# kaal:claim:2992962-019

**Claim.** 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.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Source quote.**

> 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.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, *Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution* (2017), c) Limited Regulatory Oversight, page 41

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

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20and%20Calcaterra%20-%202017%20-%20Crypto%20Transaction%20Dispute%20Resolution.pdf

**Failure mode.** legitimacy-deficit-of-legacy-courts  (family: enforcement-gap)

**Topics.** law-and-legal-systems, blockchain, governance-design, systemic-risk

**Keywords.** legitimacy, courts, intra-blockchain-governance, dispute-resolution

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.