Is Blockchain the Death of Antitrust Law? The Blockchain Antitrust Paradox

Thibault Schrepel
{"title":"Is Blockchain the Death of Antitrust Law? The Blockchain Antitrust Paradox","authors":"Thibault Schrepel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3193576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Western legal systems have historically helped establish trust between parties and reduce transactional uncertainty by providing recourse to legal procedures. Nonetheless, establishing trust still imposes significant transactional costs and blockchain may reduce them to a smaller level. In the meantime, the very nature of the technology raises fundamental questions about antitrust law and how individuals conduct transactions. \n \nThis article intends to contribute to the literature by describing the challenges that blockchain presents for analyses of unilateral anticompetitive practices and proposing some changes to antitrust law and regulations that address those challenges. It proceeds in three sections to this end. \n \nFirst, this article argues that, because blockchain is decentralized, anonymous, and immutable, questions arise regarding the ability to detect anticompetitive practices and their perpetrators. We show that some practices are de facto more likely to be implemented. \n \nNext, this article discusses current antitrust laws and how antitrust authorities should tackle these issues. On the one hand, regulators must avoid using their unfamiliarity with a new technology to justify over-regulating a potentially beneficial advancement or employing what this article calls the “blockchain excuse” for regulation. On the other hand, antitrust enforcement must adapt to stay relevant, and this article suggests that regulators adopt a new methodology of “regulatory infiltration” using a “law is code” approach. \n \nThird, even if this new regulatory scheme is adopted, some ultimate questions demand resolution. This article seeks to address them in part three: is blockchain the death of antitrust law as we know it? Should it be? Answering those questions is not easy because blockchain continues to evolve. Nevertheless, the decentralized nature of blockchain forces us to consider the legitimacy of antitrust law, which rests on centralized legal structures and enforcement that are inconsistent with blockchain’s trustless nature; although, antitrust is still needed. This is the blockchain antitrust paradox.","PeriodicalId":351070,"journal":{"name":"ERPN: Other Entrepreneurs (Sub-Topic)","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERPN: Other Entrepreneurs (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3193576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Western legal systems have historically helped establish trust between parties and reduce transactional uncertainty by providing recourse to legal procedures. Nonetheless, establishing trust still imposes significant transactional costs and blockchain may reduce them to a smaller level. In the meantime, the very nature of the technology raises fundamental questions about antitrust law and how individuals conduct transactions. This article intends to contribute to the literature by describing the challenges that blockchain presents for analyses of unilateral anticompetitive practices and proposing some changes to antitrust law and regulations that address those challenges. It proceeds in three sections to this end. First, this article argues that, because blockchain is decentralized, anonymous, and immutable, questions arise regarding the ability to detect anticompetitive practices and their perpetrators. We show that some practices are de facto more likely to be implemented. Next, this article discusses current antitrust laws and how antitrust authorities should tackle these issues. On the one hand, regulators must avoid using their unfamiliarity with a new technology to justify over-regulating a potentially beneficial advancement or employing what this article calls the “blockchain excuse” for regulation. On the other hand, antitrust enforcement must adapt to stay relevant, and this article suggests that regulators adopt a new methodology of “regulatory infiltration” using a “law is code” approach. Third, even if this new regulatory scheme is adopted, some ultimate questions demand resolution. This article seeks to address them in part three: is blockchain the death of antitrust law as we know it? Should it be? Answering those questions is not easy because blockchain continues to evolve. Nevertheless, the decentralized nature of blockchain forces us to consider the legitimacy of antitrust law, which rests on centralized legal structures and enforcement that are inconsistent with blockchain’s trustless nature; although, antitrust is still needed. This is the blockchain antitrust paradox.
区块链是反垄断法的死亡吗?区块链反垄断悖论
历史上,西方法律体系通过提供法律程序的追索权,帮助各方建立信任,减少交易的不确定性。尽管如此,建立信任仍然会带来巨大的交易成本,而区块链可能会将其降低到更低的水平。与此同时,这项技术的本质提出了有关反垄断法和个人如何进行交易的基本问题。本文旨在通过描述区块链为分析单边反竞争行为所带来的挑战,并提出对反垄断法法规的一些修改,以应对这些挑战,从而为文献做出贡献。为此,本文分三个部分展开。首先,本文认为,由于区块链是分散的、匿名的和不可变的,因此出现了关于检测反竞争行为及其肇事者的能力的问题。我们展示了一些实践实际上更有可能被实现。接下来,本文将讨论当前的反垄断法以及反垄断当局应如何解决这些问题。一方面,监管机构必须避免利用他们对新技术的不熟悉来为过度监管一项可能有益的进步辩护,或者采用本文所说的“区块链借口”进行监管。另一方面,反垄断执法必须适应以保持相关性,本文建议监管机构采用一种使用“法律即法典”方法的“监管渗透”新方法。第三,即使这一新的监管方案被采纳,一些终极问题仍有待解决。本文试图在第三部分中解决这些问题:区块链是我们所知道的反垄断法的死亡吗?应该吗?回答这些问题并不容易,因为区块链还在不断发展。然而,区块链的去中心化性质迫使我们考虑反垄断法的合法性,这取决于与区块链的不可信性质不一致的集中化法律结构和执行;尽管如此,反垄断仍然是必要的。这就是区块链反垄断悖论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信