Smart contracts that violate the Commodity Exchange Act: which parties are liable?

Nikiforos Mathews, J. Robison
{"title":"Smart contracts that violate the Commodity Exchange Act: which parties are liable?","authors":"Nikiforos Mathews, J. Robison","doi":"10.1108/joic-06-2019-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to date, has not directly addressed how liability for Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) violations involving blockchain or distributed ledger technology should be allocated among the various parties involved in the distributed ledger network, such as the network itself, persons running consensus nodes, developers building applications on the platform, and businesses and end users using such applications. This article discusses recent statements by CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz regarding this issue and the approach that the CFTC may take going forward.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThis article examines the allocation of liability in the context of smart contracts that may violate the CEA. The article discusses how the CFTC, despite its significant focus in recent years on virtual currency and blockchain, has not addressed the issue of liability allocation directly. Recent remarks by Commissioner Quintenz may shed light on the CFTC’s future approach.\n\n\nFindings\nThis article finds that liability allocation questions may become increasingly pressing as smart contracts that potentially violate the CEA proliferate, possibly exposing a broad range of parties involved in a distributed ledger network to liability. To the extent that Commissioner Quintenz’s recent remarks are indicative, the CFTC ultimately may adopt a foreseeability standard in determining liability.\n\n\nPractical implications\nApplications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) are ever-expanding, continually posing novel CFTC regulatory issues. This is especially the case with respect to smart contracts that may be subject to CFTC jurisdiction. Parties involved in such applications should be mindful of potential liability.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nPractical guidance from experienced finance and derivatives lawyers with strong CFTC expertise.\n","PeriodicalId":399186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investment Compliance","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investment Compliance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/joic-06-2019-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), to date, has not directly addressed how liability for Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) violations involving blockchain or distributed ledger technology should be allocated among the various parties involved in the distributed ledger network, such as the network itself, persons running consensus nodes, developers building applications on the platform, and businesses and end users using such applications. This article discusses recent statements by CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz regarding this issue and the approach that the CFTC may take going forward. Design/methodology/approach This article examines the allocation of liability in the context of smart contracts that may violate the CEA. The article discusses how the CFTC, despite its significant focus in recent years on virtual currency and blockchain, has not addressed the issue of liability allocation directly. Recent remarks by Commissioner Quintenz may shed light on the CFTC’s future approach. Findings This article finds that liability allocation questions may become increasingly pressing as smart contracts that potentially violate the CEA proliferate, possibly exposing a broad range of parties involved in a distributed ledger network to liability. To the extent that Commissioner Quintenz’s recent remarks are indicative, the CFTC ultimately may adopt a foreseeability standard in determining liability. Practical implications Applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) are ever-expanding, continually posing novel CFTC regulatory issues. This is especially the case with respect to smart contracts that may be subject to CFTC jurisdiction. Parties involved in such applications should be mindful of potential liability. Originality/value Practical guidance from experienced finance and derivatives lawyers with strong CFTC expertise.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
违反《商品交易法》的智能合约:哪一方应承担责任?
迄今为止,美国商品期货交易委员会(CFTC)尚未直接解决涉及区块链或分布式账本技术的商品交易法(CEA)违规行为的责任应如何在分布式账本网络中涉及的各方之间分配,例如网络本身,运行共识节点的人员,在平台上构建应用程序的开发人员以及使用此类应用程序的企业和最终用户。本文讨论了CFTC委员Brian Quintenz最近关于这个问题的声明,以及CFTC可能采取的方法。本文研究了可能违反CEA的智能合约背景下的责任分配。这篇文章讨论了CFTC尽管近年来非常关注虚拟货币和区块链,但却没有直接解决责任分配问题。昆滕斯最近的言论可能会揭示CFTC未来的做法。本文发现,随着可能违反CEA的智能合约的激增,责任分配问题可能会变得越来越紧迫,这可能会使分布式账本网络中涉及的广泛各方承担责任。就Quintenz专员最近的言论而言,CFTC最终可能在确定责任时采用可预见性标准。实际意义分布式账本技术(DLT)的应用不断扩大,不断提出新的CFTC监管问题。对于可能受CFTC管辖的智能合约而言,情况尤其如此。涉及此类申请的各方应注意潜在的责任。原创性/价值由经验丰富的金融和衍生品律师提供实用指导,具有丰富的CFTC专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
ESG litigation – how companies can get ready, respond and resolve claims Strengthening AML/CFT controls of digital payment token service providers in Singapore Understanding regulatory trends: digital assets & anti-Money laundering “Racing” to the IBOR transition finish line Structuring and financing private equity and venture capital transactions in Luxembourg
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1