Abstract
G. Tomasi di Lampedusa was an Italian writer from Sicily who lived in the first half of the last century when Italian society was on the verge of change. At that time, the need to blur the line between the rich and the poor, the noble and the bourgeoisie was strong and widespread. The latter were gaining their ‘place’ in high society: someone who was born the son of a farmer could indeed die as the owner of buildings and land. This was a deep shock for those noblemen who had always relied on the past glory and wealth of their ancestors; accepting that something was changing meant they had to welcome the ‘newcomers’ and blend in with them. With this picture of society in mind, G. Tomasi di Lampedusa, described the ability of a person to adapt to the status quo, writing: “Changing things so everything stays the same”. Those who were not capable of accepting change and acting accordingly, risked indeed failing and losing everything.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
di Lampedusa (2002).
- 2.
- 3.
Natarajan H et al., Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and blockchain, mber 2017. See http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/177911513714062215/Distributed-Ledger-Technology-DLT-and-blockchain
- 4.
Wang F. et al., Financing Open Blockchain Ecosystems: Toward Compliance and Innovation in Initial Coin Offerings, 2018. Bertoli (2018), pp. 395–428; Chaum (1983), pp. 199–203; (2014) The economics of digital currencies. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q3/the-economics-of-digital-currencies. Ali R. et al. (2014) Innovations in payment technologies and the emergence of digital currencies.
- 5.
- 6.
The term was first used to describe the scope of the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act 1996. In synthesis the technological neutrality approach sees technological improvement as a tool that is different from those that were available before. Being just a question of form, they can be regulated according to the normative provisions already in force which simply have to be amended to include the new tools. As such, there should be the same online and off-line rules. To see an example of the technological neutrality approach see the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/electcom/MLETR_ebook.pdf; Kresse (1987), Reed (2007) and Ali (2009).
- 7.
Zamfir (2019).
- 8.
- 9.
US: U.S. Court of Appeals for the first Circuit (2001). Sec v. SG Ltd, 265 F.3d 42, 46, 13 September, 2001; U.S. southern district Court of Florida (2018) United Corporation v. BITMAIN INC, et al., case 1:18-cv-25106-KMW; Italy: Brescia first degree Court (2018). decree 7556/2018, 18 July 2018; Florence, first degree Court (2019) Judgment n. 18/2019, 21 January 2019; Brescia Court of Appeal (2018) decree no. 207/2018 endorsing first degree judgment; France: Nanterre Commercial Court (2020), decision 26 February 2020; Paris court of Appeal (2013), case n. 12/00161 SAS Macaraja c/SA Credit industriel et commercial, 26 October 2013 (see here: https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches/banque-assurances/la-justice-francaise-assimile-le-bitcoin-a-de-la-monnaie-1182460).
- 10.
UK Cryptoassets Task Force (October 2018) final report, available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/752070/cryptoassets_taskforce_final_report_final_web.pdf; see also UK Jurisdiction Task Force (2019) Report Legal statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts, available here https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/cryptoassets-dlt-and-smart-contracts-ukjt-consultation/; FATF (2014) Virtual Currencies Key Definitions and Potential AML/CFT Risks. See Handerson and Raskin (2019). University of Chicago Coase-Sandro Institute for law & Economics Research Paper No. 858. Available here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3265295. Annunziata (2018).
- 11.
Nakamoto (1997).
- 12.
- 13.
Ryadel (2019). DRM – when it’s legit to remove it and how to do that. Medium.
- 14.
Within the European Union, see the European Union Directive, 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. O.J.L 167; within US, see: U.S. Copyright Act (2016) paras 17 et 109. See Rivaro (2014). Heath C. (1999). Parallel Imports and International Trade. Lehman (1995) and Ficsor (2002).
- 15.
- 16.
Lambda (2018). P2P Network Systems- A Go-To Guide for Understanding How They Work. Medium.
- 17.
Low and Mik (2020).
- 18.
Goldreich et al. (1997).
- 19.
