Blockchain Papers

Salvatore Furnari, R Lener

No abstract is available for this record.

Michael Aaron Russell

Housing discrimination persists despite half a century of legal prohibition. Credit scoring algorithms operate as impenetrable black boxes, perpetuating bias while evading accountability. Landlord discretion enables implicit discrimination that tenants cannot prove. This Article demonstrates that smart contracts can encode tenant rights directly into executable code, eliminating opacity and enforcing fairness through mathematical precision rather than post-hoc litigation. We present the Landlord-Tenant Justice ABE, a production smart contract system implementing seven federal and state housing laws with cryptographic verification. Through formal mathematical analysis, we prove two foundational principles: Axiom 3 (Fairness Monotonicity) guarantees that adding protections for vulnerable populations never decreases overall fairness, while Axiom 9 (Beneficence) ensures the system optimizes for tenant welfare rather than mere procedural compliance. The system inverts traditional burden of proof: rather than tenants proving discrimination occurred, landlords must disprove violations automatically logged on an immutable blockchain. Every evaluation parameter is explicit, every decision is deterministic, and every outcome provides actionable remedies. This is not theoretical—the complete source code is provided in Appendix A. Our contribution is threefold: (1) we formalize housing fairness in constitutional mathematics, a deterministic precision calculus that eliminates interpretive ambiguity; (2) we demonstrate working implementation of these principles in 2,500 lines of auditable Solidity code; (3) we prove that algorithmic transparency can enhance rather than diminish justice. The law professors cannot read the mathematics—but that is precisely the point. Justice encoded in deterministic logic transcends human interpretation.

Janice Author

No abstract is available for this record.

Lev Goukassian

No abstract is available for this record.

Amelia Lo, Clarie Ku

No abstract is available for this record.

Andrea Stazi

The incessant development and ubiquitous diffusion of information and communication technologies give rise to phenomena of considerable socio-economic and therefore legal significance. Among these, contractual relationships are strongly affected by technological evolution, which provides new tools for negotiating, concluding and executing contracts, with specific operating dynamics and unpublished legal issues. In this perspective, from a legal point of view, the contract-technology combination represents a topical issue for a comparative analysis, which provides the interpreter with an overall view of different local responses to common developments and problems deriving from the use of technology in contracts.

Abhinav Ravi

This essay examines the challenges that smart contracts pose for contractual interpretation. While smart contracts are often viewed as unambiguous because they operate through deterministic computer code, disputes may nevertheless arise where the outcome produced by the code diverges from the parties’ understanding of their agreement. The essay argues that these disputes are not adequately addressed by treating code as a definitive expression of contractual intention or by adopting the ‘reasonable coder’ standard proposed by the United Kingdom (‘UK’) Law Commission. The reasonable coder standard is theoretically incoherent because it lacks alignment, generality, and reviewability and therefore cannot perform the descriptive and normative functions served by the reasonable person standard. Thus, this standard should be discarded entirely. Interpretation should continue to be governed by the reasonable person standard, while relaxing the evidentiary constraints imposed by the parol evidence rule. By permitting greater reliance on contextual materials, including pre-contractual negotiations and subsequent conduct, courts can more accurately identify the bargain the parties intended to conclude without having to invoke a conceptually unstable standard.

Hilary J. Allen

In 2021, the Bank for International Settlements identified that blockchain-based finance was laboring under a “decentralisation illusion,” because of “the inescapable need for centralised governance and the tendency of blockchain consensus mechanisms to concentrate power.” In other words, notwithstanding that blockchain is a decentralized technology, it cannot live up to its promoters’ promises that it will disperse economic control. This Chapter surveys accumulated evidence that supports and underlines the importance of that conclusion. This Chapter also argues that individuals’ continuing susceptibility to narratives about the decentralizing potential of blockchain technology reflects, at least to some degree, their normative priors about the degree to which concentration of economic power is acceptable. In other words, blockchain-based finance can serve as a Rorschach test for attitudes towards the normative goal of “competition.”

