Yes, the future of law is smart contracts.
This is obvious if you have ever negotiated an international deal, and compared it to the on-chain variety.
This is obvious if you have ever negotiated an international deal, and compared it to the on-chain variety.
https://twitter.com/jchervinsky/status/1455377758733971457
International corporate law is much fuzzier than we think.
If a company in Brazil tries to buy one in Bangladesh, just getting the list of obligations on both sides is nontrivial. The deal may go through a US or PRC intermediate, a hub that has relations with both sides.
If a company in Brazil tries to buy one in Bangladesh, just getting the list of obligations on both sides is nontrivial. The deal may go through a US or PRC intermediate, a hub that has relations with both sides.
That is, there may not be that many legal precedents for Brazil/Bangladesh acquisitions, but there will be some for Brazil/US & US/Bangladesh. Or perhaps Brazil/PRC & PRC/Bangladesh.
So you go through that hub. It’s the lowest risk strategy. Till ETH and smart contract chains…
So you go through that hub. It’s the lowest risk strategy. Till ETH and smart contract chains…
As we represent not just crypto transactions on-chain, but fiat transactions (via stablecoins), we get higher order constructs like payroll, accounting, diligence, and eventually M&A — all doable on-chain.
From digital currencies to digital companies.
From digital currencies to digital companies.
This allows anyone in any country to ink a deal with anyone in any country, have the terms represented in clear code rather than localized legalese, and be confident of fair contract enforcement by dispassionate nodes and miners.
On-chain > US or PRC legal system.
On-chain > US or PRC legal system.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