As clearly synthesized by the EBA: “a Bitcoin transaction occurs through a two-step phase: - Person A holds in a digital wallet ‘public’ and ‘private’ keys, generated via cryptography. Person B also holds ‘public’ and ‘private’ keys. The private keys are used to control the ownership of their respective Bitcoins. Public keys are essential for identification and private keys (which are kept secret by the holders) are used for authentication and encryption.—Person A generates a transaction that includes A’s address, B’s address and A’s private key (without disclosing what A’s private key is). The transaction is broadcast to the entire DLT network, which can verify from A’s private key that A has the authority to transfer the crypto-asset to the address it is sending from”. See EBA (2019), Report, quoted, at. 9.
- 20.
- 21.
de Vries A (2018) Bitcoin’s Growing Energy Problem | Elsevier Enhanced Reader, pp. 801–805.
- 22.
Vukolic (2016).
- 23.
The attempt towards the democracy of the blockchain system was made clear, by the time it was discovered that the Bitcoin code contained a bug potentially allowing miners to maliciously inflate Bitcoin’s supply. See BitcoinCore (2018). CVE-2018-17144 Full Disclosure at https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/20/notice/. See Yermack (2017) and Wright and De Filippi (2015).
- 24.
Buterin (2018). The Ethereum so-called Casper will eventually convert Ethereum from a Proof of Work to a Proof of Stake; the decision is easy to grasp. See: https://github.com/ethereum/casper.
- 25.
Low and Mik (2020).
- 26.
- 27.
Antonopoulos (2017), p. 50.
- 28.
- 29.
OCSE (2010). The tokenisation of assets and potential implications for financial markets; EU (2019). Consultation document on an EU framework for markets in crypto-assets available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/2019-crypto-assets-consultation-document_en.pdf; Chimienti et al. (2019), Spink et al. (2019), Vos (2019) and Robinson II (2019).
- 30.
Amongst others, WizKey, an Italian based company, has developed an Ethereum-based decentralized network that serves financial transactions and achieves other financial processes such as securitization, factoring and covered bond issuance. See: https://www.wizkey.io/en/platform/; see also the projects developed between Banks and financial institution: https://cryptonomist.ch/2020/03/18/banca-sella-bitcoin-hype/; https://www.coindesk.com/intesa-sanpaolo-trade-data-bitcoin-blockchain?amp=1.
- 31.
US: U.S. Court of Appeals for the first Circuit (2001). Sec v. SG Ltd, 265 F.3d 42, 46, 13 September, 2001; U.S. southern district Court of Florida (2018) United Corporation v. BITMAIN INC, et al., case 1:18-cv-25106-KMW; Italy: Brescia first degree Court (2018). decree 7556/2018, 18 July 2018; Florence, first degree Court (2019) Judgment n. 18/2019, 21 January 2019; Brescia Court of Appeal (2018) decree no. 207/2018 endorsing first degree judgment; France: Nanterre Commercial Court (2020), decision 26 February 2020; Paris court of Appeal (2013), case n. 12/00161 SAS Macaraja c/SA Credit industriel et commercial, 26 October 2013 (see here: https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches/banque-assurances/la-justice-francaise-assimile-le-bitcoin-a-de-la-monnaie-1182460).
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
To understand how a Bitcoin improvement occurs see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.
- 35.
To understand how an Ethereum improvement occurs see https://eips.ethereum.org.
- 36.
Wrigley (2020).
- 37.
Antonopoulos (2017), p. 26.
- 38.
Rodrigues (2019).
- 39.
Low and Ernie (2017).
- 40.
For some hard fork examples see: Ethereum blockchain forking permanently into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic (2016); Bitcoin forked into Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin cash (BCH) in 2017. Also, the same year, it forked again into Bitcoin gold (BTG) forking and merging with ZClassic which in turn was a fork of ZCAsh: together they formed in 2018 BTCP.
- 41.
USSDC of Florida (2018) United Corporation v. BITMAIN INC, et al. case 1:18-cv-25106-KMW.