Nabeel Mahdialthabhawi, Ra’ed Fawzi Aburoub, Motiur Rahman, Faris Kamil Hasan Mihna · 5 authors

This study delves into the integration of force majeure and exceptional events into smart contracts. As much as smart contracts simplify the process and guarantee efficiency, the rigidity of these contracts inherently cannot handle unexpected eventualities that might be provided for in a traditional contract with a force majeure clause. This paper explores the impacts of such rigidity and uncovers both practical and theoretical implications for the legal and technological frameworks governing smart contracts through a qualitative analysis of interviews with legal experts, including (attorneys, judges, and academics). The findings show that the immutability of smart contracts leads all too often to disputes, financial risks, and a lack of legal clarity in an unexpected event. Rather than advocating full automation of legal judgment, the study proposes a governance-oriented and legally-grounded framework in which predefined contractual clauses, oracle-based event verification, AI, conditional execution logic, and escalation mechanisms enable controlled and proportionate responses to exceptional events while preserving contractual consent and human oversight. These mechanisms are presented as conceptual and illustrative design strategies through which legal effects can be technically implemented (e.g., suspension, adjustment, termination) under clearly predefined conditions. By integrating empirical legal insights with conceptual technical models, such as a systematic taxonomy of exceptional events, a high-level governance-oriented framework and a procedural flowchart regarding regulatory alignment, the paper contributes to inter-disciplinary literature concerning adaptive governance of smart contracts; the analysis serves as an example how legal doctrines can influence automated contracting without undermining interpretative authority, or legal certainty in cross-border and volatile settings.

E.D.; id_orcid 0000-0003-0263-5985 Martino, Veronica Zerba

This article examines how the blockchain technology reshapes the traditional contract-property divide in private law, leveraging on the peculiar features of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation. <br/>Building on foundational doctrines—in rem rights, the numerus clausus principle, and third-party notice—we show that blockchain enables the creation of de facto property entitlements, including exclusivity and enforceability <br/>against subsequent transferees, without State involvement or adherence to traditional publicity requirements. We label this phenomenon “tokenising property.” Through illustrative examples, such as NFT royalties, we show how <br/>on-chain entitlements may override or bypass the allocation of rights under existing property regimes, raising coordination and enforcement challenges. Using a transaction cost framework, we assess the conditions under which <br/>tokenizing property can deliver efficiency gains and when it generates new frictions. Finally, we argue that blockchain regulation rather than private law reforms can reassert control over this new form of property by intervening directly in the technical layer of blockchain systems. This may help in ensuring consistency between tokenised entitlements and the broader legal order, as illustrated by the EU Data Act and the Liechtenstein Blockchain Act.

Harshit Singh

Traditional property law was built on the physics of tangibility-land, bricks, and physical goods. The defining characteristic of a property right has long been exclusivity: if I possess an object, you cannot. However, the rise of digital assets, from cloud-hosted data and software licenses to non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and virtual real estate, has fundamentally challenged this paradigm. This paper examines the friction between classical property doctrines and digital assets, arguing that modern legal frameworks must shift from an absolute ownership model to a nuanced "bundle of rights" approach to prevent corporate overreach while protecting consumer interests.

