This article analyses the impact of smart contracts on family law, specifically examining how these digital contracts can simplify and improve the drafting, implementation and enforcement of family agreements. The analysis examines the advantages, examples of application, challenges and limitations of smart contracts in family law, explains their ability to enhance efficiency and transparency in relevant cases, and considers ethical aspects and potential risks. The article notes that most legal systems have not yet adapted to blockchain technology. The legal validity of smart contracts, particularly in the context of personal relationships, is the subject of lively debate in practice. Family law is complex and often requires human judgement, which smart contracts currently lack. Family law varies significantly across different jurisdictions, making it difficult to create a universally recognised marriage contract on the blockchain. Both parties to the marriage contract must understand the functionality of smart contracts, including potential risks such as coding errors. Despite the transparency, storing highly sensitive data on a public blockchain may raise privacy concerns for some couples. Ultimately, smart contracts have the potential to transform family law by offering families a more efficient and secure way to manage legal transactions in today’s world. The transparent nature of blockchain records poses risks to the confidentiality of spouses’ property and financial information. The immutable characteristics of smart contracts hinder their adaptability to changing circumstances, such as the birth of children or fluctuations in income, whilst judicial oversight of their enforcement is largely absent. From a pragmatic point of view, smart contracts can be effectively used in various aspects of regulating property relations within marriage. A marriage contract utilising a smart contract can clearly define the procedure for the distribution of digital assets – in particular cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens or tokenised real estate – in the event of divorce, ensuring the automatic execution of this distribution following the legally recognised event of divorce, thereby eliminating protracted legal disputes over these assets. Furthermore, a smart contract can be integrated with the couple’s joint digital wallet, ensuring the automatic deduction of a set share from each partner’s income and the subsequent automatic payment of joint obligations – such as rent, utility bills, etc. – thereby minimising the risk of conflicts regarding the management of joint finances. Smart contracts currently function most effectively in the field of decentralised finance and digital assets, serving as a complement to traditional legal instruments rather than a complete replacement for them.
Dieser Leitfaden richtet sich an Entscheidungsträger von kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen. Er ist praktisch ausgerichtet und bietet einen niedrigschwelligen Einstieg in das Thema Smart Contracts. Ziel ist es, eine fundierte Grundlage zu schaffen, um ohne spezifische Vorkenntnisse die Chancen, Grenzen und Einsatzmöglichkeiten dieser Technologie für das eigene Unternehmen einschätzen zu können.
DLT and several other technological elements such as smart contracts, digital wallets, oracles, and so on in the context of financial markets, are leading to the emergence of very different phenomena which require, first of all, to be understood and then, inevitably as their importance and volume grow, regulated and supervised, to ensure the stability of the market and the protection of its investors. At the international level, the Financial Stability Board is advancing a global regulatory framework grounded in the principle of ‘same activity, same risk, same regulation’, aiming to ensure consistent and comprehensive regulation of crypto-asset activities and stablecoins relative to the risks they present, while also fostering responsible innovation prompted by technological advancements. The European Union is actively addressing regulatory challenges in the crypto space, employing distinct approaches to different categories of cryptoassets, depending on whether DLT technology is used in the context of non-fully decentralized finance, rather than in DeFi itself, which currently lacks effective regulation within the European Union. Greater problems from a regulatory perspective, however, are posed by the phenomenon of DeFi, which entails a more significant disintermediation. For this reason, even at the European level, this is undoubtedly the area that poses the most significant problems for market and investor protection. Keywords: decentralized ledger technology, crypto-assets, regulation, DeFi, investor protection.
The article is devoted to the philosophical, legal and comparative legal analysis of the transformation of the autonomy of the will in the context of algorithmization of private law. The subject of the study is the transformation of the autonomy of the will as a system-forming principle of private law in the context of algorithmization of contractual relations. The focus is on the relationship between automaticity of fulfillment of obligations (smart contracts) and dispositivity, as well as the functional change in the role of the subject of civil law in the digital environment. In this paper, attention is paid to the problem of the relationship between automaticity of fulfillment of obligations and dispositivity as a system-forming principle of contract law. The author proceeds from the historiographical understanding of the autonomy of the will, which has developed in European and Russian civil law, and considers the smart contract as a technological form of realization of the previously expressed will of the parties. Additionally, the limits of judicial control and the preservation of traditional principles of good faith and proportionality in algorithmic mandatory structures are analyzed. The research methodology is based on a combination of philosophical-legal and comparative-legal approaches. The author applies a formal dogmatic method to analyze the category of autonomy of will and the legal nature of a smart contract in Russian civil law. The scientific novelty of the article lies in substantiating the thesis that the algorithmization of private law, contrary to the doctrinally widespread ideas about the "death of the subject" and the replacement of the autonomy of the will by program code, leads not to the denial of the classical model of the contract, but to the functional transformation of the role of the subject. Based on a comprehensive comparative legal analysis (Russia, the countries of continental Europe, the USA, China), the predominance of an integration regulatory model has been revealed, in which a smart contract adapts to existing legal structures without revising the conceptual core of the law of obligations. A comparative legal analysis of the regulation of smart contracts in Russia, the countries of continental Europe, the USA and China demonstrates the predominance of an integration model in which digital technologies adapt to existing legal structures without revising the conceptual core of the contract. The conclusion is drawn that the subject of private law in the era of algorithms does not lose its autonomy, but becomes the architect of its own digital normativity, while maintaining the status of a bearer of will and legal responsibility.
