CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Redefining Accountability: Navigating Legal Challenges of Participant Liability in Decentralized Autonomous Organizations

Napieralska, Aneta, Kępczyński, Przemysław·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2408.04717arXiv 2408.04717
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the digital era, where innovative technologies like blockchain are revolutionizing traditional organizational paradigms, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) emerge as avant-garde models of collective governance. However, their unique structure challenges existing legal frameworks, especially concerning the liability of participants. This study focuses on analyzing the legal implications of the decentralized nature of DAOs, with a particular emphasis on the aspects of participant liability. Such considerations are essential for understanding how current legal systems might be adapted or reformed to effectively address these novel challenges. The paper examines the specificity of DAOs, highlighting their decentralized governance structure and reliance on smart contracts, which introduce unique issues related to the blurring of liability boundaries. It underscores how the anonymity of DAO participants and the automatic execution of smart contracts complicate the traditional concept of legal liability, both within the DAO context and in interactions with external parties. The analysis also includes a comparison between DAOs and traditional organizational forms, such as corporations and associations, to identify potential analogies and differences in participant liability. It explores how existing regulations on partner liability might be insufficient or inapplicable in the DAO context, prompting the search for new, innovative legal solutions.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2408.04717

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The pseudonymity of DAO members complicates accountability by limiting transparency of individual contributions and enforcing collective goals.

    “The pseudonymity of DAO members further complicates accountability by limiting the transparency of individual contributions and enforcing collective goals (Napieralska and Kepczynski, 2024).”

    From Adapting Mintzberg’s organizational theory to DeSci: the decentralized science pyramid framework (2024) · cites this paper as Napieralska and Kepczynski, 2024

  • Models such as Systems Theory and Network Theory lack the structural details and practical mechanisms needed to analyze and optimize operational processes within decentralized scientific ecosystems.

    “In contrast, models such as Systems Theory and Network Theory, while offering valuable perspectives on interrelations and network interactions, lack the structural details and practical mechanisms needed to analyze and optimize operational processes within decentralized scientific ecosystems (Napieralska and Kepczynski, 2024;Ballandies et al., 2024).”

    From Adapting Mintzberg’s organizational theory to DeSci: the decentralized science pyramid framework (2024) · cites this paper as Napieralska and Kepczynski, 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Mahoney P. "Contract or Concession? An Essay on the History of Corporate Law" (2000) 34(2) Georgia Law Review 873 at 880 and
  2. See generally, Ron Harris "The Private Origins of the Private Company: Britain 1862-1907" (2013) 33 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 339. References:
  3. Braakman, R., Follows, M. J., Chisholm, S. W.: "Metabolic evolution and the self-organization of ecosystems", Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 114, no. 15, pp. E3091-E3100, 2017.
  4. Cousy, H.A.: "Wrongfulness in Belgian Tort Law," in H. Koziol (ed.), Unification of Tort Law: Wrongfulness, The Hague-London-Boston, 1998, pp. 33-34.
  5. De Filippi, P., Wright, A.: Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018.
  6. Fenwick, M., Kaal, W. A., Vermeulen, E. P. M.: "Regulation Tomorrow: What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law?" American University Business Law Review 6(3), 561-594, 2017.
  7. Hart, H.L.A., Honoré, A.M.: Causation in the Law. 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.
  8. Harris, Ron: "The Private Origins of the Private Company: Britain 1862-1907", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, 2013.
  9. Kraakman, R., et al.: The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017.
  10. Machnikowski, P., in: System Praw Prywatnych, t. 6, 2009, pp. 434-438, Nb 38-40.
  11. Mahoney, P.: "Contract or Concession? An Essay on the History of Corporate Law", Georgia Law Review, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 873 at 880, 2000.
  12. Napieralska, A., Kępczyński, P.: Smart Contracts and Web 3: From Automated Transactions to DAOs, Concepts, Technologies, Challenges, and the Future of Web 3, IGI Global, 2023.
  13. Raskin, M.: "The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts." Georgetown Law Technology Review 1(2), 305-341, 2017.
  14. Savelyev, A.: "Contract Law 2.0: 'Smart' Contracts as the Beginning of the End of Classic Contract Law." Information & Communications Technology Law 26(2), 116-134, 2017.
  15. Senderowicz, J. I., Grafton, K. S., Spangler, T., Brown, K. D., Schaffer, A. J.: "SEC Focuses on Initial Coin Offerings: Tokens may be Securities under Federal Securities Laws", Journal of Investment Compliance, vol. 19, 2018.
  16. Vogenauer, S., Weatherill, S.: The Harmonisation of European Contract Law: Implications for European Private Laws, Business and Legal Practice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2006.
  17. Werbach, K.: The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018.
  18. Zimmermann, R.: The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.
  19. Zimmermann, R.: The New German Law of Obligations: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Napieralska, A., & Kępczyński, P.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2408.04717
arXiv
2408.04717
References
1
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode

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