Regulating blockchain, dlt and smart contracts: a technology regulator's perspective
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Blockchain, Smart Contracts and other forms of Distributed Ledger Technology provide means to ensure that processes are verifiable, transparent, and tamper-proof. Yet the very same enabling features that bring decentralisation also pose challenges to providing protection for the various users and stakeholders. Most jurisdictions which have implemented regulatory frameworks in this area have focused on regulating the financial aspects of cryptocurrency-based operations. However, they have not addressed technology assurance requirements. In this paper we present a world-first technology regulatory framework.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Blockchain features including decentralization, immutability, anonymity, and automation, when combined, pose various new regulatory challenges.
“While several blockchain technological features including decentralization, immutability, anonymity, and automation are promising security solutions for diverse IoT applications, these features combined pose various new regulatory challenges [24].”
From A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions (2021) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Ellul, J., Galea, J., Ganado, M., Mccarthy, S., & Pace, G. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Malta (MT)
- Corresponding author
- Ellul, Joshua
- Venue
- ERA Forum
- Published
- 2020-06-30
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-220
- ISSN
- 1612-3093 (ISSN-L)
- 1863-9038
- OpenAlex
- W3040012979
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 8.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- ERA Forum (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- OAR@UM (University of Malta) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Digital Transformation in Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- blockchain regulation, distributed ledger technology, smart contracts, decentralization (distributed systems), cryptocurrency, regulatory framework, stakeholder protection, technology regulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