"Decentralization" in on-chain finance has become theater: a rhetorical banner that masks the competing forms of centralization actually governing protocol behavior, producing both judicial overreach (invalidated in Van Loon v. Department of the Treasury) and regulatory paralysis (the SEC's withdrawn investigation of Uniswap Labs). Drawing on Oliver Williamson's transactioncost theory of economic governance, this Article proposes a three-layer taxonomy of DeFi as three discrete structural equilibria: Layer 1 (crypto-native, corresponding to Williamson's market), Layer 2 (hybrid, tokenized voting and delegated authority), and Layer 3 (permissionedinstitutional, corresponding to Williamson's hierarchy)-operationalized through a multidimensional coding scheme covering validator concentration, governance entropy, asset whitelisting, user permissioning, dependency profile, and legal-entity exposure. The taxonomy is validated through a triple-event study of OFAC's 2022 sanctions on Tornado Cash, the 2023 district-court affirmance, and the 2025 delisting following the Fifth Circuit's reversal, using layershare time series constructed from DeFiLlama and RWA.xyz data. Activity redistributes across layers predictably under each shock-a pattern that a binary or spectrum framework cannot produce-and the mismatch between regulatory tools and governance forms is not a failure of agency imagination but the predictable cost of asking the wrong question; replacing "is this decentralized?" with "which layer is this?" converts the current enforcement impasse into a tractable matching problem between tool and tier.
Zusammenfassung Mit der Entscheidung des FG Niedersachsen liegt erstmals eine deutsche Finanzgerichtsentscheidung zur umsatzsteuerrechtlichen Behandlung von NFTs (Non-Fungible-Token) in Form von digitalen Bilddateien vor. Dies ist insofern zu begrüßen, weil die umsatzsteuerrechtliche Behandlung von NFTs vielfältige Rechtsfragen aufwirft. Zwar nimmt das Sekretariat des Mehrwertsteuerausschusses in einem Arbeitspaper vom 21.2.2023 zu vielfältigen Rechtsfragen unverbindlich Stellung (Working Paper No. 1060, taxud.c.1(2023)1930643 - EN). Allerdings hat der Mehrwertsteuerausschuss auf Basis dieses Arbeitspapieres keine Leitlinien aufgestellt. Auch im BMF-Schreiben v. 6.3.2025 zur ertragsteuerrechtlichen Behandlung bestimmter Kryptowerte ist sowohl die ertragsteuerrechtliche als auch die umsatzsteuerrechtliche Behandlung von NFTs in Rz.5 explizit ausgenommen (BStBl. I 2025, 658). Im Folgenden wird die Entscheidung des FG Niedersachsen kurz zusammengefasst, um sich anschließend mit der Rechtsfrage auseinanderzusetzen, ob der Handel von NFTs in Form von digitalen Bilddateien über NFT-Plattformen zu einer fingierten Leistungskette gem. § 3 Abs. 11a UStG zwischen NFT-Verkäufer, NFT-Plattform und NFT-Käufer führt. Die Rechtsfrage ist insofern von Relevanz, weil NFT-Verkäufer in der Praxis regelmäßig ein Informationsdefizit haben, den Ort der Leistung zu bestimmen - wie die Entscheidung des FG Niedersachsen einleuchtend veranschaulicht.
