The Problem With Smart Contracts
At the CDX Academy Blockchain Brand Innovation Summit in New York, speakers explained why smart contracts will only work in limited and narrow transactional situations.
May 14, 2018 at 12:22 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock
Coder and IT-professional-turned-lawyer Amir Azaran wants to set the record straight: “Smart contracts are not contracts in the legal sense. They are not drafted by lawyers; they are written by computer programmers—they are software,” he said at the CDX Academy Blockchain Brand Innovation Summit in New York.
Azaran, a partner in Loeb & Loeb's advanced media and technology practice, explained that while smart contracts can automate the execution of contract terms and transactions, the technology isn't likely to replace transactional attorneys any time soon.
“Smart contracts at the end of the day can really lower transaction cost; it eliminates the inefficiency of two parties having their own records and teams to enforce the deal,” Azaran said. But to execute terms automatically, these contracts “require triggering conditions which need to be objectively verified.”
What's more, smart contracts aren't applicable in every situation. For instance, a smart contract would have an easy time moving funds to a designated account when a stock hits a specific price. But when you get into more complex supply-chain situations, it's a different story.
Consider, for example, a smart contract that was employed to release funds when a delivery arrived at a certain location. To objectively verify the delivery, it would need to rely on a slew of interconnected and potentially expensive technology. “If a delivery truck delivers a crate, you need to set up an RFID system and the other necessary software to record that to the blockchain, and that can include some upfront costs,” Azaran said.
Azaran explained that smart contracts will only be useful in situations where a term can be measured in definitive ways. But many contracts are written with vague terms to provide flexibility to parties. As an example, Azaran pointed to service level agreements.
“With a lot of service level agreements, a service provider will agree to handle a bug [in software] within a certain amount of time and use 'reasonable efforts' to resolve the bug. But it's difficult to get a service provider to commit to a fixed period of time because the bug is unknown,” he said.
Still, there is little downside to smart contracts when they are used within limited, well-defined channels and between a restricted numbers of parties. Azaran calls these channels “permissioned blockchains,” which he defines as “a blockchain ecosystem that is open only to a discrete set of participants that enables a consortium of participants to solve a particular business problem or set of inefficiencies in their ecosystem.”
For corporations, such a permissioned blockchain system is an attractive prospect, especially in automating supply chain management. “Right now, 20 percent of all transport costs is administration, and if a lot of the hand-offs are just automated, you're going to see lower costs and faster [transport],” said Kate Merton, head of Johnson & Johnson's JLabs tech incubator, at the Blockchain Summit. She added that supply-chain innovation is one of the uses of blockchain her company is currently examining.
Another speaker at the summit, Laurie Tolson, chief digital officer at GE Transportation, noted that such supply chain automation is dually beneficial for a company's bottom line and customer relations. “I think the consumers are going to start seeing the impact quite quickly.”
But she added that while such permissioned blockchain consortiums are a way forward for smart contracts, they should be developed with an eye toward creating an even larger network in the future and not just isolated communities. “I thinks standards have to come out,” she said. “Without types of standards there will be a bunch of ecosystems that will be popping up, and they won't be able to communicate which each other.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Advising 'Capital-Intensive Spaces' Fuels Corporate Practice Growth For Haynes and Boone
- 2Big Law’s Year—as Told in Commentaries
- 3Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 4Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 5Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250