- 42.
Sklaroff (2017).
- 43.
- 44.
Gardner (2012).
- 45.
- 46.
To better grasp the concept of DApp, see: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/383/what-is-a-dapp. As DApp examples see: Gnosis, Gnosis Ltd., last updated Jan. 2018. gnosis.pm; Civic, Civic Technologies, Inc., 2018. www.civic.com; and CryptoKitties, Axiom Zen, n.d. www.cryptokitties.co.
- 47.
The Swarm city: a blockchain based “city” grounded on a smart contract deployed on blockchain. The city functions as a marketplace; through blockchain technology it allows people—the participant—to communicate, to trade and to earn external reputation (see https://swarm.city).
- 48.
- 49.
See The LAO (2019a, b). A taxonomy for LAOs: making sense of the emerging LAO ecosystem (available here: https://medium.com/@thelaoofficial/a-taxonomy-for-laos-making-sense-of-the-emerging-lao-ecosystem-1122b035fe1a).
- 50.
Smith and Barrett (2016).
- 51.
- 52.
Tadelis (2013).
- 53.
- 54.
Wu (2003). To a clear summary on where is the US Congress and Supreme Court with regard to the net neutrality bill, see: the WIRED Guide to Net Neutrality (2018) available here https://www.wired.com/story/guide-net-neutrality/.
- 55.
Decentralized Autonomous Organization, ETHEREUM, https://www.ethereum.org/dao [https://perma.cc/2KXE-3MYU].
- 56.
Tezos, one of the first blockchains allowing token holders to modify the rules of the underlying blockchain protocol in a fully automated way (https://tezos.com).
- 57.
Wang et al. (2017).
- 58.
These rules might correspond to the social norms and principles taken from living society that a given blockchain community decides to abide by. Per praxis, they are named in the blockchain White Paper.
- 59.
Koh (1997).
- 60.
Clean App (n.d.). Blockchain Governance 105: International Law. Global blockchains = global blockchain governance. CryptoLaw Review. Available here: https://medium.com/cryptolawreview/blockchain-governance-105-international-law-3c7ebd025a43; see also Maupin (2017).
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
Segall (2015).
- 64.
- 65.
The DAO White Paper available here: https://github.com/the-dao/whitepaper.
- 66.
In: If Rockfeller was a Coder, Reyes has argued that: “The DAO would “hold the trust property in the form of digital assets,” and there would be trustee token holders as well as certificate token holders. Only a trustee token, and not a certificate token, would be endowed with the right to transfer or otherwise dispose of the DAO’s property”, in Reyes (2019).
- 67.
See Slockit, Slock.it DAO demo at Devcon1: IoT + Blockchain, YOUTUBE (Nov. 13, 2015), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49wHQoJxYPo.
- 68.
- 69.
According to the DAO White Paper, the DAO token holder would receive rewards defined as any ETH received by the DAO generated from the projects to fund new projects or to distribute the ETH to DAO token holders.
- 70.
Within the US the platforms trading fiat and crypto currencies must be registered at the Financial Crime enforcement Network (FINCEN) as a monetary services business and provide customers the possibility to exchange virtual currencies for other virtual or fiat currencies.
- 71.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Securities exchange act of 1934. Release No. 81207 / July 25 2017: Report of investigation pursuant to Section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Report, at 7–8.
- 72.
EB134- Emin Gün Sirer and Vlad Zamfir: on a Rocky DAO. (June 6, 2016), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON5GhIQdFU8.
- 73.
According to the SEC, “voting rights were limited. DAO token holders were substantially reliant on the managerial efforts of Slock.it, its co-Founders and the Curators. Even if an investor’s effort helps to make an enterprise profitable, those efforts do not necessarily equate with a promoter’s significant managerial efforts or control over the enterprise”. See, SEC Report quoted at 13.
- 74.
Thompson (2016).
- 75.
Uselton v. Comm. Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. 940, F.2d, 564, 574 (10th Cir. 1991); See SEC Report, quoted, at 11.