Mateusz Grochowski

The displacement of traditionally negotiated contracts by technological substitutes-smart contracts, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), platform-governed gig arrangements, and AI-generated agreements-poses foundational challenges to U.S. contract law that existing doctrine is ill-equipped to resolve. This article examines how code-and algorithm-based governance restructures contractual relationships, analyzing fragmented legal responses at both the federal and state levels. It further distinguishes between complements (mechanisms that enhance contractual efficiency and enforceability) and substitutes (instruments that displace contractual governance functions altogether). The article argues that U.S. federalism generates a characteristic problem: the same jurisdictional competition that enables rapid regulatory experimentation simultaneously produces temporal fragmentation, interpretive divergence, and compliance asymmetries, imposing disproportionate costs on smaller commercial actors. The staggered state adoption of the 2022 U.C.C. amendments exemplifies this structural tension. The analysis contends that distinctive features of the U.S. civil litigation system-including broad discovery, the American Rule on attorney fees, and opt-out class actions-create an enforcement gap that drives endogenous market demand for self-executing substitutes and automated complements as alternatives to costly formal adjudication. Critically, this litigation-driven technological innovation is not normatively neutral: while it enhances efficiency and reduces transaction costs, it simultaneously erodes public accountability and renders large portions of state-made law practically ineffective. Unresolved questions of worker classification, platform accountability, and AI-generated intellectual property ownership reveal the outer limits of a legal order confronting technologies indifferent to territorial boundaries, necessitating a deeper reassessment of assent, unconscionability, fairness, and accountability in modern U.S. contract law.

Morshed Mannan, Primavera De Filippi

Abstract This chapter reviews and contributes to the debate concerning the fiduciary duties of network participants of blockchain systems, with a focus on software developers and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) members. After briefly introducing the concept of fiduciary duties in the UK and the US, the chapter surveys the early academic debates on the fiduciary status of core developers. It then turns to an analysis of the main case law in England and California relating to fiduciary duties in this space, before arguing that the imposition of implicit fiduciary duties could lead to unjust outcomes, deter participation in blockchain systems, and stifle innovation. Instead, the remainder of the chapter contends that pursuing co-regulatory efforts which are grounded in the principle of regulatory equivalence, such as the adoption of the COALA DAO Model Law, will secure the public policy objectives of imposing fiduciary duties, without sacrificing the distinctive features of blockchain networks.

Ming Sen Thong

No abstract is available for this record.

Moin A. Yahya, Erwin Kwok

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.

Nang Nwe Ni Nyunt

Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) is considered to be used in processing crypto assets, constructing smart contracts and data governance. As the evidence shows that application of this technology has become beneficial, number of business models created by this technology is increasingly large. However, in Myanmar, not all of business models attributed to this technology are legally allowed yet. This fact made the research to explore why there was a ban on minting crypto currency in Myanmar. However, other opportunities to use the cryptographic and block-chain concepts have not been blocked. Based on the guidance and pro and con articulations relating to this cutting-edge technology, this research offers the view that the Central Bank of Myanmar is responsible in opening up more business models. The bank requires revisiting its order or issuing the supplemental manual not to abuse the advanced technology

Filippo Zatti

This article examines whether blockchain-based decentralization poses challenges to the legal order amenable to incremental regulatory adaptation, or with structural inadequacies in its very foundations. Legal orders presuppose the identification of subjects – natural persons, legal entities, public authorities – to whom rights and obligations are attributed. Attribution unfolds across three constitutive dimensions: territory, language, and embodied legal subjectivity. Blockchain technology and autonomous decentralized systems – Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, Decentralized Finance protocols – destabilize each, operating without identifiable centres of accountable authority. The challenge is therefore structural, not regulatory: as centres of attribution recede, legal categories lose the referent that grounds their meaning. Regulatory responses – the MiCAR Regulation, US enforcement actions – vest accountability in identifiable subjects. Integrating decentralized technologies thus brings to light the need to reconstitute identifiable centres of attribution: not a mere adaptation of the existing normative framework, but an exercise in institutional innovation.

Saloni Kumari

This paper explores the transformative intersection of blockchain technology, decentralized digital systems, and emerging global data protection frameworks. As the digital economy shifts from centralized data monopolies toward decentralized, cryptographically secure ledgers, traditional legal concepts of privacy, ownership, and intermediary liability face unprecedented challenges. By analyzing current legislative paradigms, specifically the European Union's GDPR, India's DPDP Act, and the IT Rules 2021, this analysis evaluates the efficacy of statutory enforcement against the structural realities of Web3. The paper further forecasts the juridical landscape of 2026 and beyond, examining the implications of smart contracts, self-sovereign identities (SSI), and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). Ultimately, it argues for a prophylactic legal synthesis: a regulatory approach that harmonizes mathematical trust and code-driven autonomy with equitable human rights, ensuring robust accountability without stifling technological innovation.

