The wealth management landscape in India is experiencing a notable transformation as a growing number of firms, many of which initially began as boutique, urban-based entities, are now expanding their operations into tier-2 and tier-3 cities.

Small cities, towns drive demand for wealth managers

Barclays delivered a second consecutive quarterly update that rattled the market. Comfort regarding the net interest margin outlook for the group’s UK banking business is lacking, with management’s new guidance implying a wide range of potential ...

Barclays: Buy Rating Retained, Conviction Lowered

HedgeFlows, the fintech solution that offers a smart financial toolkit for small and medium-sized businesses, has been selected for Barclays’ prestigious 2023 Rise Growth Academy.

HedgeFlows joins Barclays Rise Growth Academy

Despite these challenges, Barclays demonstrated effective management of credit ... Additionally, the integration of Barclays’ UK wealth business and private bank is progressing positively. While Barclays performed well in certain areas, the bank ...

New Tax Regulations Impact Barclays’ Q3 Earnings Call

Q3 2023 Earnings Call Transcript October 24, 2023 Operator: Welcome to Barclays Q3 2023 Results Analyst and Investor Conference Call. I will now hand over to C.S. Venkatakrishnan, Group Chief Executive,

Barclays PLC (NYSE:BCS) Q3 2023 Earnings Call Transcript

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Barclays Plc is laying off dozens of staff in its U.S. consumer banking division as part of a global drive to cut costs, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Exclusive-Barclays to Lay off Dozens of US Consumer Employees - Source

In the kaleidoscopic world of global finance, the ebb and flow of investments often serve as a barometer of a market's potential. A recent move by Barclays Bank and UBS, two titans of international finance,

Barclays and UBS Investments Boost Chinese A-Shares Market

Bob Diamond's period, first as boss of Barclays Capital and then chief executive of the bank, ended in ignominy. But he astutely rebuilt fixed interest and the US arm by buying Lehman.

ALEX BRUMMER: Barclays' next makeover

Running an investment bank is never steady state. Even Goldman Sachs, the smartest traders and advisors in the business, struggle and have flirted with consumer banking, and now wealth management, as an alternative income stream.Barclays has battled for decades to remain in the game.Bob Diamond’s period, first as boss of Barclays Capital and then chief executive of the bank, ended in ignominy. But he astutely rebuilt fixed interest and the US arm by buying Lehman.As other European investment banks such as Deutsche Bank and UBS have curtailed their ambition, Barclays, under disgraced former chief executive Jes Staley and now his reassuring successor CS Venkatakrishnan, steadfastly has kept the flag flying.Short-termism in the City means Barclays’ shares have taken a battering in the third quarter. One doesn’t have to be an analyst to recognise that the fixed interest market is stalling in an era of surging rates. Corporate and institutional banking income may be down 6pc overall, but at £3.1bn it is not to be dismissed.Similarly, there may be moans and groans about shrinkage in the interest rate margins to 3.04pc at the ring-fenced UK bank. But if those margins were still widening, there would be complaints about customers being exploited.Since Venkat took the helm in 2021, after Staley was stood down over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, his main task has been to steady the ship. It was not made any easier by his diagnosis last year with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, an illness with which I am intimately familiar.Now Venkat is back on deck, it is as good a time as any to conduct a strategic review at a moment when technology is transforming banking on a daily basis.It is not just Barclays’ cost structure and activities which need attention. So does the bank’s governance. The choice of thoughtful Rothschild veteran Nigel Higgins as chairman, as successor to the excitable John Mcfarlane, seemed sensible enough. Rothschild has a stellar reputation as a corporate problem solver.However, the real test of a chairman is how they handle a crisis. The naivety of Higgins and the board in accepting Staley’s version of events about his relationship with Epstein doesn’t bear scrutiny. There was enough knowledge of Staley’s yachting trips to the US Virgin Islands and years of dealings with a morally corrupt financier to sink him long before a stash of emails showing the intimacy of the relationship emerged.Higgins may be waiting upon the Staley appeal to the Financial Conduct Authority’s tribunal to be adjudicated before taking responsibility for a governance debacle. If Barclays really wants a fresh start, then it should begin at the very top.In Sir John Kingman, the chairman of Barclays’ ring-fenced UK bank and author of an astute report on audit and governance reform, it has an ideal replacement.Tech traumaBritain remains a vital hub for fintech. It is no accident that JP Morgan Chase has chosen to make London its headquarters for European digital banking.Unfortunately, in spite of the opportunity, it is not all plain sailing for new tech. Revolut, Britain’s biggest banking start-up with 8m customers, still lacks a UK banking licence more than two years after it first applied. It has been plagued by qualified accounts and delayed financial reporting.The latest newcomer to encounter problems is CAB Payments. Its shares sank 72pc in latest trading after it revealed its business model, which is based round making financial transfers to Africa, was suffering from volatility in local currencies hurting margins and volumes. Who would have guessed that currencies go up and down?CAB’s problems slightly jolted the shares of much larger competitor Wise, which had a run-in with HMRC over the personal tax affairs of founder Kristo Kaarmann.Teething difficulties in start-ups are to be expected. But getting forecasts, audit and tax affairs so wrong is unforgivable.Numbers gameFull marks to the Office for National Statistics for coming up with ‘experimental’ data for unemployment figures by mining tax records and benefits claims. That shows initiative, given that data from the usually reliable Labour Force Survey is incomplete.Yet it is disturbing that for the second time in a few weeks, the official data on which major economic decisions are made turns out to be untrustworthy. That’s scary.

The U.K. bank announced mixed quarterly results and lowered its forward outlook for net interest margin. Here's what investors need to know.

