Triple entry accounting (TEA) is simultaneously a novel application in the blockchain universe and one of the many concepts applied in blockchain technology. Its Wild Wild West status is accompanied by a lack of consistent and comprehensive set of categories, a state of play that impedes a proper apprehension of the technology, leading to contradictions and oversight of important nuances. To clearly delineate the confines of TEA within the world of blockchain, we provide building blocks to standardise its terminology. Particularly, we distinguish between essential elements such as accounting and bookkeeping, as well as between decentralised systems, distributed ledgers, and distributed journals.

DLT and cryptoassets are a digital solution to the perennial issue of how to establish a single source of truth. Because digital data entries can easily be altered or copied, we have relied on trusted third parties to keep a master copy of any digital asset registry – until DLT enabled digital equivalents to physical cash and bearer instruments. Instead of a trusted record keeper, DLT relies on a distributed network of nodes that each hold a copy of the ledger. The data are typically stored in a time-stamped sequence of blocks, i.e., a blockchain. Different types of consensus mechanisms exist to keep each copy of the ledger synchronised and to prevent malicious actors from altering the registered information. This technology is democratising the privilege of running a trusted asset registry, thus facilitating new business models in so-called decentralised finance (DeFi) which emulate conventional financial processes with software replacing middlemen, such as banks, depositories, and exchanges. This has resulted in so-called token offerings and more than 10,000 different cryptoassets worth more than USD 1 trillion in aggregate.

This conversation centres around innovation in the financial services sector and the related regulatory supervision. Three ‘Techs’ are especially relevant: FinTech, RegTech and SupTech. ‘FinTech’ combines the words ‘financial’ and ‘technology’ and refers to technological innovation in the delivery of financial services and products. ‘RegTech’ joins ‘regulatory’ and ‘technology’ and describes the use of technology by businesses to manage and comply with regulatory requirements. ‘SupTech’, finally, unites the words ‘supervisory’ and ‘technology’ to refer to the use of technology by supervisory authorities such as financial services authorities to perform their functions. Particular approaches presented in this session include regulatory sandboxes to promote innovative technology in the financial sector, automated data analysis, the collection and analysis of granular data, digital forensics and internet monitoring systems. The speakers also address collaboration between financial institutions and supervisory authorities, for example, in the creation of data collection formats and data sharing.

This chapter examines distributive justice (DJ) within the realm of international intellectual property (IP) laws, focusing on the digital era. It highlights DJ as a critical lens for understanding global IP laws, particularly where technology significantly influences the processes of creation. It also emphasizes the importance of global equity in achieving access to IP rights, within a comprehensive understanding of their scope. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals focus on the context of peace, prosperity, and equality, though not explicitly centered on IP rights. Consequently, there is a need to redefine IP rights not only to address legal uncertainties but also to foster global equality. Moreover, the chapter delves into the roles of international entities like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in managing challenges where global DJ and IP intersect. It highlights the importance of digital tools (e.g., blockchain) for authenticating original authors. The chapter asserts that proficient and reliable international organizations like WIPO are best suited to address these challenges. Furthermore, the chapter underscores the significance of an unbiased global investment system for promoting universal progress and equity. Ultimately, it explores how WIPO’s tools, such as WIPO Re:Search and WIPO Proof, exemplify DJ in the international IP framework.

Theoretically, all inventions are equal under the law: they receive the same scope of protection for the same period, backed by the same remedies. In reality, such equality has been strongly compromised. Patents are concentrated in the hands of big companies and privileged individuals. Women and minorities – as well as firms they own – are less likely to file for patents and have their patents granted. Small companies are also less likely to file and receive patents than strong incumbents. This chapter argues that some changes in the patent system can trigger better accessibility, affordability, and equality. It builds on the author’s earlier proposal to replace the patent record with a decentralized database that would include more information about inventions from more sources and additional functions. Under the proposal, inventors would submit patent applications to a shared patent record instead of a central patent office. During the examination process and throughout the duration of the patent, industry and state actors would be able to update the record. For example, third parties could submit prior art, scientists could weigh in on obviousness, patentees could offer licenses, and courts could list outstanding cases that pertain to the patent.

In Chapter 7, we conclude our reconceptualization of organizational control by discussing new forms of control, novel combinations of existing controls, new challenges to fundamental assumptions, and new forms of organizing – all of which represent promising directions for future organizational control research and practice.

Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies are considered as transformative for corporate governance and enabling decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) that challenge hierarchical structures. However, legal, governance, and liability issues surround DAOs. Despite the aim for decentralization, practical implementation often reveals centralized elements. The chapter also explores blockchain’s impact on traditional corporations, emphasizing improvements in share issuance, trading, and decision-making. Blockchain can also address custody chain problems, enhancing transparency in securities and stock ownership. Yet, transitioning to blockchain, exemplified by ASX CHESS Replacement, is complex. While blockchain holds promise in fostering shareholder and stakeholder rights, a nuanced assessment of limitations and practicalities is crucial. More classical alternatives like secure and transparent centralized systems should also be considered in corporate governance.