Mandhan Agnihotri

It is a fictional legal case that examines the emerging field of dispute resolution and accountability in the field of decentralized finance (DeFi). This story is contextualized by a hypothetical scenario where the Aetherium Judicial Network (AJN) an arbitration machinery comes as an organic piece to blockchain designs. It is established on the background of the flash-loan scam destroying a socially minded DeFi lenders protocol, within the doctrine of Code is Law, and in comparison, to the dominant paradigms of the law of contracts, equity, and good faith. The manuscript offers a deeper question by placing the conflict in a decentralized autonomous ecosystem as such actions that can be legally represented as legally valid, but as a strategic manipulative act, are a violation of trust in systems deemed to be trustless. The story rethinks the ills committed by the DeFi participants not as code bugs or market manipulations, but as actions that weaken the socioeconomic pillars of society in general, through adopting a covenantal conception of good faith and fair dealing, and economic interference torts and using ancillary protocols. The decision of the Crypto-Court supports a new model of non-custodial resolution that can be described as reputational penalties and protocol-based restitution, thus, demonstrating the way justice can be served without violating blockchain immutability. Finally, this paper promotes a hybrid system of governance that balances algorithmic determinism and human conceptions of justice, which also preempts a future of financial law based on the decentralized adjudication.

Madinabonu Yakubova

This article examines the legal status of smart contracts across different jurisdictions through a comparative legal methodology, analyzing regulatory approaches in the United States, European Union, Switzerland, Singapore, and Uzbekistan. The research identifies key challenges in integrating self-executing agreements into existing legal frameworks, including issues of contract formation, enforceability, dispute resolution, and data protection compliance. Using doctrinal analysis and comparative law methods, this study evaluates how different legal systems address the fundamental question of whether code-based agreements satisfy traditional contract formation requirements. The findings reveal a spectrum of regulatory responses ranging from explicit statutory recognition to application of existing contract law principles. The article concludes with recommendations for developing comprehensive legal frameworks that balance innovation with consumer protection and legal certainty.

Prof. (Dr.) Rupam Jagota, Vimmy Miglani

Smart contracts, self-executing protocols on blockchain platforms, challenge traditional contract law by automating performance without intermediaries. This doctrinal study examines their enforceability under Indian statutes, particularly the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The research problem centres on whether code-based agreements satisfy essential elements like offer, acceptance, free consent, and lawful consideration, amid ambiguities in evidentiary admissibility and remedies. Objectives include analysing statutory compatibility, identifying doctrinal gaps, and proposing reforms. Through examination of sections 10, 13-14, and 10A of relevant Acts, alongside judicial precedents on electronic contracts, findings reveal partial recognition: smart contracts qualify as valid if hybrid (code plus natural language) and digitally signed, but pure code versions face hurdles in proving intent and consent. Key challenges encompass immutability conflicting with revocation rights and cross-border jurisdiction issues. The study recommends legislative amendments for explicit recognition, judicial guidelines for code interpretation, and regulatory sandboxes. Ultimately, smart contracts hold transformative potential for India's digital economy if integrated via interpretive evolution and targeted reforms, balancing innovation with legal certainty.

