The advancement of blockchain technology as a decentralised database with the ability to store a public registry of assets and transactions across a shared, trusted peer-to-peer network is lauded as one of the most significant technological innovations since the internet. Coupled with the sophistication of software code as a form of communicating information and automating complex instructions, blockchain technology provides a new means of recording information and facilitating the exchange of value in the global economy in a decentralised and immutable way.
At the centre of this battleground lie so-called «smart contracts», which are essentially agreements reduced to or replicated in software code whose execution is both automatable and enforceable. In this article we consider the extent to which smart contracts can replace traditional contracts. Fundamentally, we believe this rests not only on their operational and denotational parameters, but also on their usefulness as a form of contracting language.
1.
Brief Introduction into Smart Contracts ^
Given the lack of a clear consensus on the definition of the term «smart contract», it is necessary to provide an overview of the two different ways that the term «smart contract» is commonly used in the business world. Broadly, the first is used to specify software code that is typically stored, verified and executed on a blockchain («smart contract code»), while the second focuses on legally enforceable contracts partially expressed and/or executed in code («smart legal contracts»).
2.
Usefulness of Smart Contracts ^
One of the key advantages of smart contracts on a blockchain is that transactions are recorded accurately and consistently in a distributable and shared way that allows every party (or node) in a network to verify the accuracy of the central ledger by reference to their own copies. This system embeds trust in the contractual relationship, enabling multiple parties to transact with each other with the certainty that a transaction will be performed as agreed. Linked to this is the transparency of source code, which allows any party to access the written code online and independently verify its functionality.
Second, aside from the inherent limitation to capture legal concepts and intent, blockchain based smart contracts offer not only more flexibility in the implementation of decentralised digital asset transfers, but also the capability to perform a range of functions that traditional contracts cannot. For example, in a traditional sale of goods, smart contracts can automate both the performance and payment element of a contractual agreement by reference to an external set of dynamic or live conditions, such as the fluctuation of the market price of goods, the exchange rate, or even the weather. Smart contracts have the capacity to streamline business processes and transform traditional business models in industries that strongly rely on such external dependencies, like finance, international trade, and insurance, something which we are already beginning to see. With the added capability offered by the internet of things, smart contracts are poised to radically transform and disrupt business as we know it.
Related to the above, smart contracts are less likely to result in a mismatch or breach of the terms in an agreement. In a traditional contract, there can be a mismatch where there is a mutual misunderstanding of the initial terms, confusion due to multiple forms or versions of the original terms, or a disagreement with what actually happened in the external dependencies. With a smart contract, there is only one set of contractual terms, written in software code, less verbose than legalese, and agreed upon in advance by reference to external dependencies that are fed in via a mutually agreed feed (or so-called oracles). It stands that the smart contract will exist on the blockchain and run when an event occurs or when the agreement expires. While this does not offer a utopian dispute-less context, the scope for disputes would be greatly reduced.
Finally, smart contracts on an immutable blockchain provide the added certainty that an agreement will perform as agreed, in strict accordance with the code. Once a smart contract is programmed, it can no longer be changed, unless parties build in an express provision that allows for performance or execution of the contract to be halted on a set of mutually agreed conditions. Although an integral feature of the functionality and usefulness of blockchain, as discussed below, immutability also poses the most significant challenge for the practical implementation and adoption of smart contracts at the level of industry.
3.
The Fundamental Problem of Immutability ^
As displayed by «The DAO attack», which involved the exploitation of a flaw in the code of a smart contract on the Ethereum Blockchain, smart contracts – when immutably embedded in a blockchain – cannot be changed or updated. This means that defects and vulnerabilities in the code cannot be fixed and code is effectively deprived of the benefit of being subject to a process of refinement and testing to allow it to reach «maturity».
The immutability of the Ethereum Blockchain, this incapability to fix vulnerabilities in the written code, coupled with the inherent inability of processing semantic information or capturing the real intent behind The DAO smart contract, is what ultimately led to the logical impasse that resulted in the decision to change (or hard fork) the Ethereum Blockchain protocol, effectively reversing The DAO transactions.
The hard fork drew criticism from both within and outside the Ethereum community and was labeled as a unilateral act of governance by the Ethereum Foundation that ran contrary to its alleged founding values of democratisation and decentralisation. In the widely publicised aftermath, adherents of the strict «code is law» doctrine resisted the change and condemned the act by splitting into a separate, parallel blockchain, called Ethereum Classic. As might have been expected, the hard fork was then followed by two successive forks, aimed at addressing ongoing attacks on the network that slowed down transactions and smart contracts, culminating in what were effectively three forks in the space of four months. While the Ethereum community appears to have settled on hard forks as a regular way of fixing technical problems, it is questionable whether hard forks in this manner offer a sustainable or even satisfactory means of governance for Ethereum and other blockchains at large.
4.
The Answer of Enforceability through ADR ^
In a context where the certainty and immutability of contract code is considered one of the chief attributes of blockchain based smart contracts, the repeated interventions by Ethereum pose a serious question on the long-term viability of the blockchain project. The hard fork potential invites the floodgates argument – if Ethereum intervenes to roll back transactions or sequester funds in this case, what stops stakeholders from requesting and Ethereum from reversing transactions and carrying out successive corrective forks in future smart contract failures?
In this respect, not only are arbitrators better placed to consider principles of contract law to determine what the parties have agreed, but they also have the authority to render a legal judgment that would be enforceable in a court of law. Naturally, given the lack of representative capacity of constituents of the blockchain (i.e. developers, creators, or investors) and the lack of recognized legal form of distributed autonomous organisations («DAOs»), which are organisations that are run through rules encoded as smart contracts, ADR provisions would need to be tailored to suit the nuanced requirements of such transactions.
Notwithstanding the challenge of developing such a discrete and adaptable set of smart contract provisions, ADR offers an important opportunity to test blockchain technology disputes and develop an effective system of governance that balances the values of blockchain immutability with the need for certainty in contracts. Although we are still a long way from smart contracts entirely replacing traditional legal contracts, we have already begun moving in that direction and it seems clear that the businesses that keep apace with technological innovation in this rapidly evolving area will gain a competitive advantage.
Lee Bacon, Partner at Clyde & Co LLP in London, specialises in insurance and reinsurance as well as managing litigation, arbitration and mediation. lee.bacon@clydeco.com.
George S. Bazinas, LL.M., Trainee Solicitor at Clyde & Co LLP in London. george.bazinas@clydeco.com.