This chapter addresses the emerging challenges of consumer protection in the context of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Although NFTs are generally excluded from financial regulation under instruments such as the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR), they are increasingly marketed and sold to consumers as speculative digital assets. Many of these transactions rely on techniques that obscure key information, such as price, scarcity, or value, or employ design strategies that steer user behaviour. The chapter examines how the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) can apply to such cases, with a focus on misleading actions and omissions, aggressive practices, and interface-driven manipulation. While NFTs are not expressly recognized as consumer products, they fall within the material scope of EU consumer law when offered in a business-to-consumer setting. The analysis reveals that the UCPD remains a relevant, albeit under-enforced, tool for addressing deceptive and exploitative practices in NFT markets. However, enforcement is hindered by the novelty of the technology and the opacity of many digital marketplaces. The chapter calls for more precise regulatory guidance, greater awareness among enforcement authorities, and renewed attention to the structural risks posed by token-based commerce.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Bu tez çalışmasında, Ethereum platformunda yaygın olarak kullanılan akıllı </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">sözleşmelerin güvenlik zafiyetleri incelenmiş ve mevcut analiz yöntemlerinin etkinliği </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">değerlendirilmiştir. Literatür taraması sonucunda, mevcut statik ve dinamik analiz </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">araçlarının, özellikle karmaşık yapıda olan akıllı sözleşmeler karşısında sınırlı kaldığı ve </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">yeterli kod kapsamı sağlayamadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Bu soruna çözüm olarak, çalışmada </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">statik analiz ile desteklenen hedef odaklı bir fuzzing yöntemi önerilmiştir. Geliştirilen </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">yaklaşım, rastgele veri üretiminin yerine, analiz öncesinde sözleşme yapısının </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">incelenmesine dayalı olarak, daha anlamlı ve kapsamlı test senaryoları üretmektedir.</span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Gerçekleştirilen deneysel analizlerde, önerilen yöntem ile geleneksel fuzzing teknikleri </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">karşılaştırılmıştır. Etherscan üzerinden filtrelenerek elde edilen 13,644 akıllı sözleşmeden </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">oluşan veri seti aracılığıyla, farklı akıllı sözleşme kaynak kodları üzerinde yapılan </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">testlerde, önerilen yaklaşımın geleneksel fuzzing’e göre benzersiz giriş üretme oranında </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">%12, benzersiz işlem yürütme oranında %9, sonuç olarak kod kapsama oranında %11, </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">zafiyet tespiti efektiflik oranında ise %15,28 daha başarılı sonuçlar verdiği</span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">gözlemlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, güvenlik açıklarının tespitinde daha derinlemesine ve etkili </span></font> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">bir analiz sağlandığını göstermektedir.</span></font> <div style="text-align: justify;"><br></div>
This paper presents an analysis of the legal regulation of smart contracts in Switzerland and the United King-dom — two leading countries in the field of digital technologies. The study examines the key approaches to the formation and execution of smart contracts, their place within the law and legislation, as well as their in-fluence on the development of IT technologies. The central issue in regulating smart contract-related relations lies in the ambiguity of their legal nature and the lack of regulatory provisions in legislation, particularly in the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Special attention is given to legislative initiatives in both coun-tries. The research shows that Switzerland has successfully integrated blockchain technologies into its legal system through the adoption of specialized legal frameworks. In contrast, the United Kingdom emphasizes the adaptation of common law to the challenges of the emerging digital economy. The article compares the two countries’ approaches in the definition and application of smart contracts, their legal status, taxation is-sues and data protection. In Switzerland, this is the Law on Distributed Registries (DLT Act), and in the UK, the recommendations of the Law Commission of England and Wales. The paper also focuses on security is-sues (cyber threats and data protection), potential risks and the cross-border use of smart contracts. A com-parative analysis of both jurisdictions’ approaches is presented, along with their potential for further devel-opment, including participation in global standardization initiatives. In conclusion, the authors underscore the necessity of establishing international legal standards for the effective and secure use of smart contracts.
This chapter provides an analysis of legal mechanisms to addressing fraud and scams involving cryptocurrency, drawing on both practical legal experience and the new comparative economics. Although illicit transactions account for a small portion of total cryptocurrency transaction volumes, individuals incur significant private losses and there are unique enforcement challenges in the Web3 ecosystem. The prevalent legal approach to addressing cryptocurrency-based fraud is though public enforcement mechanisms. This chapter argues that in some circumstances private law and civil litigation mechanisms can offer a more efficient mechanism for addressing cryptocurrency-based fraud with tools to identify perpetrators, tailored legal claims, and secure assets. The chapter concludes by making recommendations to enhance these private law remedies.
Las criptomonedas han tenido un impacto significativo en el mundo financiero, pero su adopción no ha sido perfecta. Muchos usuarios atraídos por historias de grandes ganancias no han considerado los inconvenientes de estas criptomonedas. La volatilidad es la mayor dificultad de los criptoactivos. Cambian diariamente, surgen nuevos criptoactivos y las condiciones legales van progresando. Además de que existe a su alrededor una grandísima red de estafa, la cual no es fácil de combatir. Todo esto debido a que su regulación actual se encuentra en evolución, por lo que encontramos vacíos legales, que poco a poco se van resolviendo. Ante esto, la Unión Europea está tomando medidas para regular el creciente mundo de las criptomonedas. La Ley MICA (Reglamento sobre Mercados de Criptoactivos) es una nueva regulación que busca establecer un marco legal común para los criptoactivos y blockchain. Tiene como principal objetivo garantizar la transparencia, divulgación, autorización y supervisión de las transacciones con criptoactivos en el mercado comunitario, entrando en vigor a mediados de 2024. Además, ayudará a la protección del consumidor de este producto y a reducir la huella medioambiental que genera todo este mercado a su alrededor