In a recent document, the co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterintogether with Harvard professor Thibault Schrepel, argued that blockchain technology is positioned to support antitrust laws in areas where it is difficult to enforce and enforce regulations.
The document called Blockchain Code as Antitrust Law explains this Blockchains can help antitrust laws by increasing decentralization and preventing the creation of monopolies. Blockchains can only do this if regulations support the technology.
“Law and technology should be viewed as allies rather than enemies because they have complementary strengths and weaknesses,” the document said.
Create trust with blockchain
Buterin and Schrepel explained that Blockchain technology can use intelligent contracts to create trust in situations where laws are difficult to enforceB. “if jurisdictions are hostile to one another (cross-border matter) or if the state does not legally restrict the exercise of powers by its representatives or private institutions”.
Smart contracts help Creating an ecosystem in which neither party has to trust the transaction of an unknown person or organization without ensuring that their transaction is successfully completed.
The fact that blockchain is primarily intended to decentralize various industries complements the antitrust laws that prohibit companies from creating a monopoly or from abusing their centralized market power to eliminate competition:
“The idea is that all market participants retain the ability to make decisions without having to follow the instructions of the centralized economic power.”
Highlighting legal support
Buterin and Schrepel asked the competition authorities to consider using blockchain technology. As a two-step process to promote blockchain technology for decentralization proposed that the antitrust authorities create a new legal framework In this way, more developers can test the technology without antitrust concerns.
If these framework conditions are successful, the agencies could move forward with safe havensThey wrote frames that are similar but have no time or scale constraints. They summed up:
“When technology chooses confrontation, the law must choose confrontation. If technology chooses to work together, the law must choose to work together, although certain penalties may be missing. “