Why Barclays Stock Plunged Today

Barclays Wealth Management

barclays

A Storm Brewing: Barclays' Cost-Cutting Plan Ruffles Feathers Hey there! So, it seems like British bank Barclays is planning to make some big changes. British Barclays is stirring up a tempest with its reported plan to slash around 2,000 jobs. According to trusty sources at Reuters, the bank is on a mission to trim costs by a whopping £1 billion ($1.25 billion). Brace yourselves for the details that lie ahead! Cutting Deep: The Back-Office Shake-Up In the realm of profit-boosting, Barclays' managers are leaving no stone unturned. Whispers in the wind suggest that proposals are being reviewed, potentially targeting 1,500 to 2,000 jobs in back-office departments like legal and HR. Those roles, my friends, might just be facing the chopping block. Impact Zone: Barclays Execution Services in the Crosshairs The battlefield of job cuts is predicted to primarily affect Barclays Execution Services (BX), a mighty service company that supports various arms of the bank. Currently employing over a quarter of Barclays' troops, around 22,300 valiant souls, BX is bracing for the storm. A Twist in the Tale: Priority Plays Hide and Seek Ah, the unpredictable nature of it all! While discussions about the looming layoffs continue, whispers from the shadows suggest that the bank might end up shifting its focus to other areas. The plot thickens, my friends, leaving us guessing about the final targets of this restructuring saga. Weathering the Storm: Barclays' Q3 Results and the Quest for Efficiency A dark cloud looms over Barclays' recent Q3 results, revealing a dreary 16% drop in Q3 profits, amounting to £1.3bn. But fear not, for , stands firm. He vows to seek out inefficiencies, paving the way to lower "structural costs." CS Venkatakrishnan, the group chief executive of Barclays All eyes turn towards the investor presentation scheduled for February, eagerly awaiting further clues to the bank's strategy. Unraveling Fate: The Saga Continues And so, dear readers, we find ourselves in the midst of this gripping saga. The cards have been dealt, and the winds of change are blowing through Barclays. As we await the unveiling of their grand plan, let us hope for the best, keeping our thoughts with the employees who might face uncertain times.

Barclays' Cost-Cutting Plan Ruffles Feathers

The Economics of Public Cloud Repatriation and Why You Can't Stay in the Cloud at Scale

İctimai Bulud Repatriasiyasının İqtisadiyyatı və Niyə Ölçəkdə Xərcli Qadağandır

পাবলিক ক্লাউড প্রত্যাবর্তনের অর্থনীতি এবং কেন এটি স্কেলে ব্যয়-নিষিদ্ধ

Ekonomija repatrijacije javnog oblaka i zašto je skupo na nivou

La economía de la repatriación a la nube pública y por qué resulta prohibitivamente costosa a gran escala

パブリック クラウドの回帰の経済性と、大規模になるとコストがかかりすぎる理由

د عامه کلاوډ بیرته ستنیدو اقتصاد او ولې دا په پیمانه لګښت منع دی

Iyo Economics yePublic Cloud Repatriation uye Nei Iri Mutengo-unorambidza paChikero

பொது கிளவுட் திருப்பி அனுப்புதலின் பொருளாதாரம் மற்றும் அது ஏன் அளவில் செலவு-தடை

Kamu Bulutu Geri Yüklemenin Ekonomisi ve Ölçekte Maliyet Açısından Neden Engelleyici Olduğu

Ommaviy bulutli repatriatsiya iqtisodiyoti va nega u miqyosda qimmatga tushadi

Kinh tế học của việc hồi hương đám mây công cộng và lý do tại sao nó lại quá tốn kém ở quy mô lớn

I-Economics of Public Cloud Repatriation kanye nokuthi kungani ibiza kakhulu ngokwesikali

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work 4.1 Summary This paper has considered four foundational topics regarding smart contracts: terminology, automation, enforceability, and semantics. We defined a smart contract as an automatable and enforceable agreement. We viewed legal contracts within a simple semantic framework based on two key aspects: one being the operational aspects concerning automation of the contract and another being the non-operational aspects. We then described templates for legally-enforceable smart contracts as electronic representations of legal documents containing prose and parameters (with each parameter comprising an identifier, a type and an optional value). Agreements are then fully-instantiated templates, including customised legal prose and parameters. By selecting the appropriate smart contract code, this approach results in the creation of Ricardian Contract triples. We then explored the design landscape: increasing the sophistication of parameters to complex higher-order types and business logic that could be admissible in court and potentially replace the corresponding legal prose. We also explored increasing the use of common standardised code through greater sharing, evolving from different codebases across banks to broader adoption of common utility functions to common business logic. Additionally, longterm research was outlined which could lead to source languages which can be automatically translated into both code and legal prose; even longer term research could result in formal languages which themselves are admissible in court. 4.2 Further Work A benefit of looking to the future is that it helps to identify a potential roadmap for applying research within industry. Smart Contract Templates have already demonstrated a way to link standardised agreements to standardised code and so, in the near term, it may be possible to utilise them with existing infrastructure. In the longer term, they could be utilised on shared ledgers. We are continuing to collaborate broadly, including via trade associations such as ISDA and FIA, on exploring formats for the storage and transmission of smart legal agreements comprising legal prose and parameters. Of particular interest are the corresponding essential requirements and design options, including the possibility of extending the scope of existing data standards such as FpML (Financial products Markup Language) for derivatives. There are many open questions for the future. We have explored some of these questions in this paper, but we will end with one more: is it possible to provide straight-through-processing of financial contracts, with full confidence in the fidelity of the automated computer code to the entire semantics of the contract? This, of course, will require substantial work and collaboration by the financial services industry, standards bodies, academia[8], and lawyers. References [1] Axoni. AxCore, 2016. https://axoni.com/. [2] L. Braine. Barclays’ Smart Contract Templates, 2016. Barclays London Accelerator, https://vimeo.com/168844103/ and http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/barclays-smart-contracttemplates-heralds-first-ever-public-demo-r3s-corda-platform-1555329/. [3] R.G. Brown, J. Carlyle, I. Grigg, and M. Hearn. Corda: An introduction, 2016. At https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f73743e4b051cfcc0b02cf/t/ 57bda2fdebbd1acc9c0309b2/1472045822585/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf. Also see https://www.corda.net/. [4] CommonAccord, 2016. http://www.commonaccord.org/. [5] Digital Asset. The Digital Asset Platform - Non-technical White Paper, 2016. Available at https://digitalasset.com/press/digital-asset-releases-non-technical-white-paper.html. [6] Ethereum, 2016. https://www.ethereum.org/. [7] I. Grigg. The ricardian contract. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting, pages 25–31. IEEE, 2004. http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_ contract.html. [8] I. Grigg. On the intersection of ricardian and smart contracts, 2015. http://iang.org/ papers/intersection_ricardian_smart.html. [9] I. Grigg. The sum of all chains — let’s converge!, 2015. Presentation for Coinscrum and Proof of Work. http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001556.html. [10] T. Hvitved. Contract Formalisation and Modular Implementation of Domain-Specific Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2012. [11] Hyperledger Fabric, 2016. https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/. [12] Monax Industries. Dual Integration, 2016. https://monax.io/explainers/dual_ integration/. [13] Legalese, 2016. http://www.legalese.com/. [14] M. Mainelli and A. Milne. The impact and potential of blockchain on the securities transaction lifecycle, 2016. SWIFT Institute Working Paper No. 2015-007. [15] R3 and Norton Rose Fulbright. Can smart contracts be legally binding contracts?, 2016. http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144559/can-smartcontracts-be-legally-binding-contracts/. [16] J. Stark. Making sense of blockchain smart contracts, 2016. http://www.coindesk.com/ making-sense-smart-contracts/. [17] T. Swanson. Great chain of numbers: A guide to smart contracts, smart property and trustless asset management, 2014. https://s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com/chainbook/Great+Chain+of+Numbers+A+Guide+to+Smart+Contr acts%2C+Smart+Property+and+Trustless+Asset+Management+-+Tim+Swanson.pdf. [18] T. Swanson. Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems, 2015. http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf. [19] N. Szabo. Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First mind, 2(9), 1997. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. [8] For example, further investigation of contract semantics and the specification language CLACK is being pursued at University College London. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work 4.1 Summary This paper has considered four foundational topics regarding smart contracts: terminology, automation, enforceability, and semantics. We defined a smart contract as an automatable and enforceable agreement. We viewed legal contracts within a simple semantic framework based on two key aspects: one being the operational aspects concerning automation of the contract and another being the non-operational aspects. We then described templates for legally-enforceable smart contracts as electronic representations of legal documents containing prose and parameters (with each parameter comprising an identifier, a type and an optional value). Agreements are then fully-instantiated templates, including customised legal prose and parameters. By selecting the appropriate smart contract code, this approach results in the creation of Ricardian Contract triples. We then explored the design landscape: increasing the sophistication of parameters to complex higher-order types and business logic that could be admissible in court and potentially replace the corresponding legal prose. We also explored increasing the use of common standardised code through greater sharing, evolving from different codebases across banks to broader adoption of common utility functions to common business logic. Additionally, longterm research was outlined which could lead to source languages which can be automatically translated into both code and legal prose; even longer term research could result in formal languages which themselves are admissible in court. 4.2 Further Work A benefit of looking to the future is that it helps to identify a potential roadmap for applying research within industry. Smart Contract Templates have already demonstrated a way to link standardised agreements to standardised code and so, in the near term, it may be possible to utilise them with existing infrastructure. In the longer term, they could be utilised on shared ledgers. We are continuing to collaborate broadly, including via trade associations such as ISDA and FIA, on exploring formats for the storage and transmission of smart legal agreements comprising legal prose and parameters. Of particular interest are the corresponding essential requirements and design options, including the possibility of extending the scope of existing data standards such as FpML (Financial products Markup Language) for derivatives. There are many open questions for the future. We have explored some of these questions in this paper, but we will end with one more: is it possible to provide straight-through-processing of financial contracts, with full confidence in the fidelity of the automated computer code to the entire semantics of the contract? This, of course, will require substantial work and collaboration by the financial services industry, standards bodies, academia[8], and lawyers. References [1] Axoni. AxCore, 2016. https://axoni.com/. [2] L. Braine. Barclays’ Smart Contract Templates, 2016. Barclays London Accelerator, https://vimeo.com/168844103/ and http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/barclays-smart-contracttemplates-heralds-first-ever-public-demo-r3s-corda-platform-1555329/. [3] R.G. Brown, J. Carlyle, I. Grigg, and M. Hearn. Corda: An introduction, 2016. At https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f73743e4b051cfcc0b02cf/t/ 57bda2fdebbd1acc9c0309b2/1472045822585/corda-introductory-whitepaper-final.pdf. Also see https://www.corda.net/. [4] CommonAccord, 2016. http://www.commonaccord.org/. [5] Digital Asset. The Digital Asset Platform - Non-technical White Paper, 2016. Available at https://digitalasset.com/press/digital-asset-releases-non-technical-white-paper.html. [6] Ethereum, 2016. https://www.ethereum.org/. [7] I. Grigg. The ricardian contract. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Electronic Contracting, pages 25–31. IEEE, 2004. http://iang.org/papers/ricardian_ contract.html. [8] I. Grigg. On the intersection of ricardian and smart contracts, 2015. http://iang.org/ papers/intersection_ricardian_smart.html. [9] I. Grigg. The sum of all chains — let’s converge!, 2015. Presentation for Coinscrum and Proof of Work. http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001556.html. [10] T. Hvitved. Contract Formalisation and Modular Implementation of Domain-Specific Languages. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2012. [11] Hyperledger Fabric, 2016. https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric/. [12] Monax Industries. Dual Integration, 2016. https://monax.io/explainers/dual_ integration/. [13] Legalese, 2016. http://www.legalese.com/. [14] M. Mainelli and A. Milne. The impact and potential of blockchain on the securities transaction lifecycle, 2016. SWIFT Institute Working Paper No. 2015-007. [15] R3 and Norton Rose Fulbright. Can smart contracts be legally binding contracts?, 2016. http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144559/can-smartcontracts-be-legally-binding-contracts/. [16] J. Stark. Making sense of blockchain smart contracts, 2016. http://www.coindesk.com/ making-sense-smart-contracts/. [17] T. Swanson. Great chain of numbers: A guide to smart contracts, smart property and trustless asset management, 2014. https://s3-us-west2.amazonaws.com/chainbook/Great+Chain+of+Numbers+A+Guide+to+Smart+Contr acts%2C+Smart+Property+and+Trustless+Asset+Management+-+Tim+Swanson.pdf. [18] T. Swanson. Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems, 2015. http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/ 04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf. [19] N. Szabo. Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First mind, 2(9), 1997. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [8] For example, further investigation of contract semantics and the specification language CLACK is being pursued at University College London.

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - Summary, Further Work & References

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - Smart Contract Designs

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 3.1 Templates and Parameters A template is an electronic representation of a legal document as issued by a standards body — for example, by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). As illustrated in Figure 2, a template contains both legal prose and parameters, where each parameter has an identity (a unique name), a type, and may (but need not) have a value. An agreement is a fully-instantiated template (including any customised legal prose and parameters). The customisation of legal prose and parameters at this stage is commonplace and results from negotiation between the counterparties. The legal prose of an agreement will be derived from that of the template, but need not be identical, and similarly the parameters of the agreement will be derived from the template but need not be identical. It is also common for agreements to comprise multiple documents such as framework agreements (e.g. a Master Agreement) with various annexes (e.g. a Schedule) and credit support documentation (e.g. a Credit Support Annex). Deriving the set of code parameters may be complicated by three factors: It is common for parameters to be embedded in the legal prose — such parameters would initially be identified visually, aided by a graphical user interface.


Some of the values identified as “parameters” in the agreement (or template) may not have an operational impact and therefore would not be passed to the smart contract code.


It is possible for a parameter to be defined (given a name) in one document, given a value in a second document, and used (e.g. in business logic) in a third document. Although parameters need not have values in a template, they must have values in a signed agreement. All of an agreement’s parameter values are a critical part of the contract as they directly reflect the business relationship between parties and those that are code parameters influence the automated operation of the contract. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 3.1 Templates and Parameters A template is an electronic representation of a legal document as issued by a standards body — for example, by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). As illustrated in Figure 2, a template contains both legal prose and parameters, where each parameter has an identity (a unique name), a type, and may (but need not) have a value. An agreement is a fully-instantiated template (including any customised legal prose and parameters). The customisation of legal prose and parameters at this stage is commonplace and results from negotiation between the counterparties. The legal prose of an agreement will be derived from that of the template, but need not be identical, and similarly the parameters of the agreement will be derived from the template but need not be identical. It is also common for agreements to comprise multiple documents such as framework agreements (e.g. a Master Agreement) with various annexes (e.g. a Schedule) and credit support documentation (e.g. a Credit Support Annex). Deriving the set of code parameters may be complicated by three factors: It is common for parameters to be embedded in the legal prose — such parameters would initially be identified visually, aided by a graphical user interface. Some of the values identified as “parameters” in the agreement (or template) may not have an operational impact and therefore would not be passed to the smart contract code. It is possible for a parameter to be defined (given a name) in one document, given a value in a second document, and used (e.g. in business logic) in a third document. It is common for parameters to be embedded in the legal prose — such parameters would initially be identified visually, aided by a graphical user interface. It is common for parameters to be embedded in the legal prose — such parameters would initially be identified visually, aided by a graphical user interface. Some of the values identified as “parameters” in the agreement (or template) may not have an operational impact and therefore would not be passed to the smart contract code. Some of the values identified as “parameters” in the agreement (or template) may not have an operational impact and therefore would not be passed to the smart contract code. It is possible for a parameter to be defined (given a name) in one document, given a value in a second document, and used (e.g. in business logic) in a third document. It is possible for a parameter to be defined (given a name) in one document, given a value in a second document, and used (e.g. in business logic) in a third document. Although parameters need not have values in a template, they must have values in a signed agreement. All of an agreement’s parameter values are a critical part of the contract as they directly reflect the business relationship between parties and those that are code parameters influence the automated operation of the contract. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - Templates and Parameters

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 3 Smart Contract Templates Smart Contract Templates provide a framework to support complex legal agreements for financial instruments, based on standardised templates. Following Grigg’s Ricardian Contract triple [9], they use parameters to connect legal prose to the corresponding computer code, with the aim of providing a legally-enforceable foundation for smart legal contracts. Complex sets of legal documentation can be augmented with the identification of operational parameters that are key to directing the behaviour of the smart contract code (in this paper we call these “code parameters”) — the smart contract code is assumed to be standardised code whose behaviour can be controlled by the input of such parameters. Here we explore the design landscape for the implementation of Smart Contract Templates. We observe that the landscape is broad and that there are many potentially viable sets of design decisions. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 3 Smart Contract Templates Smart Contract Templates provide a framework to support complex legal agreements for financial instruments, based on standardised templates. Following Grigg’s Ricardian Contract triple [9], they use parameters to connect legal prose to the corresponding computer code, with the aim of providing a legally-enforceable foundation for smart legal contracts. Complex sets of legal documentation can be augmented with the identification of operational parameters that are key to directing the behaviour of the smart contract code (in this paper we call these “code parameters”) — the smart contract code is assumed to be standardised code whose behaviour can be controlled by the input of such parameters. Here we explore the design landscape for the implementation of Smart Contract Templates. We observe that the landscape is broad and that there are many potentially viable sets of design decisions. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - Smart Contract Templates

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2.4 The semantics of contracts Part of our remit is to consider the semantics of a contract — i.e. what is the “meaning” of a contract? We view a legal contract as having two aspects: The operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we wish to automate, which typically derive from consideration of precise actions to be taken by the parties and therefore are concerned with performing the contract.


