# Pacing problem `kaal:entity:pacing-problem` **Status.** derived This node is assembled mechanically from the 16 claims that carry the concept tag `pacing-problem`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself. ## Every claim under this term 16 claims across 4 works, 2016 to 2026. **2016** - [2831040-001](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-001) [mechanism/argued] -- The pacing problem arises from a two sided divergence: innovation driven by science and technology is accelerating at the same time that federal and state agencies' regulatory processes have slowed down and continue to slow down. > Innovation driven by science and technology is accelerating, yet simultaneously, federal and state agencies' regulatory processes have slowed down Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-004](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-004) [mechanism/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Systemic factors widen the divergence between regulation and innovation, including the political and ideological structures of the rulemaking process and the political gridlock of a two party system that impedes the passing of legislation. > Such factors include the political and ideological structures in the rulemaking process, the political gridlock in a two-party system that impedes the passing of legislation Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-006](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-006) [mechanism/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The pacing problem is partly a byproduct of the goal of legal certainty: because regulation is designed to be a durable source of predictability, rulemaking driven by legal certainty cannot keep pace as innovation accelerates. > regulation is commonly perceived as a source of predictability and is meant to last; as innovation accelerates, rulemaking driven by legal certainty cannot keep pace Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-007](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-007) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Facts based, ex post, trial and error rulemaking cannot anticipate the regulatory issues created by innovation, so rulemakers may never recognize, or may recognize only much too late, which new regulatory demands apply to a given innovation. > Because facts-based, ex-post, trial-and-error-rulemaking cannot anticipate regulatory issues created by innovation, rulemakers may not at all–or Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-015](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-015) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The three core law and technology proposals for the pacing problem, regulation via the judiciary, early stage regulation of innovation, and principles based regulation, all have practical limitations and none of them uses dynamic regulatory elements. > None of these proposals uses dynamic regulatory elements. By contrast, dynamic regulation emphasizes dynamic elements in regulating innovation. Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-016](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-016) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Addressing the regulatory issues created by innovation outpacing law through the judiciary is insufficient in the face of exponential innovation, because increasing evidence shows courts cannot sufficiently counterbalance the shortcomings of the legislative system. > Addressing the regulatory issues associated with innovation outpacing law via the judiciary is insufficient in the face of exponential innovation. Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-022](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-022) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Despite the consensus favoring it, early regulatory intervention in innovation is rare in practice, and regulation mostly fails to keep pace as the innovation evolves and as understanding and use of the technology spreads. > In practice, however, early regulatory intervention in innovation is rare. Regulation mostly does not keep pace as the innovation evolves and as the understanding and use of innovative technology spreads Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 - [2831040-030](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2831040-030) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The pace of innovation is incompatible with existing regulatory approaches that demand comprehensive knowledge as a precondition for regulatory action, because innovation is too decentralized, too fast, and too pervasive. > the pace of innovation is incompatible with existing regulatory approaches that demand comprehensive knowledge as a basis for taking regulatory action because innovation is too decentralized, too fast, and too pervasive Wulf A. Kaal, Dynamic Regulation for Innovation (2016). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831040 **2017** - [2834531-005](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-005) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The time frame for rulemaking in the existing regulatory infrastructure is largely inadequate to address the regulatory challenges created by disruptive innovation. > The time frame for rulemaking in the existing regulatory infrastructure is largely inadequate to address regulatory challenges associated with disruptive innovation. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531 - [2834531-006](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-006) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The speed of product innovation allows a new product to reach the market while formal rulemaking, which takes months and often years of procedure, is still occupied with the previous product launch. > The speed of product innovation makes it possible to bring a new product to market while formal rulemaking in the existing regulatory infrastructure, taking months and often years of regulatory procedure, is still dealing with the last product launch. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531 - [2834531-007](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-007) [failure/asserted] *(failure mode)* -- New regulations addressed to an innovative product can be obsolete before they are even finalized. > New regulations pertaining to an innovative product could be obsolete before they are finalized. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531 - [2834531-008](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-008) [failure/asserted] *(failure mode)* -- The existing regulatory infrastructure cannot sufficiently distinguish beneficial innovation from other innovation, and therefore cannot harness it. > The existing regulatory infrastructure cannot sufficiently distinguish and harness beneficial innovation. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531 - [2834531-022](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-022) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Time pressure produces two distinct fact failures: the facts about a new technology may simply not exist yet, or regulators may select the wrong, contested, or irrelevant facts as the basis of regulation. > The pressure of time means that the facts surrounding a piece of new technology or other innovation may not be there, or the regulators may simply select the "wrong" — or at least contested or otherwise irrelevant — facts as the basis of regulation. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531 - [2834531-027](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2834531-027) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- The problem is not regulator bad faith: the acceleration of innovation cycles means that selecting the relevant facts is difficult even under the best conditions and with the best intentions, while simply waiting is likely to bring further complications and criticism. > the acceleration in innovation cycles means that even in the best conditions and with the best of intentions, selecting relevant facts is a difficult task. And the option of simply waiting seems likely to result in further complications and criticism. Mark Fenwick, Wulf A. Kaal, Erik P. M. Vermeulen, Regulation Tomorrow What Happens When Technology Is Faster Than the Law (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2834531 **2026** - [6192998-003](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/6192998-003) [definitional/asserted] -- The tension between the need for regulation and the desire for decentralization produces what the author terms the pacing problem: regulatory frameworks cannot keep pace with technological innovation, so the remedy lies in dynamic autonomous governance rather than static centralized control. > this tension between the need for regulation and the desire for decentralization creates what I term the "pacing problem"—regulatory frameworks cannot keep pace with technological innovation.10 The solution lies not in static centralized control but in dynamic, autonomous governance Wulf A. Kaal, Evolution of Domain-Specific Reputation Systems From Binary Validation to Citation-Weighted Knowledge Attribution (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6192998 - [6607458-031](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/6607458-031) [condition/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Static regulatory frameworks calibrated to legislative timescales cannot govern technologies evolving on exponential timescales, so dynamic regulation that self-adjusts through built-in feedback mechanisms is a precondition for effective governance of the computative domain. > Dynamic regulation, institutional architecture that self-adjusts in response to technological change through built-in feedback mechanisms, is a precondition for effective governance of the computative domain. Wulf A. Kaal, Computative Economics A Framework for Economic Analysis under Computational Abundance (2026). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6607458 ## Verify Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust. curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/pacing-problem.md | sha256sum **Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.