- 76.
Uselton v. Comm. Lovelace Motor Freight, Inc. 940, F.2d, 564, 574 (10th Cir. 1991); See SEC Report, quoted, at 15.
- 77.
US: U.S. Court of Appeals for the first Circuit (2001). Sec v. SG Ltd, 265 F.3d 42, 46, 13 September, 2001; U.S. southern district Court of Florida (2018) United Corporation v. BITMAIN INC, et al., case 1:18-cv-25106-KMW; Italy: Brescia first degree Court (2018). decree 7556/2018, 18 July 2018; Florence, first degree Court (2019) Judgment n. 18/2019, 21 January 2019; Brescia Court of Appeal (2018) decree no. 207/2018 endorsing first degree judgment; France: Nanterre Commercial Court (2020), decision 26 February 2020; Paris court of Appeal (2013), case n. 12/00161 SAS Macaraja c/SA Credit industriel et commercial, 26 October 2013 (see here: https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches/banque-assurances/la-justice-francaise-assimile-le-bitcoin-a-de-la-monnaie-1182460).
- 78.
Zamfir (2019).
- 79.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
Wright and de Filippi (2018).
- 83.
Johnson and Post (1996).
- 84.
Contra: S. Bond, while Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris, found that arbitration clauses were determining, as applicable, the national provision. From this, he derived that parties prefer domestic law to international law (see Bond 1990). However, this conclusion seems not to be the correct one: a closer scrutiny of the case law leads to the opposite conclusion. Fouchard et al. (sous la direction) (1997).
- 85.
Berman and Felix (1998).
- 86.
Contra there are some academics who confer upon lex mercatoria a more restricted role. According to them, lex mercatoria could only be used to solve disputes among merchants (Jones 2003). The settlement of mercantile disputes by merchants: an approach to the history of commercial law. Lecture addressed at the University of Chicago Law School Symposium: The Empirical and Theoretical Underpinnings of the Law Merchant Oct. 16–17, 2003). Or, lex mercatoria could be used only to fit the gap left by existing national law (see Berger K.P. (1999), The creeping codification of the lex mercatoria, at 40).
- 87.
See Berman H. J. (1982). Contra, according to some academics there should be a distinction between “macro” lex mercatoria, containing principles and rules shared by all, or the majority, of states; and micro lex mercatoria which should correspond to the legal principles contained in a given contract. Maniruzzaman (1999).
- 88.
Hayek (1973) (cited by Marrella F., Yoo C. at 7).
- 89.
Maestri (2017).
- 90.
- 91.
For a complete list see: Open Source Initiative, The Approved Licenses, http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
- 92.
- 93.
Padoa Schioppa (2005).
- 94.
- 95.
- 96.
Cappiello (2020).
- 97.
Schwab (2016).
References
Aaronson S (2013) Quantum computing since democritus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Abi-Saab (1987) Cours general de droit international public. Recueil des cours de l’Académie de droit international de La Haye, t. 207, Dodrecht/Boston/Leiden
Ali R (2009) Technological neutrality. Lex Electronica
Ammous S (2018) The Bitcoin standard: the decentralized alternative to central banking. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken
Annunziata F (2018) La disciplina delle trading venues nell’era delle rivoluzioni tecnologiche: dalle criptovalute alla distributed ledger technology. Orizzonti del diritto commerciale
Antonopoulos AM (2017) Mastering Bitcoin: unlocking digital cryptocurrencies, 2nd edn. O’Reilly media, Sebastopol
Appelbaum R, Felstiner W, Gessner L, Volkmar G (2001) Rules and networks. The legal culture of global business transactions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the Independence of cyberspace. http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