The non-operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we do not wish to (or cannot) automate. We may approach the semantics of these two aspects of the contract in different ways. For example, with the operational aspects we may wish to compare a semantic analysis of the contract with a semantic analysis of the computer code — if it were possible to develop a proof for semantic equivalence[3], this could be used early in the development lifecycle to increase confidence and reduce testing and debugging effort. By contrast, for the non-operational aspects of the contract we may wish to conduct a range of different semantic analyses — e.g. to analyse different forms of risk associated with a contract. A contract may comprise several documents, and the process by which these documents are agreed may be complex. The semantics of the non-operational aspects of even quite straightforward contracts can be very large and complex, yet by contrast the semantics of the operational aspects might be simple and easily encoded for automation. The operational aspects of a contract would typically dictate the successful performance of the contract to completion. If a dispute arises, then the non-operational aspects of the contract would typically dictate what happens next — i.e. in the context of the rights and obligations of the parties, the specification of what remedies shall be applied in the case of contract partial-performance or non-performance by one party. The greater part of a legal contract may often be devoted to defining the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of a problem. Sometimes, the actions to be taken in case of material breach of contract are expressed precisely; however, this is not always the case and dispute resolution may require a protracted process of negotiated settlement, arbitration, or court proceedings. Furthermore, it is important to understand the role of law. A lawyer would read and understand the contract in the context of the governing law — i.e. each legal document must be interpreted according to the relevant law (corporate law, consumer law, etc.) of its stated or inferred jurisdiction, and therefore the semantics of that law must also be understood. It should be noted that the issue of law relates not only to the non-operational aspects but also to the operational aspects — for example, trading with certain countries may be illegal due to government-imposed sanctions. Given this semantic framework for the legal contracts that underpin financial instruments, we can derive a different perspective of smart contracts: • smart contract code focuses exclusively on automation by computer and therefore concerns itself only with performing those operational aspects that are expressed in the code, whereas • smart legal contracts consider both the operational and non-operational aspects of a legal contract, some of whose operational aspects must then be automated (presumably by smart contract code). This idea was previously expressed in a slightly different way by Grigg [8], displayed as a chart where the y-axis was denoted the “Ricardian axis” of increasing semantic richness (i.e. increasingly capturing the semantics of the legal prose) and the x-axis was the “Smart axis” of increasing performance richness (primarily concerned with the execution of smart contract code): see Figure 1. Both are important, yet they are orthogonal issues and with appropriate interfacing developments can potentially proceed along both axes simultaneously. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. [3] Approaches to formal semantics include, for example, denotational semantics and operational semantics. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2.4 The semantics of contracts Part of our remit is to consider the semantics of a contract — i.e. what is the “meaning” of a contract? We view a legal contract as having two aspects: The operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we wish to automate, which typically derive from consideration of precise actions to be taken by the parties and therefore are concerned with performing the contract. The non-operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we do not wish to (or cannot) automate. The operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we wish to automate, which typically derive from consideration of precise actions to be taken by the parties and therefore are concerned with performing the contract. The operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we wish to automate, which typically derive from consideration of precise actions to be taken by the parties and therefore are concerned with performing the contract. operational aspects: operational aspects: The non-operational aspects: these are the parts of the contract that we do not wish to (or cannot) automate. The non-operational aspects : these are the parts of the contract that we do not wish to (or cannot) automate. non-operational aspects non-operational aspects We may approach the semantics of these two aspects of the contract in different ways. For example, with the operational aspects we may wish to compare a semantic analysis of the contract with a semantic analysis of the computer code — if it were possible to develop a proof for semantic equivalence[3], this could be used early in the development lifecycle to increase confidence and reduce testing and debugging effort. By contrast, for the non-operational aspects of the contract we may wish to conduct a range of different semantic analyses — e.g. to analyse different forms of risk associated with a contract. A contract may comprise several documents, and the process by which these documents are agreed may be complex. The semantics of the non-operational aspects of even quite straightforward contracts can be very large and complex, yet by contrast the semantics of the operational aspects might be simple and easily encoded for automation. The operational aspects of a contract would typically dictate the successful performance of the contract to completion. If a dispute arises, then the non-operational aspects of the contract would typically dictate what happens next — i.e. in the context of the rights and obligations of the parties, the specification of what remedies shall be applied in the case of contract partial-performance or non-performance by one party. The greater part of a legal contract may often be devoted to defining the rights and obligations of the parties in the event of a problem. Sometimes, the actions to be taken in case of material breach of contract are expressed precisely; however, this is not always the case and dispute resolution may require a protracted process of negotiated settlement, arbitration, or court proceedings. Furthermore, it is important to understand the role of law. A lawyer would read and understand the contract in the context of the governing law — i.e. each legal document must be interpreted according to the relevant law (corporate law, consumer law, etc.) of its stated or inferred jurisdiction, and therefore the semantics of that law must also be understood. It should be noted that the issue of law relates not only to the non-operational aspects but also to the operational aspects — for example, trading with certain countries may be illegal due to government-imposed sanctions. in the context of Given this semantic framework for the legal contracts that underpin financial instruments, we can derive a different perspective of smart contracts: • smart contract code focuses exclusively on automation by computer and therefore concerns itself only with performing those operational aspects that are expressed in the code, whereas • smart legal contracts consider both the operational and non-operational aspects of a legal contract, some of whose operational aspects must then be automated (presumably by smart contract code). This idea was previously expressed in a slightly different way by Grigg [8], displayed as a chart where the y-axis was denoted the “Ricardian axis” of increasing semantic richness (i.e. increasingly capturing the semantics of the legal prose) and the x-axis was the “Smart axis” of increasing performance richness (primarily concerned with the execution of smart contract code): see Figure 1. Both are important, yet they are orthogonal issues and with appropriate interfacing developments can potentially proceed along both axes simultaneously. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [3] Approaches to formal semantics include, for example, denotational semantics and operational semantics.

