Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:19:40.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncertainty and dispute resolution for blockchain and smart contract institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2021

Bronwyn E. Howell Open the ORCID record for Bronwyn E. Howell [Opens in a new window]  and
Petrus H. Potgieter
Bronwyn E. Howell*
Affiliation:
School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand and Institute for Technology and Network Economics
Petrus H. Potgieter
Affiliation:
Department of Decision Sciences, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa and Institute for Network and Technology Economics
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Smart contracts have been proposed as a means of revolutionizing transacting between human actors and contributing to blockchain platforms substituting for many current institutions. However, the technical nature of blockchain platforms and smart contracts requires levels of certainty and foresight sufficient for contracts to be complete. We examine the technical and economic characteristics of blockchains and smart contracts to identify sources of uncertainty that may pose challenges to the ability of these technologies to displace existing institutional arrangements, in particular, the courts and other arbitration arrangements. Despite the development of alternative automated blockchain institutions such as the Kleros dispute resolution system, the case for smart contracts and blockchain applications to supplant real-world institutions remains weak. Inherent incompleteness due to limits to information availability, human cognition, and communication means that traditional contract governance institutions will continue to complement blockchain smart contract governance arrangements. The more complex and unique the transaction, the higher the value at risk, the harder to anticipate and precisely specify contingencies and measure and observe outcomes. Furthermore, the longer the time frame between agreement and execution, the less likely it is that smart contracting will be more efficient than traditional contracting.

Keywords

Blockchaindistributed autonomous organizationsdistributed ledger technologyKlerossmart contracts
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 545 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, G. A. (1970), ‘The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3): 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, D., Lane, A. M. and Poblet, M. (2019), ‘The Governance of Blockchain Dispute Resolution’, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 25(1): 75–101.Google Scholar
Berg, A., Berg, C. and Novak, M. (2020), ‘Blockchains and Constitutional Catallaxy’, Constitutional Political Economy, 31(2): 188–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. (2008), ‘Forms and Paradoxes of Principles-Based Regulation’, Capital Markets Law Journal, 3(4): 425–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, A. J. and Niblett, A. (2017), ‘Self-Driving Contracts’, Journal of Corporation Law, 43(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Catalini, C. and Gans, J. S. (2020), ‘Some Simple Economics of the Blockchain’, Communications of the ACM, 63(7): 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooter, R. and Ulen, T (2016), Law and Economics (6th edn), Berkeley, Berkeley Law Books. Book 2. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/books/2.Google Scholar
Davidson, S., De Filippi, P. and Potts, J. (2017), ‘Blockchains and the Economic Institutions of Capitalism’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4): 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuPont, Q. (2017), ‘Experiments in Algorithmic Governance: A History and Ethnography of ‘The DAO,’ a Failed Decentralized Autonomous organization’. in Campbell-Verduyn, M. (ed.), Bitcoin and Beyond: Cryptocurrencies, Blockchains, and Global Governance, London: Routledge, pp.157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gans, J. S. 2019. ‘The Fine Print in Smart Contracts’, Working Paper 25443. Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w25443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iansiti, M. and Lakhani, K. R. (2017), ‘The Truth About Blockchain’, Harvard Business Review, 95(1): 119–127.Google Scholar
Kay, J. and King, M. (2020), Radical Uncertainty: Decision-making for an Unknowable Future, London: The Bridge Street Press.Google Scholar
Laffont, J.-J. (1989), The Economics of Uncertainty and Information, Boston, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lesaege, C. and Ast, F. (2018), ‘Kleros’. https://www.academia.edu/38092540/Kleros_White_Paper.Google Scholar
Macneil, I. R. (1969), ‘Whither Contracts?’, Journal of Legal Education, 21(4): 403–418.Google Scholar
Medium. (2020), ‘Percent Finance Incident Post-Mortem’. https://percent-finance.medium.com/percent-finance-incident-post-mortem-d4e419cf35ab.Google Scholar
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992), Economics, Organization, and Management, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nakamoto, S. (2008), ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System’. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.Google Scholar
O'Kelley, C. R. T. (2012), ‘Coase, Knight, and the Nexus-of-Contracts Theory of the Firm: A Reflection on Reification, Reality, and the Corporation as Entrepreneur Surrogate’, Seattle University Law Review, 35(4): 1247–1269.Google Scholar
Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M. (2018), ‘Innovation, Openness, and Platform Control’, Management Science, 64(7): 3015–3032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilkington, M. (2016), ‘Blockchain Technology: Principles and Applications’, in Olleros, F. X., and Zhegu, M. (eds), Research Handbook on Digital Transformations, London: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinsberg, B. (2019), ‘Blockchain Technology and the Governance of Foreign Aid’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(3): 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinsberg, B. (2020), ‘Fully-automated Liberalism? Blockchain Technology and International Cooperation in an Anarchic World’. International Theory, doi: 10.1017/S1752971920000305.Google Scholar
Shay, L. A., Hartzog, W., Nelson, J. and Conti, G. (2016), ‘Do Robots Dream of Electric Laws? An Experiment in the Law as Algorithm’. in Calo, R., Froomkin, A. M., and Kerr, I. (eds), Robot Law, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.274–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shermin, V. (2017), ‘Disrupting Governance with Blockchains and Smart Contracts’, Strategic Change, 26(5): 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955), ‘A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1): 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklaroff, J. M. (2017), ‘Smart Contracts and the Cost of Inflexibility’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 166(1): 263–303.Google Scholar
Tjong Tjin Tai, E. (2018), ‘Force Majeure and Excuses in Smart Contracts’, European Review of Private Law, 26(6): 787–804.Google Scholar
Varian, H. R. (2010), ‘Computer Mediated Transactions’, American Economic Review, 100(2): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werbach, K. (2018), ‘Trust, but Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 33(2): 487–550.Google Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1979), ‘Transaction-cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations’, Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2): 233–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Wright, A. and De Filippi, P (2015), ‘Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia’. Available at SSRN 2580664. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2580664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zachariadis, M., Hileman, G. and Scott, S. V. (2019), ‘Governance and Control in Distributed Ledgers: Understanding the Challenges Facing Blockchain Technology in Financial Services’, Information and Organization, 29(2): 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar