The World Bank Group recently published a “FinTech Note” on Smart Contract Technology and Financial Inclusion in its “Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation” series. The note explores the potential of smart contracts to spur economic development and financial inclusion around the globe. The note explains the key technical and legal characteristics of smart contracts, delves into potential uses of the technology and, ultimately, raises important considerations for policymakers to weigh when implementing smart contract legislation. Below, we highlight a few of the key takeaways on the potential benefits of smart contracts and discuss how policy and legal decisions will impact the use of this technology.
The biggest advantage of smart contracts discussed in the note is the potential reduction of transaction costs resulting from the immutable and self-executing nature of blockchain-based smart contracts. Smart contracts can automatically be signed once certain agreed-upon conditions are met, and the terms of the contract cannot be altered. The note sees these key characteristics of smart contracts leading to increased transactional efficiency, lower enforcement and monitoring costs and decreased risk. These benefits can result in lower operating costs, the benefits of which can be passed along to consumers, and more time to pursue additional customers or opportunities. The reduction in counterparty risk resulting from the security of smart contracts can allow institutions to do business with a wider range of consumers. The note also highlights the possibility that smart contracts could be used not only between financial institutions and consumers, but also between consumers directly, which could cut down significantly on the costs of lawyers, advisors and other intermediaries.
The authors of the note view supply chain finance, insurance and consumer credit as areas where smart contracts may have a natural and effective application. Smart contracts can help close the wide gap in the availability of financing for small businesses, especially in developing nations and regions, by lowering costs for these entities to do business with large commercial or governmental entities and cutting down the risk for institutions. Insurance policies are particularly suited to take advantage of smart contracts’ automation by programming certain outcomes to occur if certain conditions are met. Lowering the costs of writing insurance policies and creating a higher level of trust among parties can make insurance policies more widely accessible. Similarly, the note describes potential benefits of using smart contracts to automate parts of the consumer credit process, such as credit applications, thereby making lines of credit more widely accessible to consumers.
Given smart contracts’ potential global economic benefits and positive impact on financial inclusion, the World Bank describes several concerns that policymakers should weigh in order to effectively implement the use of smart contracts. These recommendations primarily focus on how to incorporate smart contracts into existing legal and regulatory frameworks. For example, many countries have existing financial consumer protection and customer due diligence laws. Certain smart contract features, such as possible anonymity of the parties, may pose issues with customer verification or anti-money laundering laws that rely on vetting the parties to an agreement. The note points out that these issues can likely be solved by requiring certain technical specifications of the smart contract or the underlying blockchain. Legislating the use of smart contracts will require a nuanced approach to defining the types of contracts and technologies that can be used instead of a broad legalization of the use of smart contracts.
Beyond these finer technical points, many basic legal concepts surrounding smart contracts will also need to be addressed by legislation. The gating legal issue is whether jurisdictions will allow smart contracts to be considered legally-binding contracts meeting the typical contract pillars of offer, acceptance and consideration, or whether certain smart contracts may be defined as “general terms and conditions” or given a similar legal status. These determinations will hinge on fundamental legal questions such as whether an offer, or a “conditional” offer, has been made, or whether certain standards of fairness and clarity are met as applicable to “general terms and conditions.”
The authors of the note also predict a larger number of post-execution disputes if smart contracts become widely used as parties may dispute whether a smart contract should have been executed, which will give rise to legal issues such as whether the code underlying a smart contract can be admissible as evidence in court. Additionally, in order for smart contracts to become widely available and truly address the global issue of financial inclusion, such contracts will need to interact with data sources and government entities in order to be useful, which invites a host of third-party legal issues.
The uses and benefits of smart contracts are gaining more recognition by global economic and financial institutions like the World Bank. However, the effectiveness of smart contracts will ultimately be defined by the legal and policy issues that will need to be properly addressed in order to fully realize the potential economic benefits. As smart contracts become more widely adopted, we will most likely see a spate of new legal issues related to novel applications of smart contracts which will require more nuanced, and constantly evolving, policy and case law in order to reap the benefits of smart contracts.
The Hunton Andrews Kurth Blockchain Blog features opinions and legal analysis as we follow the development and use of distributed ledger technology known as the blockchain.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
Tags
- 2019 Leaders’ Declaration
- 2020 National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (the 2020 Strategy)
- Advancing Innovation to Assist Law Enforcement Act
- Airdrops
- AML compliance program
- AML/CFT
- anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies
- Anti-Money Laundering
- Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA)
- Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
- Antifraud
- Aon and Marsh
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Australia
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
- Automated Clearing House (ACH)
- Bank of England
- Bank Secrecy Act
- Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
- Bank Term Fund Program
- Bermuda
- Biden Administration
- BIS
- Bitcoin
- Bitcoin Cash
- Bitfinex
- BitLicense
- Blockchain
- Blockchain Incubators
- Blockchain Legislation
- Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act
- Blockchain Technology Act
- Brazil
- Breach of Contract
- Broker-Dealer
- Broker-Dealers
- BSA
- BSA Enforcement
- BTFP
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- California
- Canada
- Captive Insurance
- CCPA
- Celebrity Endorsers
- Central Bank
- Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)
- CFTC
- Chapter 15
- China
- Christopher Giancarlo
- Civil Enforcement
- Class Actions
- Clearweb
- Colorado
- Commissioner
- Commodity Exchange Act
- Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Complaint Bulletin
- Compliance
- Compliance Note
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
- Consumer Protection
- Convertible Virtual Currency
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)
- Council of Institutional Investors
- Council of the European Union
- Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- crypto arbitrage trading accounts
- Crypto Assets
- crypto bank
- crypto custody
- Crypto Hackers
- Crypto Mining
- Crypto-commodity
- Crypto-currency
- Cryptoassets
- Cryptocurrency
- Cryptopia Limited
- Cryptosweep
- CVCs
- cybercrime
- Cybersecurity
- Dalia Blass
- DAO Report
- Darknet
- darknet marketplaces
- Data Privacy
- Data Protection Authority
- Davos
- decentralized finance (DeFi)
- DeFi
- Del. Michael San Nicolas
- Delaware
- Department of Business and Industry
- Department of Justice
- Department of Treasury
- DFS
- Digital Asset
- Digital Asset Securities
- Digital Assets
- Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022
- digital currency
- digital currency ATM operators
- digital currency exchangers
- digital currency flows
- Digital Financial Assets Law (the Act)
- Digital Token Act
- digital token sales
- Digital Tokens
- Distributed Ledger
- Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)
- Dodd-Frank
- DOJ
- Economic Sanctions
- EDPB
- Eleventh Circuit
- Endorsement Guides
- Enforcement Action
- ePrivacy
- Ether
- Ether Classic
- EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- EU Regulation
- European Central Bank
- European Commission
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Traded Fund
- FDIC
- Federal Election Commission
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Reserve Board
- Federal Trade Commission
- FedNow
- fiat currency MSBs
- Fiat-Backed
- Fight Illicit Networks and Detect Trafficking Act
- Figure Lending LLC
- Final Guidance
- Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
- Financial Privacy
- Financial Stability Board
- Financial Stability Oversight Council
- Financial Stability Report
- Financial Technology Protection Act
- FinCEN
- FINRA
- FinTech
- Florida
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
- Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA)
- Form BE-12
- fractional interests
- FTC
- Gemini Dollar
- Gemini Trust Company
- Global Consortium for Digital Currency Governance
- Group of Seven
- Group of Twenty (G20) Finance Ministers
- H.R. 5635
- Hard Fork
- Heath Tarbert
- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- home equity lines of credit (HELOCs)
- Homeland Security Assessment of Terrorists’ Use of Virtual Currencies Act
- House of Representatives
- House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee
- Howey
- Howey test
- IEO
- iFinex Inc.