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - The Semantics of Contracts

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2.3 Enforceability Given a smart contract must be “enforceable” [15], what are the elements that must be enforced? And how? First we consider what must be enforced: 2.3.1 What to enforce What needs to be enforced is different for smart contract code and smart legal contracts: • For smart contract code, the key requirement is that the code should run successfully and accurately within a reasonable time. If the technology platform is in complete control of all of the actions of the smart contract code then these actions should occur faithfully and without undue delay. Things that could go wrong (and therefore require “enforcement”) include technical issues within the platform and issues that take place outside of the platform — an obvious example would be the physical delivery of goods. • For smart legal contracts, things can be considerably more complex. Typically a legal contract would include rights and obligations that accrue to the different parties and are legally enforceable. These are often expressed in complex, context-sensitive, legal prose and may cover not just individual actions but also time-dependent and sequencedependent sets of actions. There may also be overriding obligations on one or more of the parties such that a lack of action could be deemed to be a wrong-performance or non-performance of the contract. 2.3.2 How to enforce Enforcement might be achieved via traditional or non-traditional methods: • Traditional means of enforcement include a variety of dispute resolution methods such as binding (or non-binding) arbitration, or recourse to the courts of law. There is an established body of law, and the methods by which parties can resolve disputes are well known. For illegal acts, courts are for example empowered (to different extents, according to jurisdiction) to impose fines, sequester assets, or deprive the wrong-doer of liberty. For disputes relating to contracts, the courts have extensive experience of adjudicating on issues of contract wrong-performance and non-performance, of awarding damages or other reliefs as appropriate, and in some cases assisting in the enforcement of payment of damages. • Non-traditional methods of enforcement may also be imagined. For example, there is currently debate and experimentation on enforcing the actions of smart contract code at a network level without the need for dispute resolution. This is a fundamentally different notion of enforcement that is often expressed in terms of “tamper-proof” technology, with the assumption that in a perfect implementation of the system wrong-performance or non-performance become impossible. “Tamper-proof” technology is typically described in terms of distributed networks of computers that are unstoppable and in a technological sense cannot fail regardless of malicious acts, power cuts, network disruption, natural catastrophies or any other conceivable event. For example, a “permissionless” shared ledger might make use of tamper-proof technology. Swanson [18] gives a good overview of many of the complex issues that arise with permissioned and permissionless distributed consensus systems. With such a system, it is assumed that a software agent, once started, could not be stopped. For truly “unstoppable” software agents, code must be defined to take the appropriate action in response to various dynamic states that might occur (such as another party defaulting on a required payment). In a truly unstoppable “tamper-proof” version of the system, all such possibilities would have to be anticipated and appropriate actions determined in advance. Although some groups are actively pursuing tamper-proof smart contract code, our preference is for smart legal contracts that are enforceable by traditional legal methods for reasons including: • In a system with enforcement by tamper-proof network consensus, there would be no “executive override” provisions. Agreements, once launched as smart contract code, could not be varied. But it is common for provisions of an agreement to be varied dynamically — for example, to permit a client to defer paying interest, or to permit a payment holiday, or to permit the rolling-up of interest over a period. Unless every possible variation is coded in advance, none of this would be possible in a tamper-proof system. • Enforcement by network consensus can only apply to the fulfilment of obligations, or the exercising of rights, that are under the control of the network. However, objects and actions in the physical world are unlikely to be under full (if any) control of the network. • Mainelli and Milne [14] observe that smart contract code “that involved payments would require posting collateral to be completely automated. This locking-up of collateral would lead to a serious reduction in leverage and pull liquidity out of markets. Markets might become more stable, but the significant reduction in leverage and consequent market decline would be strongly resisted by market participants.” This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2.3 Enforceability Given a smart contract must be “enforceable” [15], what are the elements that must be enforced? And how? First we consider what must be enforced: 2.3.1 What to enforce What needs to be enforced is different for smart contract code and smart legal contracts: • For smart contract code, the key requirement is that the code should run successfully and accurately within a reasonable time. If the technology platform is in complete control of all of the actions of the smart contract code then these actions should occur faithfully and without undue delay. Things that could go wrong (and therefore require “enforcement”) include technical issues within the platform and issues that take place outside of the platform — an obvious example would be the physical delivery of goods. smart contract code, smart contract code, • For smart legal contracts , things can be considerably more complex. Typically a legal contract would include rights and obligations that accrue to the different parties and are legally enforceable. These are often expressed in complex, context-sensitive, legal prose and may cover not just individual actions but also time-dependent and sequencedependent sets of actions. There may also be overriding obligations on one or more of the parties such that a lack of action could be deemed to be a wrong-performance or non-performance of the contract. smart legal contracts smart legal contracts 2.3.2 How to enforce Enforcement might be achieved via traditional or non-traditional methods: • Traditional means of enforcement include a variety of dispute resolution methods such as binding (or non-binding) arbitration, or recourse to the courts of law. There is an established body of law, and the methods by which parties can resolve disputes are well known. For illegal acts, courts are for example empowered (to different extents, according to jurisdiction) to impose fines, sequester assets, or deprive the wrong-doer of liberty. For disputes relating to contracts, the courts have extensive experience of adjudicating on issues of contract wrong-performance and non-performance, of awarding damages or other reliefs as appropriate, and in some cases assisting in the enforcement of payment of damages. Traditional Traditional • Non-traditional methods of enforcement may also be imagined. For example, there is currently debate and experimentation on enforcing the actions of smart contract code at a network level without the need for dispute resolution. This is a fundamentally different notion of enforcement that is often expressed in terms of “tamper-proof” technology, with the assumption that in a perfect implementation of the system wrong-performance or non-performance become impossible. • Non-traditional • Non-traditional “Tamper-proof” technology is typically described in terms of distributed networks of computers that are unstoppable and in a technological sense cannot fail regardless of malicious acts, power cuts, network disruption, natural catastrophies or any other conceivable event. For example, a “permissionless” shared ledger might make use of tamper-proof technology. Swanson [18] gives a good overview of many of the complex issues that arise with permissioned and permissionless distributed consensus systems. With such a system, it is assumed that a software agent, once started, could not be stopped. For truly “unstoppable” software agents, code must be defined to take the appropriate action in response to various dynamic states that might occur (such as another party defaulting on a required payment). In a truly unstoppable “tamper-proof” version of the system, all such possibilities would have to be anticipated and appropriate actions determined in advance. Although some groups are actively pursuing tamper-proof smart contract code, our preference is for smart legal contracts that are enforceable by traditional legal methods for reasons including: • In a system with enforcement by tamper-proof network consensus, there would be no “executive override” provisions. Agreements, once launched as smart contract code, could not be varied. But it is common for provisions of an agreement to be varied dynamically — for example, to permit a client to defer paying interest, or to permit a payment holiday, or to permit the rolling-up of interest over a period. Unless every possible variation is coded in advance, none of this would be possible in a tamper-proof system. • Enforcement by network consensus can only apply to the fulfilment of obligations, or the exercising of rights, that are under the control of the network. However, objects and actions in the physical world are unlikely to be under full (if any) control of the network. • Mainelli and Milne [14] observe that smart contract code “that involved payments would require posting collateral to be completely automated. This locking-up of collateral would lead to a serious reduction in leverage and pull liquidity out of markets. Markets might become more stable, but the significant reduction in leverage and consequent market decline would be strongly resisted by market participants.” This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - Enforceability