Bassiouni MC (1990) A functional approach to general principles of international law. Mich J Int Law 11:768–818
Beck R, Müller-Bloch C, King J (2018) Governance in the somy: a framework and research agenda. J Assoc Inf Syst 19:1–36
Berman HJ, Felix JD (1998) The ‘new’ law merchant and the ‘old’: sources, content, and legitimacy. In: Carbonneau TE (ed) Lex Mercatoria and arbitration. A discussion of the new law merchant. Revised edition. Juris Publishing/Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 53–69
Bertoli P (2018) Virtual currencies and private international law. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 54:2
Bobbio N (1994) Principi generali di diritto. In: Bobbio N (ed) Contributi ad un dizionario giuridico. Giappichelli, Turin, pp 257–279
Bodó B, Giannopoulou A (2019) The logics of technology decentralization – the case of distributed ledger technologies. In: Ragnedda M, Destefanis G (eds) Blockchain and web 3.0: social, economic, and technological challenges. Routledge, Abingdon
Bond S (1990) How to draft an arbitration clause (revisited). ICC Bull 1.2:14–27
Bonneau J, Miller A (2015) Sok: research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In: 2015 IEEE symposium on security and privacy. IEEE, pp 104–121
Boschiero N (2005) La lex mercatoria nell’era della globalizzazione: considerazioni di diritto internazionale pubblico e privato. Sociologia del diritto 2:83–155
Buterin V (2018) Governance, Part 2: plutocracy is still bad’ blog post at https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html
Cappiello B (2019) Where is justice taking place? Blockchain technology as a tool to fill a gap. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 3:652–680
Cappiello B (2020) Dallo “smart contract” computer code allo smart (legal) contract. I nuovi strumenti (para) giuridici, alla luce della normativa nazionale e del diritto internazionale privato europeo; prospettive de jure condendo. Rivista del commercio internazionale 2:325–388
Chaum D (1983) Blind signatures for untraceable payments. In: Chaum D, Rivest RL, Sherman AT (eds) Advances in cryptology. Springer US, Boston, pp 199–203
Chimienti MT, Kochanska U, Pinna A (2019) Understanding the crypto-asset phenomenon, its risks and measurement issues. ECB Economic Bulletin
Clean App (n.d.) Blockchain Governance 105: International Law. Global blockchains = global blockchain governance. Crypto Law Review. Available here: https://medium.com/cryptolawreview/blockchain-governance-105-international-law-3c7ebd025a43
Crawford J (2019) Brownlie’s principle of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
De Filippi P, Hassan S (2018) Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: from code is law to law is code. arXiv preprint arXiv:180102507
De Filippi P, McMullen G (2018) Governance of blockchain systems, governance of and by distributed infrastructure. A COALA + blockchain research Institute big IDEA White Paper
Di Ciommo E (2018) Smart contracts and (non-)law. The case of the financial markets. Law Econ Yearly Rev 7:291–325
di Lampedusa GT (2002) Il gattopardo. Feltrinelli Editore, Milano
DiMatteo LA, Cannarsa M, Poncibò C (2019) The Cambridge handbook of smart contracts, blockchain technology and digital platforms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Drake DJ (2013) Business organizations in a planning context, cases, materials and study problems. West Academic, Saint Paul
Duffield E, Hagan K (2014) Darkcoin: peer to peer cryptocurrency with anonymous blockchain transactions and an improved proof of work system. bitpaper info
Ficsor M (2002) The law of copyright and the internet: the 1996 WIPO treaties, their interpretation and implementation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Finck M (2018) Blockchain regulation and governance in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fischer-Lescano A, Teubner G (2004) Regime collisions: the vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. Mich J Int Law 25:999–1046