- Illinois
- India
- Information Sheet 225
- Initial Chain Offering
- initial exchange offerings (IEOs)
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- International
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Investor Protection
- IRS
- Jefferies Funding LLC
- Kenneth Blanco
- KYC/AML requirements
- Lael Brainard
- Large Platform Utility
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liechtenstein Parliament
- liquidity
- Litecoin
- Litigation
- Louisiana
- Ltd.
- Malicious Cyber Activity
- Malicious Cyber Actor
- managed stablecoin
- Martin Act
- Maryland
- Metaverse
- model rule
- Monetary Policy
- Money Laundering
- Money Service Business
- money services businesses (MSBs)
- Mortgages
- Multi-Level Marketing Program (MLM)
- Mutual Fund
- Nakamoto
- narcotics
- NASAA
- Nebraska
- network maturity
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)
- New Zealand
- NFT (Non-Fungible Token)
- NFTs
- Non-fungible tokens
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- NY Department of Financial Services
- OFAC
- Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Patent
- Paxos Standard
- Paxos Trust Company
- peer-to-peer exchangers
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Information
- President’s Working Group (PWG)
- Privacy
- privacy coins
- Provenance.io
- Proxy Voting
- Public Blockchain
- rapid settlement
- real estate
- Regulation and Enforcement
- Rep. Sylvia Garcia
- Rescission
- Retail
- Ripple
- Ripple Labs
- Rule 233-1
- Russia
- Sanctions
- Sanctions Compliance Program (SHP)
- SAR lookback review
- SD8 coins
- SDN List
- SEC
- SEC crypto-securities
- SEC registration
- Securities
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Securities Exchange Commission
- security tokens
- Self-disclosure
- Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs
- Shareholder
- Shareholders
- SIFI
- Signature Bank
- Silicon Valley Bank
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Spencer Dinwiddie
- stablecoins
- Stablecoins are Securities Act of 2019
- State-Sponsored Malicious Cyber Groups
- Suspicious Activity Report
- suspicious activity reporting (SARs)
- SVB
- SWIFT messaging system
- Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)
- Switzerland
- synthetic hegemonic currency
- Taxation
- Templum
- Tennessee
- Terrorist Financing
- Tether Limited
- Texas
- Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC)
- Texas Senate Bill 1859
- Texas Senate Bill 1971
- The World Bank
- three-year safe harbor
- Token and TT Service Provider Act
- token developers
- token transfer limits
- tokenization
- tokenized assets
- Trademark
- Travel Rule
- Trump Administration
- TT Identifier
- TT System
- TVTG
- U.S. Virtual Currency Market and Regulatory Competitiveness Act of 2019
- UCC Article 12
- UK Tax Rules
- unhosted wallets
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United Kingdom (UK)
- United Specialty Insurance Company
- United States Bankruptcy Code
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- US central bank digital currency (US CBDC)
- US Department of the Treasury
- US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- US dollar
- US Treasury
- USTR
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Virtual Asset Service Providers
- Virtual currencies
- Virtual Currency
- Virtual Currency Consumer Protection Act of 2019
- Virtual Currency Exchange
- virtual currency license
- Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020
- Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative
- Washington
- Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations
- World Economic Forum
- Wyoming
- XRP
Authors
- Jimmy Bui
- Mayme Donohue
- Nicholas Drews
- Andrew Feiner
- Jason Feingertz
- Hannah Flint
- Kevin E. Gaunt
- Armin Ghiam
- Carleton Goss
- Gregory G. Hesse
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Marysia Laskowski
- Michael S. Levine
- Phyllis H. Marcus
- Lorelie S. Masters
- Patrick M. McDermott
- Uriel A. Mendieta
- Alex D. Pappas
- Daryl B. Robertson
- Natalia San Juan
- Caitlin A. Scipioni