Smart Contract Templates: foundations, design landscape and research directions
Open accessAbstract
In this position paper, we consider some foundational topics regarding smart contracts (such as terminology, automation, enforceability, and semantics) and define a smart contract as an automatable and enforceable agreement. We explore a simple semantic framework for smart contracts, covering both operational and non-operational aspects, and describe templates and agreements for legally-enforceable smart contracts, based on legal documents. Building upon the Ricardian Contract, we identify operational parameters in the legal documents and use these to connect legal agreements to standardised code. We also explore the design landscape, including increasing sophistication of parameters, increasing use of common standardised code, and long-term research.
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?
By 2016, there were at least fifteen incidents in which cryptocurrency worth at least $1 million was stolen, with a total value exceeding $600 million.
“By 2016, there were already at least fifteen incidents in which cryptocurrency worth at least $1 million was stolen, with a total value exceeding $600 million.”
From Trust, but Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
The passages on enforcement (section 2.3.2, p. 4) and research challenges (section 3.2.3, p. 10) discuss smart-contract risks, not cryptocurrency theft totals. Searches for fifteen theft incidents, $1 million losses, and a $600 million total found no passage in our copy addressing those figures. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [5][5] Digital Asset. The Digital Asset Platform - Non-technical White Paper, 2016. Available at https://digitalasset.com/press/digital-asset-releases-non-technical-white-paper.html. -
- [7][7] I. Grigg. The ricardian contract. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting , pages 25-31. IEEE, 2004. http://iang.org/papers/ricardian\_ contract.html. -
- [10][10] T. Hvitved. Contract Formalisation and Modular Implementation of Domain-Specific Languages . PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2012. -
- [19][19] N. Szabo. Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First mind , 2(9), 1997.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey of Attacks on Ethereum Smart Contracts (SoK)
Atzei, N., Bartoletti, M., & Cimoli, T. (2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-54455-6_8 · Cited by 1,553 · see citing works
Blockchain Technologies: The Foreseeable Impact on Society and Industry
Aste, T., Tasca, P., & Di Matteo, T. (2017) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2017.3571064 · Cited by 676 · see citing works
Validation and Verification of Smart Contracts: A Research Agenda
Magazzeni, D., McBurney, P., & Nash, W. (2017) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2017.3571045 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Trust, but Verify: Why the Blockchain Needs the Law
Werbach, K. (2018) · Berkeley Technology Law Journal · doi:10.15779/z38h41jm9n · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Zerka, F., Urovi, V., Vaidyanathan, A., Barakat, S., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Walsh, S., Gabrani-Juma, H., Miraglio, B., Woodruff, H. C., Dumontier, M., et al. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3029445 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Blockchain—From public to private
Lai, R., & LEE Kuo Chuen, D. (2018) · Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 2 · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-812282-2.00007-3 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
- Authors
- Clack, C. D., Bakshi, V. A., & Braine, L.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Barclays (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1608.00771
- OpenAlex
- W2516120833
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- 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 › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- smart contracts, contracts, semantic framework, enforceability, automation, terminology, legal documents
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
