abstract is available for this record.

Riccardo de Caria

The article investigates some of the most relevant legal issues that emerge in connection with blockchain technology and smart contracts by addressing them from a public policy perspective.In particular, it focuses on some under-investigated problems connected to some possible legal hurdles to their widespread adoption in the legal practice of business at the national and international levels.The legal analysis of blockchain and smart contracts is then employed to explore the more general question of how much the law needs to change in order to accommodate new technologies, or how much it is instead preferable to believe that the existing law is already capable of accommodating innovation, however radical it may be.* Assistant Professor of Comparative Public Law, University of Turin.I would like to express my debt to the participants at the conference on Blockchain e diritto

Andrea Đurović

One of the major current topics and one of the major innovations in the contract law, as well as in insurance law is the invention of the smart contracts. The author is basing her research on use of smart contract in insurance law and what are the main legal issues arising from the use of smart contract. In her paper, the author points out that the implementation of the smart contract in insurance law will greatly affect all participants in insurance contract and a significant step forward in improving the level of protection of insurance users (consumers), although it takes time and readiness of European and domestic legislators to create a special regulatory framework so that smart contract can reach its potential.

Vladimir P. Kamyshansky, Garmshev, M. A., Anna S. Shekhovtsova, Екатерина Анатольевна Новикова · 5 authors

The authors examined the concept and signs of a smart contract through a comparative legal analysis of the legislation of Russia, Belarus, the EU and the USA. The key characteristics of a smart contract as a contract, its types, ways of development and improvement are highlighted and substantiated, the examples of smart contracts from the practice of these countries are given, problematic aspects of legal regulation in this sphere are identified

Huiru Liu

No abstract is available for this record.

Alexandros A. Papantoniou

This essay examines whether smart contract innovation is capable of displacing the orthodox adherence to traditional contracts. This examination is underpinned by an analysis of the legality of smart contracts, through which it is exemplified that smart contracts ought to be considered legally binding instruments. The essay proceeds to explore the superiority of smart contracting on a technical and theoretical basis. The advantages generated through smart contract automaticity and enforceability present a concrete basis for undermining reliance on traditional contracts. Blockchain Technology also enhances the benefits of smart contracts by acting as a smart contract enabler through guaranteed performance and enforceability. Nevertheless, such novel technologies inevitably suffer from several shortcomings. This essay considers examples which illustrate the inflexibility of smart contracting. Apart from being susceptible to hacking and code exploitation, smart contracting is unable to deal with ambiguities and potential modifications. Overall, this suggests that the advantages of smart contract practice are currently confined to some specified limited scenarios. Smart contracts perform a different function to traditional contracting by merely guaranteeing technical enforceability as opposed to legal enforceability. This essay thus concludes that, for the time being, it is best to regard smart contracting as a supplement to traditional contracts rather than an outright displacement.

Authors unavailable

No abstract is available for this record.

Authors unavailable

No abstract is available for this record.

Anne Veerpalu, Liisi Jürgen, Eduardo da Cruz Rodrigues e Silva, Alex Norta

Abstract The article investigates the smart contract used in the Initial Coin Offering (ICO) process and its qualification under the typology of form of contract and the EU electronic signature regulation eIDAS.1 ICOs took the globe by storm in 2017 and created a lot of turmoil among the regulators due to a new form of raising funds globally. In addition to their effect on the capital market, another phenomenon that saw a rise in popularity was the smart contract. The smart contract is usually built into the ICO process as a protocol to execute the issue of a token. The article suggests that the contract in the ICO process does not only refer to the smart/contract code in silos but should be considered in the larger context as the so-called hybrid smart contract agreement with the smart contract protocol being merely the execution motor for the issuance of the token. The article qualifies the contract concluded during the ICO process under the general typology of forms of contract with the aim to identify whether the hybrid smart/contract agreement is in electronic form of contract. Some states in the USA and a few Member States in the EU have also introduced smart contract-specific regulation clearly stating that smart contracts are contracts either in electronic or written form. Still, as this is not prevalent in the EU law, the principle of functional equivalence is used to assess whether the signature on a smart contract used in an ICO process is functionally equivalent to the qualified electronic signature under eIDAS. The existence of a qualified electronic signature allows the contract to be qualified as a contract in electronic form equivalent to a paper-form agreement with hand-written signatures. Furthermore, the article investigates whether the centralized trust system of the eIDAS creates an infrastructural bias against the source of trust in case of distributed ledger technology that in itself could be non-compliant with the principle of technology neutrality.