Cybersecurity has emerged as a paramount concern in today’s digital age, especially when considering the vast range of digital assets now in circulation, among which non-fungible tokens (NFTs) hold significant prominence. This chapter delves deeply into the intricate landscape of cybersecurity as it pertains to NFTs. By meticulously analyzing the multifaceted technical challenges and potential vulnerabilities inherent to NFTs from a cybersecurity perspective, this chapter seeks to provide an overview of the landscape as of this writing. Furthermore, this chapter explores how existing laws, policies, and societal norms have addressed these issues thus far, and speculates on how they might evolve in the future to more effectively bridge the governance gaps and safeguard these unique digital assets.

In the evolving landscape of technological discourse, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) have risen as pivotal instruments, notably within gaming and digital art. However, their implications are broader, touching upon real-world applications such as land titles and supply chain management. As the Web 3.0 architecture evolves, the role of NFTs in domain nomenclature and email addresses is increasingly significant. Yet, with the existence of alternate methods for these operations, a pertinent question emerges: Why opt for NFTs or blockchain-based solutions? Despite uncertainties surrounding adoption, many early adopters are zealously securing addresses on these avant-garde networks. This chapter delves into the conditions and reasons for considering this nascent technology.

This chapter highlights the dangers of linguistic inaccuracies and misunderstandings that permeate discussions on blockchain technology and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), impacting policy and legal outcomes. It identifies two critical issues hindering effective legislation: a lack of comprehension of blockchain technology’s technical nuances and a failure to appreciate the link between blockchain-related terminology and the intricacies of varying blockchain protocols. By borrowing frequently misused terms without questioning their technical accuracy, policy-makers may unwittingly stifle innovation and develop legal regimes that are ill-suited for their intended purpose. This chapter explores six specific language landmines prevalent in blockchain and NFT discussions, urging researchers, lawmakers, industry members, and other stakeholders to bridge the understanding gap. By addressing these linguistic pitfalls, the chapter advocates for informed and comprehensive policy-making that keeps pace with the evolving landscape of blockchain technology and its applications, including NFTs.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) introduce unique concerns related to the privacy of personal data. To create an NFT, users upload data to publicly accessible and searchable databases. This data can encompass information essential for the creation, transfer, and storage of the NFT, as well as personal details pertaining to the creator. Additionally, users might inadvertently engage with technology crafted to gather personal data. Traditional paradigms of privacy have not evolved in tandem with advancements in NFT and blockchain technology. To pinpoint where current privacy paradigms falter, this chapter delves into an introduction of NFTs, elucidating their foundational technical mechanisms and processes. Subsequently, the chapter juxtaposes current and historical privacy frameworks with NFTs, underscoring how these models may be either overly expansive or excessively restrictive for this emerging technology. This chapter suggests that Helen Nissenbaum’s concept of “contextual integrity” might offer the requisite flexibility to cater to the distinct attributes of NFTs. In conclusion, while there is a pronounced societal drive to safeguard citizen data and privacy, the overarching aim remains the enhancement of the collective good. Balancing this objective, governments should be afforded the latitude to equate society’s privacy interests with its imperative for transparency.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) built in the blockchain are quietly revolutionizing ideas around digital assets despite their questionable status under current law. The smart contracts that control many NFTs are disrupting the way deals are done. At the same time, disputes regarding NFTs and smart contracts are inevitable and parties will need means for dealing with these highly technical issues. The chapter tackles this challenge and proposes that parties turn to online dispute resolution (ODR) to resolve NFT and smart contract disputes efficiently and fairly. Furthermore, the chapter acknowledges the benefits and challenges of current means for addressing blockchain issues and proposes ideas for how designers could address those challenges and incorporate ODR to provide efficient and fair resolutions.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are used in numerous markets for collectibles, art, securities, and commodities. These are different markets, and there is no regulatory framework for all NFTs. To determine a proper legal regime, it is essential to locate the market to which an NFT belongs. This task requires a deep understanding of the economic realities of the associated rights, assets, and transactions. Economic-reality-based interpretations should provide a solid footing for better regulation of NFTs in the US and other jurisdictions grappling with NFT regulation. The new cryptoasset regime in the EU already incorporates a “substance over form” approach. In the US, courts have been successfully applying the Howey test to examine transactions and schemes and establish whether securities law should apply to cryptoassets. In 2023, the SEC and a US federal district court applied the Howey test to demonstrate why and how securities law built for legacy markets where mainstream assets are fungible could apply to transactions in non-fungible assets. The decisions are an example of establishing economic realities of transactions with novel assets regardless of the underlying technologies on which the assets are built. An economic reality approach should help courts and other policy-makers ascertain to which market an NFT belongs and which corresponding legal regime should govern.

This chapter addresses the phenomenon of unauthorized minting of NFTs. Specifically, the chapter examines whether copyright law should allow minting of NFTs that is not authorized by the author of the underlying work. Despite the immense growth of the NFT market, the answer to this question has remained unclear under extant copyright laws around the world. To provide foundations for policy-making in this arena, the chapter seeks to form a normative stance towards the question of unauthorized minting. It does so by analyzing this question from the perspective of the key theories that underly copyright law, including the utilitarian theory, the labor theory, and the personality theory. The matter is also examined from the viewpoint of cultural diversity and distributive justice considerations, which provide important underpinning for copyright policy. All in all, the analysis offers a normative basis for the conclusion that the right to mint an NFT should be awarded to the author of the work that underlies the NFT.