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2.2 Automation We say that a smart contract is “automatable” rather than that it is “automated” because in practice there may be parts of a legal agreement whose performance requires human input and control. However, to be a “smart contract” we require that some part of the agreement is capable of being automated (otherwise it is not “smart”). Automation is generally accomplished by the use of one or more computers. The phrase “by electronic means” is a synonym. Our definition of smart contract does not require that this automation occurs on a shared ledger, though that is certainly a possible and even probable method. As an example of how automation might be achieved using smart legal contracts, Grigg [9] presents the Ricardian Contract triple of “prose, parameters and code”.[1] The legal prose is linked via parameters (name-value pairs) to the smart contract code that provides automation. For example, a software agent might have been developed that will be instantiated on a shared ledger and, once initiated, will proceed to undertake various transfers of value in accordance with the legal prose. The parameters are a succinct way to inform the code of the final operational details. The code in this case would be suitable for a specific platform but we can imagine in the future that multiple platforms could be targeted from a single contract.[2] This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_Contract [2] This could be achieved by, for example, using the list of parameters to connect the legal prose to a set of smart software agents, e.g. one agent per platform. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2.2 Automation We say that a smart contract is “automatable” rather than that it is “automated” because in practice there may be parts of a legal agreement whose performance requires human input and control. However, to be a “smart contract” we require that some part of the agreement is capable of being automated (otherwise it is not “smart”). Automation is generally accomplished by the use of one or more computers. The phrase “by electronic means” is a synonym. Our definition of smart contract does not require that this automation occurs on a shared ledger, though that is certainly a possible and even probable method. As an example of how automation might be achieved using smart legal contracts, Grigg [9] presents the Ricardian Contract triple of “prose, parameters and code”.[1] The legal prose is linked via parameters (name-value pairs) to the smart contract code that provides automation. For example, a software agent might have been developed that will be instantiated on a shared ledger and, once initiated, will proceed to undertake various transfers of value in accordance with the legal prose. The parameters are a succinct way to inform the code of the final operational details. The code in this case would be suitable for a specific platform but we can imagine in the future that multiple platforms could be targeted from a single contract.[2] This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_Contract [2] This could be achieved by, for example, using the list of parameters to connect the legal prose to a set of smart software agents, e.g. one agent per platform.

Smart Contract Templates:
Foundations, Design and Research - Automation

Authors:
(1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London;
(2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays;
(3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2 Foundations To lay the foundation for subsequent discussion, we elaborate four key topics of terminology, automation, enforceability, and semantics. 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” In [16], Stark gives an overview of the two different ways that the term “smart contract” is commonly used: The first is operational, involving software agents, typically but not necessarily on a shared ledger. The word “contract” in this sense indicates that these software agents are fulfilling certain obligations and exercising certain rights, and may take control of certain assets within a shared ledger. There is no consensus on the definition of this use of the term “smart contract” — each definition is different in subtle ways [17, 18, 19]. Stark renames these agents as smart contract code.


