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.

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

Smart Contract Templates: Foundations, Design and Research - Automation

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

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

10 Indications That You Should Invest in Automation Via APIs

10 Commandments for AI-Assisted Social Media Marketers

11 Best Automation Testing Tools to Try in 2021

12 Use Cases of AI and Machine Learning In Finance

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

10 Indications That You Should Invest in Automation Via APIs

10 Commandments for AI-Assisted Social Media Marketers

11 Best Automation Testing Tools to Try in 2021

12 Use Cases of AI and Machine Learning In Finance

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps