Collaborative relationship between multi-angle analysis of block chains and antitrust

Laws and technologies have overlap in many ways, but scholars and regulators often pay attention to the incompatibility between the two. It is also recommended that they also explore the synergy between laws and technologies, and solve friction with a way to protect them. This exploration should begin with block chains and antitrust.

In recent month, a batch of block chain anti-monopoly cases have emerged. Lonely to see these cases will make people feel that the interaction between block chain technology and anti-monopoly law is just a friction point.

In a case in the United States Corporation, the plaintiff considers a variety of companies – including the famous Bitcoin investor Roger Ver companies – conspiracy to hijetcoin cash network, this violates the “Sherman Act” Article 1. Recently, in the IN Re Tether and Bitfinex encrypted asset proceedings, the plaintiff considers Tether and BitFinex to coordinate the price of Bitcoin. They require $ 1.4 trillion compensation.

All of these cases are for block chain ecosystems, and there is a good reason. They only provide some views of the relationship between block chains and antitrust.

As mentioned in the book “block chain + anti-monopoly”, the regulatory body should treat the block chain and antitrust from the perspective of cooperation. Although friction, block chains and anti-monopoly may seek to go to the central economic opportunity. In fact, the block chain and antitrust not only have the same concerns, but also complement each other in the way “1 + 1 = 3” and produces a synergistic effect.

In the field of anti-monopoly, if large technology companies abuse their specific block chains, the block chain participants can perform anti-monopoly rules and require compensation. If the chain or chain agent coordinates their behavior, oppose the interests of the community, they can also perform anti-Carltre rules.

Also unable to provide a complete solution, and the law can overcome many disadvantages. Policy makers and regulators can use the block chain to supplement the anti-monopoly rules, which are proven to be invalid or unforgettable. Experienced work shows that institutions rarely find violations of anti-monopoly law, or unable to implement law when jurisdiction is unfriendly.

The block chain eliminates the intermediaries with command and control, which in fact eliminates the abuse of this power. In addition, the block chain is consistent with value acquisition with value acquisition. For example, through NFT, the creator can obtain the economic value they created. This consistency is beneficial to anti-monopoly law enforcements. The agency can also use the block chain to improve their consolidated control flow, and ultimately achieve anti-monopoly law enforcement. Can’t provide a complete solution on the law, and the code can help achieve the goals set by the legal rules and standards.

Although the two complementary parts of the same equation, the cooperation between block chains and anti-monopoly needs to take action. If it is not done, the friction between the two will be converted to reducing the revenge strategy of common interests. Cooperation requires legal and scientific community to follow a proactive approach.

In terms of public agencies, cooperation needs to take three actions. First, the regulatory authority should lead the law enforcement activities to the practice of recycling the block chain. Includes illegal behavior implemented outside the chain to protect zone chain participants.

Second, in implementing remedies, courts and regulatory agencies should maintain the deposition of the zone chain. The same is true for new regulations. If the regulator is forcibly putting the block chain in order to apply the law, it will reduce the difference between its centralized system, so that the living chance of the block chain becomes too thin.

Finally, regulators should create legal comfort from the block chain innovation. They should also pay attention to regulatory captures and build a team to prevent and record it.

In the block chain community, cooperation needs to make legal implementation easier by implementing new technical features when necessary. These features can be a voting mechanism to determine the impact, generalized modifiers, enumerations, and chameleons, or looping through the trim block. This function can also take the form of templates and legal plants.

There is a difficult balance between execution capabilities and detritionation, but it is not impossible. Antitrust is the center of the discussion of large technology companies. It will soon be in the block chain ecosystem. We need to promote cooperation between laws and technologies, and ultimately extend the “legal + technology” movement outside of antitrust.