Now the Code Runs Itself: On-Chain and Off-Chain Governance of Blockchain Technologies

Abstract

The invention of Bitcoin in 2008 as a new type of electronic cash has arguably been one of the most radical financial innovations in the last decade. Recently, developer communities of blockchain technologies have started to turn their attention towards the issue of governance. The features of blockchain governance raise questions as to tensions that might arise between a strictly “on-chain” governance system and possible applications of “off-chain” governance. In this paper, we approach these questions by reflecting on a long-running debate in legal philosophy regarding the construction of a positivist legal order. First, we argue that on-chain governance shows striking similarities with Kelsen’s notion of a positivist legal order, characterised by Schmitt as the machine that runs itself. Second, we illustrate some of the problems that emerged from the application of on-chain governance, with particular reference to a calamity in a blockchain-based system called the DAO. Third, we reflect on Schmitt’s argument that the coalescence of private interests is a vulnerability of positivist legal systems, and accordingly posit this as an inherent vulnerability of on-chain governance of existing blockchain-based systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since there is a wide literature about the basics of blockchain technology (cf. Grinberg 2012; Tschorsch and Scheuermann 2016), we will not engage in a technical exposition of how it works. Instead, we will focus on the governance structures adopted by blockchain systems and communities and how these are susceptible to transform social and legal relations between people.

  2. 2.

    Because of these specificities, most blockchain-based systems rely on off-chain governance only in exceptional situations when on-chain governance fails or is unable to process a certain decision—for example, when a protocol change is required to improve a network’s functionalities or fix technical issues that would otherwise place the whole network in jeopardy.

  3. 3.

    As Ippoliti and Chen argue, a central aspect of debates in philosophy of finance, notably with regard to the “view from the inside” (i.e. the study of internal mechanisms of the financial system), is the qualitative study—involving the use of philosophical methods—of “trades executions, laws, institutions, regulators, the behavior and the psychology of traders and investors” (Ippoliti and Chen 2017, p. viii). This paper contributes to studies of this kind because it uses a philosophical method to analyze the governance system of blockchain technologies, which at least in the first instance have been developed as explicitly financial technologies (i.e. digital currencies).

  4. 4.

    This also accords with the way Lessig imagined the code as law, meaning that the limitations placed by code (as opposed to simply the limitation of code) intrinsically bind the behavior of participants (Lessig 2006). As he argued in an early paper on constitution-making in cyberspace, "while regulation in real space is primarily regulation that relies upon the cooperation of the individuals who live under the regulation, regulation in cyberspace can be something different. The code in cyberspace—the software—can enforce its control directly" (Lessig 1996, p. 899).

  5. 5.

    In line with Dyzenhaus (1994, p. 19), we explicitly distance ourselves from accepting Schmitt’s critique—taking heed of Schmitt’s highly problematic embrace of Nazism—but instead use it as a productive critique with which positivist attempts to construct a legal order should be concerned.

  6. 6.

    Public Act No. 436 (2013) in Michigan is a recent example of a legislative response to a state of emergency being declared due to financial crises in Detroit and thereby granting an emergency manager extensive powers in achieving a financial rehabilitation plan, including the right to make binding orders on elected officials.

  7. 7.

    The Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act (2016) is another example of such a response to impending debt default. For a historical account, Agamben (2005, pp. 10–22) traces the parallels between military and economic emergencies throughout the twentieth century.

  8. 8.

    President Macron’s decision to replace the state of emergency with a new counterterrorist law has led some commentators to argue that in fact a permanent state of emergency has been put into effect (McQueen 2017).

  9. 9.

    See the relevant Reddit discussions here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDao/comments/4oisep/ether_safe_but_dao_cancelled_were_getting_a_refund/; https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oiqj7/critical_update_re_dao_vulnerability/ also visualized here: https://dao.consider.it/hard-fork-to-revert-stolen-dao-funds?results=true. Accessed 30 July 2018.

  10. 10.

    See https://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG. Cited 30 July 2018. It should be noted that the authenticity of this letter is disputed. However, as DuPont (2017, p. 174) notes, it nonetheless reflects the view of many in the Ethereum community at the time.

  11. 11.

    Forking is a commonly accepted, though exceptional, practice in open source software development (Robles and González-Barahona 2012). Nyman and Lindman argue that it is a “central freedom” in open source licensing (Nyman and Lindman 2013, pp. 7–8). In blockchain-based systems, soft forks involve a temporary split of a blockchain as part of a software protocol upgrade, in which the original blockchain accrues blocks validated by non-upgraded and upgraded nodes (i.e. is backwards compatible) and the forked blockchain accrues blocks only from upgraded nodes which, following the implementation of the soft fork, tries to achieve a majority of hashing power so that the forked chain reflects the truest sequence of events (Acheson 2018).

  12. 12.

    The problem of a growth of private powers is not unique to the blockchain ecosystem. The concept of a ‘benevolent dictator’ and an oligarchy among co-developers in open-source software development projects has been discussed since the 1990s (Raymond 1998).

  13. 13.

    As Reijers et al. (2016) argue, the sum of individual “wills” in blockchain-based systems, represented by the nodes, do not allow for the conception of a common will, or common good, as it was put forward by the social contract theory of Rousseau.

  14. 14.

    Looking at the most prominent blockchain networks—Bitcoin and Ethereum—this pattern indeed seems to be present. Both these networks suffer from a concentration of voting, or ‘mining’, power, with a few participants who own large portions of the available assets. In the Ethereum community, ether holders, Ethereum developers, miners and exchanges all participate in the governance of the network in order to promote their own interests, without much clarity as to which party has decisive influence (ConsenSys 2016).

  15. 15.

    Although community votes were tallied within 12 h of voting being opened, they accounted for only 5% of ether holders (Santos 2018, pp. 38–44).

References

  1. Acheson N (2018) Hard fork vs. soft fork. CoinDesk, 16 March 2018. https://www.coindesk.com/information/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  2. Agamben G (2005) State of exception. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  3. Atzori M (2015) Blockchain technology and decentralized governance: is the state still necessary? J Gov Regul 6(1):45–62

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buterin V (2014) DAOs, DACs, DAs and more: an incomplete terminology guide. Ethereum Blog, 6 May 2014. https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/05/06/daos-dacs-das-and-more-an-incomplete-terminology-guide/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  5. ConsenSys (2016) The DAO Heist FAQ Part II. Medium, 6 July 2016. https://media.consensys.net/the-dao-heist-faq-part-ii-b10ce890ffdf. Accessed 30 July 2018

  6. Daian P (2016) Analysis of the DAO exploit. Hacking, distributed, 18 June 2016. http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/18/analysis-of-the-dao-exploit/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  7. De Filippi P, Hassan S (2016) Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: from code is law to law is code. First Monday 21(12)

  8. De Filippi P, Wright A (2018) Blockchain and the law: the rule of code. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. DuPont Q (2017) Experiments in algorithmic governance: a history and ethnography of “The DAO,” a failed decentralized autonomous organization. In: Campbell-Verduyn M (ed) Bitcoin and beyond. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dyzenhaus D (1994) Now the machine runs itself. Cardozo L Rev 16(1):1–19

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dyzenhaus D (2006) The constitution of law: legality in a time of emergency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dyzenhaus D (2015) Kelsen, Heller and Schmitt: paradigms of sovereignty thought. Theor Inq Law 16(2):337–366

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goodman LM (2014) Tezos: a self-amending crypto-ledger position paper. https://www.tezos.com/static/papers/position_paper.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2018

  14. Grinberg R (2012) Bitcoin: an innovative alternative digital currency. Hastings Sci Technol Law J 4:159–208

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta V (2015) The Ethereum launch process. Ethereum Blog, 3 March 2015. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/03/03/ethereum-launch-process/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  16. Hart HLA (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hirschman AO (1972) Exit, voice and loyalty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howse R (1997) From legitimacy to dictatorship-and back again: Leo Strauss’s critique of the anti-liberalism of Carl Schmitt. J Law Jurisprudence 77(1):77–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ippoliti E (2017a) Method and finance. A view from outside. In: Chen P, Ippoliti E (eds) Methods and finance. A unifying view on finance, mathematics and philosophy. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ippoliti E (2017b) Method and finance. A view from inside. In: Chen P, Ippoliti E (eds) Methods and finance. A unifying view on finance, mathematics and philosophy. Springer, Berlin, pp 179–194

