Addison Cameron-Huff is an independent technology lawyer who focusses on the bitcoin and Internet startup space. His clients include prominent blockchain businesspeople and developers.
In this opinion piece,Cameron-Huff builds on thoughts voiced in a recent panel discussion at CIGI’s blockchain workshop held in Toronto. Despite the levels of hype, "blockchain" is, at its core, a software concept like relational databases or BitTorrent. Proponents argue it is set to change real estate, accounting, securities and a gamut of other industries. But, how should this technology be regulated? A better question might be, ‘Should it be?’ And if so, ‘How?’
Lawmakers generally try to create rules that are technology neutral . Indeed, one of the most pressing criticisms of New York’s BitLicense regulation was that it deviated from this approach.
Why this has been successful is because regulators know that software developers move faster than they do.
When rules are created for specific technologies, there’s a danger that rapid innovation will result in hollow laws on the books (eg semiconductor topography protection ). The term "blockchain" has only been in use for a few years and no one can confidently whether this specific iteration of the technology will win out (although some people are working on blockchain prediction markets to help with that).
Still, many believe blockchain technology holds enormous promise, even if there are very few applications in the field right now. There’s no evidence of any problems and lots of evidence of innovation. There’s a growing consensus in the developed world that before government rules are created, there should be a critical analysis of the benefits and costs .
This type of analysis is essential to avoid smothering desirable changes in the name of avoiding potential (or actual) costs to society. Blockchain technology may have costs (in specific implementations) but there are enormous […]