Fitzmaurice G (1958) Some problems regarding the formal sources of international law. In: van Asbeck FM et al (eds) Symbolae Verzijl. Nijhoff, La Haye, pp 153–176
Fouchard P, Gaillard E, Goldman E (1997) Traité de l’arbitrage commercial international. Revue de droit comparé, pp 269–271
Gardner J (2012) Law as a leap of faith: essays on law in general. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Givari D (2018) Can the application of blockchain technology broaden the horizon for arbitration?. Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Goldman B (1964) Frontières du droit et lex mercatoria. Archives de philosophie du droit IX:177–192
Goldman B (1993) Nouvelles réflexions sur la lex mercatoria. In: Etudes de droit international en l’honneur de Pierre Lalive, Bâle et Frankfurt s/Main, pp 241–255
Goldreich O, Oren Y (1994) Definitions and properties of zero-knowledge proof systems. J Cryptol 7:1–32
Goldreich O, Goldwasser S, Halevi S (1997) Public-key cryptosystems from lattice reduction problems. In: Annual international cryptology conference. Springer, Berlin, pp 112–131
Goldsmith J (1998) Against cyberanarchy. Univ Chicago Law Rev 65:1199–1250
Goldsmith J, Wu T (2006) Who controls the Internet? Oxford University Press, Oxford
Goldwasser S, Micali S, Rackoff C (1989) The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM J Comput 18:186–208. https://doi.org/10.1137/0218012
Hacker P, Thomale C (2017) Crypto-securities regulation: ICOs, token sales and cryptocurrencies under EU financial law. http://ssrn.com/abstract=3075820
Handerson M, Raskin M (2019) A regulatory classification of digital assets: toward an operational Howey test for cryptocurrencies, ICOs, and other digital assets. Colum Bus Law Rev 2019:443
Hayek FA (1973) Law, legislation and liberty. Vol. 1: rules and order, pp 8–34 (cited by Marrella F., Yoo C. at 7)
Jabotinsky H (2018) The regulation of cryptocurrencies – between a currency and a financial product. Legal research paper no. 18-10. Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Johnson DR, Post D (1996) Law and borders – The rise of Law in cyberspace. First Monday 1(1) Available from https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/468
Jones W (2003) The settlement of mercantile disputes by merchants: an approach to the history of commercial law. Lecture addressed at the University of Chicago Law School Symposium: The Empirical and Theoretical Underpinnings of the Law Merchant Oct. 16–17, 2003
Koh HH (1997) Why do nations obey international law? Yale Law J 3:2599–2659
Kolb R (2006) General principles of procedural Law. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C et al (eds) The statute of the international court of justice: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 871–908
Konradu W, Fix-Fierro H (2005) Lex mercatoria in the mirror of empirical research. Sociologia del diritto 2:205–226
Kotuby C (2013) General principles of law, international due process and the modern role of private international law. Duke J Comp Int Law 23:411–443
Kraus D, Obrist T, Hari O (2019) Blockchains, smart contracts, decentralised autonomous organisations and the law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Kresse KJ (1987) Privacy of conversations over cordless and Cellular telephones: federal protection under the electronic communications privacy act 1996. George Mason Univ Law Rev 9:335
Lai R, Lee DKC (2018) Handbook of blockchain, digital finance, and inclusion, vol 2. Academic Press, Cambridge
Lehman BA (1995) Intellectual property and the National information infrastructure: the report of the working group on intellectual property rights. Information Infrastructure Task Force, Washington, D.C.
Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books 6–8:20–21
Levi S, Lipton A (2018) An introduction to smart contracts and their potential and inherent limitations. Available at: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/05/26/an-introduction-to-smart-contracts-and-their-potential-and-inherent-limitations/
Loader B (ed) (1997) The governance of cyberspace. Routledge, Abingdon
Low KFK, Ernie T (2017) Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies as property? Law Innov Technol 2:235–268
Low KFK, Mik E (2020) Pause the blockchain legal revolution. Int Comp Law Q 69:135–175
Maestri E (2017) Lex informatica and soft law. Le architetture normative del cyberspazio. In: Maestri E, Moro P, Sarra C (eds) Tecnodiritto. Temi e problemi di informatica e robotica giuridica. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 157–177
Maniruzzaman FM (1999) The lex mercatoria and international contracts: a challenge for international commercial arbitration? Am Univ Int Law Rev 3:657–733
Mann RJ (2006) Commercializing open source software: do property rights still matter? Harv J Law Technol 20:10–21
Marrella F, Yoo CS (2007) Is open source software the new lex mercatoria?. Faculty Scholarship. Univ Pa Law School 165:808–837
Maupin J (2017) Mapping the global legal landscape of blockchain and other distributed Ledger Technologies. CIGI Papers No. 149
McNair AD (1957) The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. Br Yearb Int Law 33:1–19
Mefford A (1997) Lex Informatica: foundations of law on the Internet. Indiana J Global Legal Stud 5:211–237
Merkle R (2016) DAOs, democracy and governance. Cryonics Mag 4:28–40
Mik E (2017) Contracts: terminology, technical limitations and real-world complexity. Law Innov Technol 9:269–300
Nakamoto S (1997) Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2
Narayanan A et al (2016) Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Ortolani P (2019) The impact of blockchain technologies and smart contracts on disputes resolution: arbitration and court litigation at a crossroads. Uniform Law Rev 2:430–448
Padoa Schioppa A (2005) Brevi note storiche sulla lex mercatoria. Sociologia del diritto 2:75–83
Philipp H, Chris T (2018) Crypto-securities regulation: ICOs, token sales and cryptocurrencies under EU financial law. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 15:645–696
Raymond R (2000) The revenge of the hackers, Available here: http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-revenge.html
Reed C (2007) Taking sides on technology neutrality. SCRIPTed 4:263
Reyes C (2019) If Rockfeller were a coder. George Wash Law Rev 87:373–429. at 413
Rivaro R (2014) L’applicazione del principio di esaurimento alla distribuzione digitale di contenuti protetti. Giurisprudenza Commerciale:1149–1164
Robinson RA II (2019) The new digital wild west: regulating the explosion of initial coin offerings. Tenn Law Rev 86:898–960
Rodrigues UR (2019) Law and the blockchain. Iowa Law Rev 2:679–729
Rühl G (2019) The law applicable to smart contracts, or: much ado about nothing?, Oxford Business Law Blog
Salerno F (1996) Principi generali di diritto (Diritto internazionale). Digesto delle discipline pubblicistiche XI:524–557
Savelyev A (2017) Contract Law 2.0: smart contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Inf Commun Technol Law 2:116–134
Schiller K (2018) Smart contracts – Übersicht und Erklärung, Blockchainwelt. Available at: https://blockchainwelt.de/smart-contracts-vertrag-blockchain/
Schmitthoff C (1964) The law of international trade. its growth, formulation and operation. In: Schmitthoff C (ed) The sources of the law of international trade. Butterworth, London, pp 137–169
Schrepel T (2019) Collusion by blockchain and smart contracts. Harv J Law Technol 33:118–168
Schrepel T (2020) The theory of granularity: a path for antitrust in blockchain system, pp 3–49. Available here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3519032
Schwab K (2016) The fourth industrial revolution: what it means, how to respond available here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond
Schwarzenberger G (1955) The fundamental principles of international law. Recueil de cours de l’Aie T. 87, Dodrecht/Boston/Leiden, pp 195–383
Segall L (2015) Silk Road’s Ross Ulbricht sentenced to life”, CNN available here: money.cnn.com/2015/05/29/technology/silk-roadross-ulbricht-prison-sentence/
Shirky C (2011) Here comes everybody: the power of organizing without organizations. Penguin, London
Simma B, Alston P (1992) The sources of human rights law: custom, jus cogens and general principles. Am J Int Law 12:82–108
Sjostrom WK Jr (2016) Business organizations: a transnational approach. Wolters Kluwer, New York
Sklaroff J (2017) Smart contracts and the cost of inflexibility. Univ Pa Law Rev 166:263–303