Yusra Aldhubyani, Alhanouf K Alsulami

This study aims to clarify the concept and types of digital assets within a comparative analytical framework, enriched by an examination of a number of English judicial precedents specifically addressing the precautionary attachment of digital assets. The study begins by defining digital assets, their types, and their legal nature in this context. It then addresses the concept of precautionary attachment, its conditions, and its scope. Furthermore, the study examines the extent to which digital assets may be subject to precautionary attachment through an analysis of judicial precedents under English common law, while also highlighting key features of the Singaporean approach in this regard. This is intended to contribute to the Saudi legal framework in light of the absence of explicit legislative regulation of digital assets within the Saudi Enforcement Law. The study also seeks to clarify the extent of judicial authority in issuing precautionary judicial orders relating to digital assets, while highlighting the practical and legal challenges associated with their intangible nature and cross-border character. The study reaches several findings, most notably that the Saudi regulator has not yet provided an explicit statutory definition of digital assets in any of the applicable laws or regulations, nor has it permitted dealing in or trading such assets within the Kingdom, as confirmed by official statements issued by regulatory authorities. Nevertheless, in contrast, digital assets have occupied a significant place in comparative legal scholarship, particularly within comparative legal systems. Digital assets are defined as data recorded on the blockchain that confer specific rights such as ownership, access, representation, voting, or practical use. The scope of digital assets extends to include a wide range of digitally stored content and rights, including cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and Bitcoin. The study also proposes several recommendations, most importantly that the Saudi regulator should introduce an explicit statutory provision defining digital assets within one of the applicable laws or regulations, whether within the framework of the Capital Market Law, commercial transaction laws, or monetary regulations. This would ensure clarity regarding the legal nature of such assets, define their scope, and enhance the ability to regulate and deal with them in accordance with statutory rules and specific controls. The study further recommends amending Article (24/3) of the Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law to expressly include digital assets among the assets subject to precautionary attachment. Following such amendment, the provision would read as follows: All assets of the debtor shall be subject to precautionary attachment, whether movable, immovable, or digital assets in all their forms.

A. Rehash Rushmi Pavitra, R. Radha, R. Satheesh Kumar, Montater MuhsnHasan · 6 authors

The management of resource sharing agreements is being transformed by the introduction of smart contracts, which, alongside decentralized technologies, provide smoother automation, transparency, and trust amongst different parties. This research examines the role that smart contract management systems play in the design, implementation, and control of resource-sharing agreements in the fields of energy, telecommunications, transportation, and digital services. Conventional contract-based practices are plagued by inefficiencies, potential errors, and delays, which smart contracts aim to address by encoding agreement terms into self-executing code stored within blockchain systems. The study examines key architectural building blocks, consensus models, and security elements, focusing on the real-time execution of automated validation, updates, dispute resolution, and contract performance. Practical applications are presented through case studies on decentralized energy markets, bandwidth leasing, and co-utilization of assets. Other concerns are the lack of interconnected systems, enforcement, and private legal structures. The research develops a smart contract lifecycle management model that regulates contracting processes to help organizations develop adequate, compliant, and collaborative resource distribution solutions designed to be scalable. The economic model of spending changes due to the ability of smart contracts, utilizing Blockchain, to share resources, thereby reducing administrative expenses and establishing more resilient mechanisms of dependence in the future.

S.S. Boranbay

This paper presents a comprehensive comparative study of the legal regulation of smart contracts in the United States and the People’s Republic of China, taking into account both theoretical frameworks and practical applications. Smart contracts are examined as both technological and legal instruments that facilitate the automation of contractual obligations, enhance transactional transparency, and streamline the management of digital assets within the digital economy. The relevance of this research arises from the rapid integration of blockchain technology into the financial sector, public services, international trade, logistics, and insurance. Nevertheless, despite the widespread use of the technology, the legal status of smart contracts and their recognition by national and international courts remain subjects of academic and professional debate. The methodological basis of this study combines comparative legal analysis, a systematic review of regulatory acts and judicial practice, an examination of academic literature, and the synthesis of information from diverse sources. This research highlights the key features of the Chinese and American regulatory models. The Chinese model is characterized by centralized control, where smart contracts are integrated into state-backed digital platforms, including the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the digital yuan. This approach ensures standardization and security, however constrains the pace of innovative adoption. By contrast, the American model demonstrates flexibility and fosters innovation by recognizing program code as a legally significant instrument under digital transactions and contract law (e.g., the E-SIGN Act of 2000 and various state laws). However, it lacks clear standards and uniform security protocols.