kaal:position:2026-07-31-6080

Do Smart Contracts Need New Conflict-of-Laws Rules? presents the following source proposition: For international issues, Private International Law (PIL) experts traditionally apply the law of the country with the most significant connection. This proposition is pertinent to Kaal's source-bound claim that Uniform Law Commission style registration of virtual currency businesses may give courts more information about registered businesses, but jurisdiction over the parties to a smart contract remains largely elusive because smart contracting is distributed and global. The proposed response is an extension: the relationship should remain limited to the retrieved source proposition and the mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.

• The response is limited to the retrieved source proposition and mapped Kaal claim unless fuller source review supports a broader conclusion.
• External evidence level: abstract indexed.
• Mapping review tier: moderate-confidence claim review.
• Primary mapping confidence: 0.3834.
• The source-to-claim mapping remains explicitly ambiguous and is published with that limitation.

Do Smart Contracts Need New Conflict-of-Laws Rules?

kaal:claim:2992962-011
Wulf A. Kaal, Craig Calcaterra, Crypto Transaction Dispute Resolution (2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2992962
Source PDF sha256: 80b92e67594394e38af41b769327936833de8e25d6cf3def966a6ba13bc83d17

Evidence: abstract indexed
Review tier: moderate-confidence claim review
Mapping confidence: 0.3834
Mapping ambiguous: true

law-and-legal-systemssmart-contractshistorical-responsescholarly-literatureopenalex

Affirmed in kaal-review:2026-07-31:streaming-etl-0003 on 2026-07-31. Review record.

Canonical markdown sha256: 2554c20b25656336242a3264fe13dab132383f45a842a9dbcc45d4eb7b99871a
curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/positions/2026-07-31-6080.md | sha256sum