Blockchain Papers

Ankit Shaw

The law of cross-border insolvency is about where a company is. It has never had to ask legally what is being administered where an estate consists of cryptographic keys rather than factories or what happens when the controlling minds of a debtor are as mobile as the assets they control. In this paper, I argue that the recent cross-border insolvency reform in India, advanced by section 240C of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2026 (an enabling provision, whose substantive rules remain undrafted), will fail a meaningful share of the insolvencies it is meant to resolve, unless those rules are built with digital assets affirmatively in mind.The argument proceeds in three movements. First, it traces the doctrine of "centre of main interests" through its foundational European and American case law, showing a registered-office presumption that holds up well against debtors who are not trying to defeat it, and considerably less well against those who are. Second, it compares how courts in New Zealand, the United States, and Japan have answered materially the same question, whether a depositor's cryptocurrency is trust property, contractually transferred estate property, or no property at all, and reached three different answers in insolvencies with nearly identical facts. Third, it reads recent failures, including the Indian exchange WazirX's restructuring before a foreign court with no domestic mechanism for India to participate, as variations on one structural pattern that neither doctrine was built to handle.The paper conclude by proposing some concrete provisions which we would suggest that the Central Government consider as it moves forward with the process of notifying the remaining rules under section 240C – specifically, these include a legislated default regime relating to customer deposits, a COMI presumption in relation to debtors who have no other registered office, and a mechanism which enables India to be heard if a foreign restructuring results in large numbers of Indian citizens being affected.

Marcos Roberto Costa, Livia Costa, Alexandre Eli Alves

Este artigo examina os requisitos mínimos de criação, preservação, disponibilização e contestação da prova digital na autocomposição online de conflitos decorrentes de contratos de curta estadia intermediados por plataformas. A existência de capturas de tela ou de um canal digital, por si só, não torna o procedimento adequado. Sustenta-se que a autocomposição exige uma governança probatória capaz de assegurar proveniência, integridade, contexto, completude, acesso contraditório, minimização de dados e responsabilidades transparentes. A pesquisa é qualitativa, aplicada e propositiva. Combina procedimentos bibliográficos e documentais, método jurídico-dogmático de orientação funcional e design science jurídico como protocolo complementar. O corpus temático reúne 40 obras integrais auditadas - 32 brasileiras e oito estrangeiras -, articuladas à legislação vigente e a precedentes do Superior Tribunal de Justiça. A análise reconstrói a arquitetura triangular da contratação, distingue qualidade probatória de certeza absoluta, delimita as garantias da resolução online de disputas e testa o artefato em cenários hipotéticos. O resultado é um Protocolo Mínimo de Prontidão Probatória organizado em sete camadas, cuja intensidade varia conforme o risco, sem transformar ata notarial, hash ou blockchain em requisitos universais. Com isso, o debate se desloca da admissibilidade posterior de registros isolados para a organização preventiva, contestável e protetiva da informação necessária ao acordo.