The second focuses on how legal contracts can be expressed and implemented in software. This therefore encompasses operational aspects, issues relating to how legal contracts are written and how the legal prose should be interpreted. There are several ideas and projects which focus on these aspects such as CommonAccord [4], Legalese [13], Monax’s dual integration [12], and the Ricardian Contract [7]. Stark renames these as smart legal contracts. Given that there is no clear consensus on the terminology being used, it is important that we should be clear in this paper. We prefer that the term “smart contract” should cover both versions, so we adopt a higher-level definition based on the two topics of automation and enforceability (that are explored in depth in sections 2.2 and 2.3): A smart contract is an automatable and enforceable agreement. Automatable by computer, although some parts may require human input and control. Enforceable either by legal enforcement of rights and obligations or via tamper-proof execution of computer code. This definition is sufficiently abstract to cover both “smart legal contracts” (where the agreement is a legal agreement, at least some of which is capable of being implemented in software) and “smart contract code” (which is automated software that may not necessarily be linked to a formal legal agreement). It simply states a requirement that the contract must be enforceable without specifying what is the aspect being enforced; for smart legal contracts these might be complex rights and obligations, whereas for smart contract code what is being enforced may simply be the actions of the code. We focus on smart legal contracts, with the expectation that they will be performed using smart contract code. Throughout the rest of this paper we also, for clarity, adopt Stark’s terms smart contract code and smart legal contract. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Authors: Authors: (1) Christopher D. Clack, Centre for Blockchain Technologies, Department of Computer Science, University College London; (2) Vikram A. Bakshi, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays; (3) Lee Braine, Investment Bank CTO Office, Barclays. Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2 Foundations and 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” 2.2 Automation 2.2 Automation 2.3 Enforceability 2.3 Enforceability 2.4 The semantics of contracts 2.4 The semantics of contracts 3 Smart Contract Templates 3 Smart Contract Templates 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.1 Templates and Parameters 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 3.2 The design landscape for Smart Contract Templates 4 Summary and Further Work and References 4 Summary and Further Work and References 2 Foundations To lay the foundation for subsequent discussion, we elaborate four key topics of terminology, automation, enforceability, and semantics. 2.1 Terminology — “smart contracts” In [16], Stark gives an overview of the two different ways that the term “smart contract” is commonly used: The first is operational, involving software agents, typically but not necessarily on a shared ledger. The word “contract” in this sense indicates that these software agents are fulfilling certain obligations and exercising certain rights, and may take control of certain assets within a shared ledger. There is no consensus on the definition of this use of the term “smart contract” — each definition is different in subtle ways [17, 18, 19]. Stark renames these agents as smart contract code. The second focuses on how legal contracts can be expressed and implemented in software. This therefore encompasses operational aspects, issues relating to how legal contracts are written and how the legal prose should be interpreted. There are several ideas and projects which focus on these aspects such as CommonAccord [4], Legalese [13], Monax’s dual integration [12], and the Ricardian Contract [7]. Stark renames these as smart legal contracts. The first is operational, involving software agents, typically but not necessarily on a shared ledger. The word “contract” in this sense indicates that these software agents are fulfilling certain obligations and exercising certain rights, and may take control of certain assets within a shared ledger. There is no consensus on the definition of this use of the term “smart contract” — each definition is different in subtle ways [17, 18, 19]. Stark renames these agents as smart contract code. The first is operational, involving software agents, typically but not necessarily on a shared ledger. The word “contract” in this sense indicates that these software agents are fulfilling certain obligations and exercising certain rights, and may take control of certain assets within a shared ledger. There is no consensus on the definition of this use of the term “smart contract” — each definition is different in subtle ways [17, 18, 19]. Stark renames these agents as smart contract code. The second focuses on how legal contracts can be expressed and implemented in software. This therefore encompasses operational aspects, issues relating to how legal contracts are written and how the legal prose should be interpreted. There are several ideas and projects which focus on these aspects such as CommonAccord [4], Legalese [13], Monax’s dual integration [12], and the Ricardian Contract [7]. Stark renames these as smart legal contracts. The second focuses on how legal contracts can be expressed and implemented in software. This therefore encompasses operational aspects, issues relating to how legal contracts are written and how the legal prose should be interpreted. There are several ideas and projects which focus on these aspects such as CommonAccord [4], Legalese [13], Monax’s dual integration [12], and the Ricardian Contract [7]. Stark renames these as smart legal contracts. Given that there is no clear consensus on the terminology being used, it is important that we should be clear in this paper. We prefer that the term “smart contract” should cover both versions, so we adopt a higher-level definition based on the two topics of automation and enforceability (that are explored in depth in sections 2.2 and 2.3): A smart contract is an automatable and enforceable agreement. Automatable by computer, although some parts may require human input and control. Enforceable either by legal enforcement of rights and obligations or via tamper-proof execution of computer code. A smart contract is an automatable and enforceable agreement. Automatable by computer, although some parts may require human input and control. Enforceable either by legal enforcement of rights and obligations or via tamper-proof execution of computer code. A smart contract is an automatable and enforceable agreement. Automatable by computer, although some parts may require human input and control. Enforceable either by legal enforcement of rights and obligations or via tamper-proof execution of computer code. This definition is sufficiently abstract to cover both “smart legal contracts” (where the agreement is a legal agreement, at least some of which is capable of being implemented in software) and “smart contract code” (which is automated software that may not necessarily be linked to a formal legal agreement). It simply states a requirement that the contract must be enforceable without specifying what is the aspect being enforced; for smart legal contracts these might be complex rights and obligations, whereas for smart contract code what is being enforced may simply be the actions of the code. We focus on smart legal contracts, with the expectation that they will be performed using smart contract code. Throughout the rest of this paper we also, for clarity, adopt Stark’s terms smart contract code and smart legal contract. smart contract code smart legal contract. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Stories, News & Mentions about BARCLAYS

Barclays’s Stories on HackerNoon

Barclays's News & Mentions