Smart Contracts

Subscribe to Smart Contracts via RSS

As we highlighted in our recent Practical Law Practice Note, Smart Contracts: Best Practices, various state lawmakers are paving the way for widespread use of blockchains and smart contracts in commerce. For example, on January 1, 2020, the Illinois Blockchain Technology Act (BTA) went into effect, resolving some legal uncertainties around the legal status of blockchains and smart contracts in Illinois.

“Smart Contracts,” as defined by the BTA, are contracts stored as electronic records which are verified by the use of a blockchain. Smart Contracts can be deployed in a variety of legal and non-legal contexts, ranging from car rentals to supply chain management. However, one question that has loomed over smart contracts is how courts will review their enforceability, given that smart contracts may not resemble typical, written agreements. Some legislatures, and now Illinois, have sought to address this issue head-on, rather than waiting for courts to decide.

The BTA provides four permitted uses for blockchain and smart contracts:

  1. A smart contract, record, or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because a blockchain was used to create, store, or verify the smart contract, record, or signature.
  2. In a proceeding, evidence of a smart contract, record, or signature must not be excluded solely because a blockchain was used to create, store, or verify the smart contract, record, or signature.
  3. If a law requires a record to be in writing, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the record satisfies the law.
  4. If a law requires a signature, submission of a blockchain which electronically contains the signature or verifies the intent of a person to provide the signature satisfies the law.

In effect, these permitted uses prevent a court from denying smart contracts contractual or evidentiary effect solely by virtue of their status as a smart contract or electronic record stored on a blockchain, though courts will still have to review on a case by case basis. Tennessee and Arizona, among other states, passed similar legislation regarding contractual enforceability of smart contracts. Vermont passed a similar law handling the evidentiary effect of digital records such as smart contracts. Wyoming has also been active in adopting regulations related to digital assets, smart contracts, and blockchains.

Proskauer authored an in-depth Practice Note published by Practical Law, which details best practices for the use of smart contracts on blockchains. It discusses functional and legal considerations for both standalone smart contracts and smart contracts used in conjunction with traditional written contracts (hybrid smart contracts) and explores the…

We are happy to report that our recent in-depth Practice Note on Blockchain as applied to Supply Chain Management was selected to appear as the cover story for the June/July issue of Practical Law – The Journal. Read the full text here.

Proskauer partners Daniel Ganitsky and Jeff Neuburger address five factors for private equity firms to consider when evaluating the critical business decision of implementing blockchain-based technology solutions for their portfolio companies:

Daniel Ganitsky: Technology is causing private equity firms to deal with a whole new set of questions for their portfolio companies. The use of blockchain technology is one of those questions. Given operational factors and the fact that private equity firms often provide additional access to capital, it may make sense for private equity firms to consider using blockchain technology in their portfolio companies.

Jeff Neuburger: There are a number of factors that a private equity firm should consider in evaluating blockchain for their portfolio companies.

Proskauer authored a Practice Note published by Practical Law, which provides an overview of the use of blockchain and smart contracts in the supply chain context, including the legal issues, concerns, benefits and risks associated with its use. It includes, among other topics, information on key distinctions between public…

Recently at a conference in Dubai, Brian Quintenz, who is a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Commissioner, expressed his personal opinion (rather than the views of the CFTC) on the conceptual challenges in applying the CFTC’s regulatory oversight to, and fostering accountability for, smart contracts that reside on decentralized blockchains. In particular, Quintenz conveyed his belief that smart contract developers could potentially be held liable for aiding and abetting activity that violates CFTC regulations through the use of a smart contract that they programmed, if they “could reasonably foresee, at the time they created the code, that it would likely be used by U.S. persons in a manner violative of CFTC regulations.”

At a high level, a smart contract is computer code encoded on a blockchain that is programmed to automate the execution of a transaction upon the occurrence of a triggering event. The CFTC regulates the U.S. derivatives markets and thus has oversight authority over futures and swaps markets, including derivatives on commodity cryptocurrencies. Among the many potential applications of smart contracts, Quintenz identified as a regulatory concern the ability of smart contracts to emulate traditional financial products, such as binary options or derivative contracts. For example, through a smart contract on a blockchain, one could bet on the outcome of a sporting event and, if the prediction is correct, the smart contract could be programmed to automatically settle the bet using a cryptocurrency transfer without the involvement of an intermediary. Applications such as this, Quintenz stated, resemble “prediction markets” and “event contracts,” which may fall within the CFTC’s purview and raise regulatory issues.

When a smart contract coding vulnerability resulted in the Parity wallet “freeze” that compromised over $150 million worth of user funds, we discussed the pitfalls of unsecure code in the context of cryptoassets and the extent to which software developers might be held liable to their users for losses arising…

Virtual worlds similar to the OASIS in Steven Spielberg’s upcoming film Ready Player One may be closer than we think – and provably scarce, blockchain-based digital assets could provide the leap forward that gets us there. Already, developers are testing early implementations.

Since CryptoKitties launched at the end of 2017, promptly causing a traffic jam on the Ethereum network and proving that crypto-collectible “games” leveraging blockchains can be a hot commodity, a number of copycats have sprung up.

While interesting, this first generation of blockchain games has been a relatively simple series of experiments. Meanwhile, developers have taken note of the potential synergies between blockchain-based digital assets and the mass-market video game and virtual/augmented reality space. As they explore potential ways of using blockchain technology to make virtual worlds and interactions more immersive and to build better bridges between in-game and real-world commerce, there are a number of legal issues to consider.