Unlocking Personal Growth: Exploring Blockchain Smart Contracts for Self-Improvement
Summary:
New York University School of Law professors discuss the use of blockchain-based smart contracts for personal growth bets, where individuals make agreements with themselves to improve their habits. They propose using smart contracts as monitors and enforcers, with the ability to forfeit funds or rewards if conditions are not met. The legality of self-contracts and their enforceability is explored, with considerations of using breathalyzers for compliance. The article also mentions controversial scenarios, such as the use of extreme measures as collateral.
Professors from New York University School of Law, Max Raskin and Jack Millman, have recently published a research paper in the Journal on Emerging Technologies, discussing the legalities surrounding the use of blockchain-based smart contracts for personal growth bets. These bets involve single-party contracts that individuals engage in with themselves, aiming to improve their behavior or habits within a specific time frame. Raskin and Millman argue that incentives play a crucial role in motivating individuals to succeed in personal goals, and smart contracts can serve as enforcers and monitors, eliminating the need for external involvement. They propose using contractware, hardware that measures or monitors the conditions of the bet, to enforce compliance with the contract's terms. For instance, an individual attempting to quit smoking could place funds in a smart contract and be required to stay smoke-free for a certain period to regain the funds. If the conditions are not met, the funds can be sent to a designated charity. To ensure compliance, the researchers suggest using a carbon monoxide breathalyzer, similar to an alcohol breathalyzer, to detect cigarette smoke. If the user fails the test or misses a designated check-in, the smart contract's terms would execute autonomously, resulting in the loss of the individual's stake. While the concept seems straightforward, the legal implications of self-contracts and their enforceability remain unclear. Raskin and Millman argue that as long as legal "consideration" is provided, individuals should be able to tie up their own financial resources without legal impediments. However, they acknowledge the need to establish limits, especially considering the autonomous nature of smart contracts. The researchers also mention a hypothetical case where an investor would install a bomb in their skull as a show of commitment to repay a loan. They classify this as a "strong" smart contract due to the immense cost of revocation. However, they acknowledge the unlikelihood of such a contract being legal, given the existence of laws against suicide and promoting suicide.
Published At
9/12/2023 6:00:00 PM
Disclaimer: Algoine does not endorse any content or product on this page. Readers should conduct their own research before taking any actions related to the asset, company, or any information in this article and assume full responsibility for their decisions. This article should not be considered as investment advice. Our news is prepared with AI support.
Do you suspect this content may be misleading, incomplete, or inappropriate in any way, requiring modification or removal?
We appreciate your report.