# Self enforcement

`kaal:entity:self-enforcement`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 3 claims that carry the concept tag `self-enforcement`. 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

3 claims across 3 works, 2013 to 2018.

**2013**

- [kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-033](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/kaal-2013-acomparativeperspectiveo-033) [design/asserted] -- Dynamic Regulation could help avoid the regulatory sine curve and its negative and costly consequences, and could provide a self enforcement mechanism independent of the existing regulatory structure and agency enforcement.
  > 2.) Dynamic Regulation may help avoid the regulatory sine curve46 and its negative and costly consequences; 3.) Dynamic Regulation could provide a self – enforcement mechanism, independent from the existing regulatory structure and agency enforcement;
  Kaal, A Comparative Perspective on the Limitations of the Duty of Oversight – A Comment on Lisa Fairfax (2013)

**2017**

- [2998033-023](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2998033-023) [mechanism/asserted] -- Because blockchain is transparent, verifiable, self authenticating and self enforcing, financial transactions can be executed instantaneously at near zero transaction cost, which raises efficiency for businesses and individuals exponentially.
  > Because blockchain technology is transparent, verifiable, self- authenticating, and self-enforcing, financial transactions can be executed instantaneously at near zero transaction costs, increasing the efficiency for business and individuals exponentially.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Blockchain Innovation for Private Investment Funds (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2998033

**2018**

- [3128900-037](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3128900-037) [design/argued] -- Attack resistance should be designed to increase as the platform grows, in contrast to designs like GEMS that detect and ban malicious actors, because a self enforcement mechanism lets the incentive system steer users away from bad actors once the system matures.
  > Unlike GEMS, which bans malicious actors detected through the GEMS trust mechanism from the platform, the Semada platform has a self-enforcement mechanism.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Decentralized Mechanical Turk Through Verified Reputation (2018). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3128900

## 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/self-enforcement.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.