kaal:claim:2992962-019

Real world court decisions on smart contract disputes, even where attainable, may not carry the same legitimacy and authority for the parties as intra-blockchain dispute resolution mechanisms.

In other words, real world court decisions even if attainable may not have the same legitimacy and authority as other intra-blockchain dispute resolution mechanism may have.

Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017), c) Limited Regulatory Oversight, p. 41
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962

failuresupport: arguedfailure: legitimacy-deficit-of-legacy-courtsfamily: enforcement-gaplaw-and-legal-systemsblockchaingovernance-designsystemic-risk

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/c6ab383480551285...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2992962-019.md | sha256sum

• Qualification: Chief Decision & Capital Officer (CDCO): A Governance-First Framework for Deterministic Decision Authority in AI-Driven Systems
• Extension: Blockchain and AI in Digital Contracts: A Legal Review of Smart Contract Enforcement
• Extension: Digital Jurisdiction: Model
• Qualification: Decentralization and Governance in Blockchain; Mutually Exclusive or Coexistent?
• Qualification: Blockchain Proportional Governance Reconfiguration: Mitigating a Governance Oligarchy
• Qualification: Corporate Governance in a Crypto‐World
• Qualification: The Very Brief History of Decentralized Blockchain Governance