Top 5 Unsolved Problems In Crypto Law

The invention of Cryptolaw opens the question; can Smart Contracts enforce legal contracts?

With the explosive growth of cryptocurrencies in the last decade, Smart Contracts have emerged as an important application of the Blockchain. Startups have marketed Smart Contracts as the tool for automatically tracking and enforcing legal business agreements. Unfortunately the nature of the Cryptolaw behind Smart Contracts opens many unresolved problems.

Unsolved problems in crypto Law

Presently there are five major problems with Smart Contracts with Lexscapis likely the most important. Lexscapis is the belief that crypto projects can exist outside of the traditional legal establishment. Inconsistent or contradictory statements by the proponents of Smart Contracts also compound these problems.

Inadequate Remedies

At present it is accepted that all Smart Contracts can be managed on the Blockchain. This contract administration includes all writing, performance evaluations, contractual breaches, and disputes. This belief is a deliberate dismissal of existing legal remedies and it is evident that established law will always overrule crypto law. It is this disconnect between established law and crypto law that represents a serious liability to the long-term stability of Smart Contracts.

Lexscapis

Lexscapis is the belief that Cryptolaw can be completely removed from established law. This includes all institutions, processes, and forms.

Jurisdiction

The Blockchain is perfect for creating dynamic and robust ledgers that can be updated in real-time. This has led Smart Contract promoters to the irrational belief that the unchangeable nature of the Blockchain removes Cryptolaw from the enforcement of established law. However it is evident that the jurisdiction of established law will always intersect with Cryptolaw.

Private Law > Public Law

Cryptolaw is dominated by private contracts established between self-declared sovereign individuals. It is the philosophy of Cryptolaw thinkers that public law should be applied, but that its scope should be very limited. It is this dismissal of established law that opens Cryptolaw to risk and the potential of future regulation.

Unease with Ambiguity

The law strives for clarity and certainty. However absolute certainty is unachievable even within established law. There will always be some factual or legal ambiguity in established law. It is ambiguity that necessitates the employment of detectives, lawyers, and judges to resolve. Cryptolaw Smart Contract promoters frequently claim absolute certainty in all processes, forms, and outcomes.

Conclusion

The original cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin & others) were deliberately built to function independently of banks and regulators. The founders of Cryptolaw have continued this philosophy with the credence that Smart Contracts are immune to breakdown or fraud. However this Lexscapis is a deliberate dismissal of established jurisdiction of law over contracts. This Lexscapis opens Cryptolaw to serious liabilities and the possibility of regulation.