Smith R, Barrett DE (2016) The DAO’s wild ride: where does blockchain go from here?, FORBES. https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/07/01/the-daos-wild-ride-where-does-blockchain-gofromhere/#4f1e637e3e5c
Sørensen M (1960) Les principes de droit international public. Cours général de droit international. Recueil de cours de l’Aie 101:1–254
Spink A, Butler S, Bell C (2019) Cryptoassets and smart contracts: the UKJT legal statements
Stallman R (1999) The gnu operating system and the free software movement. In: DiBona C (ed) Open sources: voices from the open source revolution. O’Really Media, Sebastopol, pp 67–70. Available at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
Swan M (2015) Blockchain: blueprint for a new economy. O’Reilly media, Sebastopol
Szabo N (1997a) The idea of smart contracts. Available here: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/the-idea-of-smart-contracts/
Szabo N (1997b) Smart contracts: formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday 2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v2i9.548
Szostek D (2019) Blockchain and the Law. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden
Tadelis S (2013) Game theory. An introduction. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Tapscott D, Tapscott A (2016) Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. Portfolio, New York
The LAO (2019a) The LAO: A for-profit, limited liability autonomous organization. Medium. Available here: https://medium.com/openlawofficial/the-lao-a-for-profit-limited-liability-autonomous-organization-9eae89c9669c
The LAO (2019b) A taxonomy for LAOs: making sense of the emerging LAO ecosystem available here: https://medium.com/@thelaoofficial/a-taxonomy-for-laos-making-sense-of-the-emerging-lao-ecosystem-1122b035fe1a
Thompson C (2016) The DAO of Ethereum. Analyzing the DAO hack, the blockchain, Smart contracts, and the law available here: https://medium.com/blockchain-review/the-dao-of-ethereum-e228b93afc79
Trotter HI (1994) The proper legal regime for “Cyberspace”. Univ Pittsbg Law Rev 993:1019–1021
Verdross A (1968) Les principes généraux de droit dans le système des sources du droit international public. In: Guggeheim P (ed) Receuil d’études de droit international en hommage à P. Guggenheim. La Librairie de l’Université, Georg, Geneva, pp 521–530
Vos G (2019) Cryptoassets as property: how can English law boost the confidence of would-be parties to smart legal contracts?. Joint Northern Chancery Bar Association and University of Liverpool Lecture
Vukolic M (2016) The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: proof-of work vs. BFT replication. In: Camenisch J, Kesdoğan D (eds) Open problems in network security, lecture notes in computer science, vol 9591. Springer, Berlin, pp 112–125
Wang S, Vergne JP, Hsieh Y-Y (2017) The internal and external governance of blockchain-based organizations: evidence from cryptocurrencies. In: Campbell-Verduyn M (ed) Bitcoin and beyond: blockchains and global governance. RIPE/Routledge Series in Global Political Economy, New York
Woebbeking M (2019) The impact of smart contracts on traditional concepts of contract law. J Intellect Prop Inf Technol E-commerce Law 10:105–112
Wright A, De Filippi P (2015) Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of the Lex Cryptographia
Wright A, de Filippi P (2018) Blockchain and the law: the rule of code. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Wrigley S (2020) When people just click: addressing the difficulties of controller/processor agreement online. In: Corrales C, Fenwick M, Happio H (eds) Legal tech, smart contracts and blockchain. Springer, Berlin, pp 221–252
Wu T (2003) Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. J Telecommun High-Tech Law 2:141–176
Xu X, Weber I, Staples M (2019) Architecture for blockchain applications. Springer, Berlin
XXu et al (2017) A taxonomy of blockchain-based systems for architecture design. In: IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA), Gothenburg, pp 243–52
Yermack D (2017) Corporate governance and blockchains. Rev Finance 1:7–31
Zamfir V (2015) What is cryptoeconomics? Mountain View, CA: Cryptoeconomicon. Available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lw3s7iGUXQ
Zamfir V (2018) Blockchain Governance 101. Medium. Available here: https://blog.goodaudience.com/blockchain-governance-101-eea5201d7992
Zamfir ZV (2019) Against Szabo’s law, for a new Crypto legal system. Crypto Law Review
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cappiello, B. (2021). Blockchain Based Organizations and the Governance of On-Chain and Off-Chain Rules: Towards Autonomous (Legal) Orders?. In: Cappiello, B., Carullo, G. (eds) Blockchain, Law and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52722-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52722-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52721-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52722-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)