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ippoliti E, Chen P (2017) Methods and finance: a unifying view on finance, mathematics and philosophy. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kelsen H (2005) Pure theory of law. The Lawbook Exchange, Clark

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lessig L (1996) Reading the constitution in cyberspace. Emory Law J 45(3):869–910

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lessig L (2006) Code version 2.0. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mackenzie D (2006) An engine, not a camera: how financial models shape markets. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. McQueen F (2017) Inside emmanuel macron’s draconian anti-terrorism law. The conversation. http://theconversation.com/inside-emmanuel-macrons-draconian-anti-terrorism-law-83834. Accessed 30 July 2018

  27. Mark D, Zamfir V, Sirer EG (2016) A call for a temporary moratorium on the DAO. Hacking D, 27 May 2016. http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/27/dao-call-for-moratorium/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  28. Norta A (2015) Creation of smart-contracting collaborations for decentralized autonomous organizations. In: Matulevičius R, Dumas M (eds) Perspectives in business informatics research. BIR 2015. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 229. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nyman L, Lindman J (2013) Code forking, governance, and sustainability in open source software. TIM Rev 3(1):7–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Orgad L, Bauböck R (2018) Cloud communities: the dawn of global citizenship? EUI working paper RSCAS 2018/28

  31. Perolini M (2017) France’s permanent state of emergency. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/09/a-permanent-state-of-emergency-in-france/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  32. Pfeffer J (2016) The rise of the dark DAO. Medium, 17 June 2016. https://medium.com/@oaeee/the-rise-of-the-dark-dao-72b21a2212e3. Accessed 30 July 2018

  33. Raymond ES (1998) Homesteading the Noosphere. http://fringe.davesource.com/Fringe/Computers/Philosophy/Homesteading_The_Noosphere/homesteading.html. Accessed 30 July 2018

  34. Reijers W, Brolcháin FO, Haynes P (2016) Governance in blockchain technologies & social contract theories. Ledger Journal 1(1):134–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reyes C (2017) Conceptualizing cryptolaw. Neb Law Rev 96(2):384–445

    Google Scholar 

  36. Robles G, González-Barahona J (2012) A comprehensive study of software forks: dates, reasons and outcomes. In: Hammouda I, Lundell B, Mikkonen T, Scacchi W (eds) Open source systems: long-term sustainability. OSS 2012. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 378. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rossiter C (1948) Constitutional dictatorship: crisis government in the modern democracies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ryan DM (2016) The DAO: an experiment in responsibility. ESR, 23 May 2016. http://enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0516/dao.htm. Accessed 30 July 2018

  39. Santos F (2018) The DAO: a million dollar lesson in blockchain governance. MA Dissertation, Talinn University of Technology, Talinn

  40. Schmitt C (2005 [1922]) Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tschorsch F, Scheuermann B (2016) Bitcoin and beyond: a technical survey on decentralized digital currencies. IEEE Commun Surveys Tutor 18(3):2084–2123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vinx L (2007) Hans Kelsen’s pure theory of law: legality and legitimacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  43. Voegelin E (1927) Kelsen’s pure theory of law. Polit Sci Q 42(2):268–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wood G (2015) Gav’s Ethereum ÐΞV Update V. Ethereum Blog, 2 March 2015. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/03/02/gavs-ethereum-d%CE%BEv-update-v/. Accessed 30 July 2018

  45. Wright C (2017) Proof of work as it relates to the theory of the firm (No. A00137). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2993312

Download references

Funding

This research is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant Agreement No 716350).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wessel Reijers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

This paper does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reijers, W., Wuisman, I., Mannan, M. et al. Now the Code Runs Itself: On-Chain and Off-Chain Governance of Blockchain Technologies. Topoi (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9626-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Blockchain governance
  • Kelsen
  • Schmitt
  • Sovereignty
  • State of exception