New models of blockchain-based organizations, often referred to as Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), face significant legal uncertainty that can be detrimental to their development and utilization. This Model Law (ML) aims to create uniformity and legal certainty, while, unlike other regulatory frameworks for DAOs, still accommodating flexibility for further innovation by not imposing formal registration requirements.
Reports
This paper examines how blockchain relates to identity services, beginning with technological fundamentals such as public key cryptography, hashing functions, zero-knowledge proofs, and homomorphic encryption. It sets benchmarks to answer such questions as: what are the goals in implementing a blockchain-based identity system versus a traditional identity system? Which of the existing blockchain-based identity systems provide the necessary technical features that will make it possible to achieve those goals? It assesses important blockchain-based identity services including Authenteq, Blockstack, Brickchain, Civic, EverID, Jolocom, Sovrin, uPort, and Veres One.
As the foundational platform of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, blockchain technology enables such innovations as the Internet of things, robotics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, additive manufacturing, and smart supply chains so that more people can participate in the economy and benefit directly from the value they create.1 However, this extraordinary technology may be stalled, usurped, or otherwise suboptimized without governance. We do not mean government, regulation, or top-down, centralized control. Rather, we mean stewardship, a collaboration of stakeholders who are willing to identify their common interests and create incentives to align their behavior around blockchain systems as shared resources. This research examines the impact of governance on blockchain systems. Specifically, it explores governance needs at three levels of the blockchain stack: the Internet layer, the blockchain layer, and the application layer.
All fast-evolving technology presents a significant challenge to governments and regulatory bodies. Since the nature of legislation (at least, under traditional systems) is still slow, by the time that policymakers finish debating, drafting, discussing, redrafting, and enacting a law or regulation, it often ends up addressing an outdated version of the technology in question. In the case of blockchain—since it represents such a transformational change in many sectors of society—stifling innovation simply to maintain control is not in the best interest of elected officials because it is not in the best interest of the electorate. Even authoritarian regimes can impair their ability to keep up with the free world. Exacerbating this situation is blockchain’s enforcement of privacy, which some circles have viewed (unfairly, in my opinion) as a tool of money launderers and other ne’er-do-wells. This research project surveys the global landscape of regulatory frameworks and highlights the interesting decisions of various jurisdictions on the matter of blockchain-based token sales. It looks at initial coin offerings and explores how different regulators are categorizing these coins in their attempts to balance the protection of investors with the encouragement of innovators and entrepreneurs.
ICOs represent a conundrum to securities law regulators. The Securities and Exchange Commission and its equivalents in other jurisdictions are gauging the level of regulatory oversight required to balance the viability of blockchain start-ups with the risk to investors, especially retail investors caught up in the hype. This project digs into the regulatory implications of blockchain-based systems, some of which qualify as an ecosystem, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, and some as a decentralized application (Dapp). Its allstar team of researchers—Fennie Wang, Primavera De Filippi, Alexis Collomb, and Klara Sok—deftly describes various legal solutions that could support ecosystems that are innovative and streamlined, yet fair for all stakeholders.
This document explores the opportuniSes to apply blockchain technology and legal thinking to address the mismatch between the Internet and IP law. Blockchains offer opportuniSes to create new models that be`er reflect the wants and needs of creators, consumers of content, the connectors who put the two together, and the public as a whole.
The document is meant to be a primer for securities regulators and policy makers as to the current state of cryptographic tokens. These tokens, which are usually (though not always) native to particular instances of distributed databases known as blockchains, have a wide range of uses and, as a result, a wide range of characteristics. Some resemble currency, others a security or commodity, and others have no financial element at all. This paper focuses on the application of cryptographic tokens in a securities context and proceeds in the following manner: (1) a brief explanation of blockchain technology; (2) an overview of factors relevant to a securities law analysis; (3) application of relevant securities law to hypothetical fact patterns, and (4) a discussion highlighting the factors to be considered in a securities analysis, and related concerns for regulators and policy makers.
The following definiJons are not a reflecJon of the current law in any parJcular jurisdicJon. They represent the Working Group’s suggesJons of accurate techno-legal descripJons for various key terms that are used in the regulatory dialogue about distributed ledger technology. While the definiJons are intended to be technically accurate, the focus is to provide standardized terminology for the commercial applicaJon or use of the technology. The objecJve is to promote the creaJon of acJviJes-based regulatory frameworks that avoid the ‘blanket-approach’ to regulaJng the technology and accurately assesses the risk of parJcular commercial acJviJes
We live in a knowledge economy, a world where value creation is shifting away from moving atoms around, to moving bits around. The value in this economy comes from ideas, which are —by their very nature— inherently intangible. Intellectual Property (IP) laws provide a set of legal tools by which authors, artists and creators can manage rights over their intellectual creations. Managing IP includes claiming rights in a particular idea or expression, and transferring these rights to a third party, through an outright assignment or licensing of rights. The goal of this working group is to identify key areas in which blockchain technologies may be applied for the management of intellectual property, including the deployment of digital rights management systems, micropayments, and peer-to-peer content discovery or compensation systems. The working group also aims to investigate how blockchain technologies can be used to create alternative business models and viable structures to promote innovation and creativity without increasing artificial scarcity on digital assets.
This working group investigates the ways in which blockchain technologies can enable new organizational structures and distributed governance models, and how these could be used to “regulate” or “govern” the deployment of blockchain-based applications. This working group focuses on exploring and developing sense-making and decision-making tools, to building new paradigms of organizational structures and social system design. 
COALA’s Regulation Tech Working Group 
The COALA Institutional Governance Working Group explores the spectrum of ways in which we can leverage blockchain technologies to address the growing deficit of accountability and trust in both public and private institutions by creating incorruptible systems. This can be done in two ways:
COALA’s Crypto-equity Working Group investigates the technical implementation and legal viability of new governance structures based on the issuance and distribution of digital tokens. Blockchain technologies provide new ways of issuing secure and tradable digital tokens on a distributed network. Although these tokens are often described as cryptocurrency, they have many other potential applications, ranging from traditional stocks and securities, claims to an underlying property title, proof of ownership over specific assets, voting rights or other privileges within an organization, and many other use-cases. As a general rule, these digital tokens can be classified into the following categories:
The Blockchain Economics Working group is composed of economists, cryptographers, and protocol architects. As an interdisciplinary group, it aims to develop thought leadership in the emerging field of “cryptoeconomics” —a formal discipline that focuses on the design of blockchain-based protocols for the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a decentralized digital economy.
As their name indicates, DAOs are not controlled by any given entity; they rely on smart contracts to establish a set of blockchain-based rules for the governance of an organization, along with a system of tokens that represent some kind of equity (or crypto-equity) in these organizations. As such, DAOs make it possible for people to benefit from pooling resources into a centralized system, without the traditional drawbacks of centralized institutions and hierarchical decision-making. Their governance structure obviate the asymmetrical power dynamics characteristic of centralized institutions, thus significantly reducing the potential for corruption, while increasing transparency and accountability of the organization.
The decentralized space continues to grow rapidly, enabling new organizational structures, power dynamics, social interaction and human coordination. It is a new frontier, at the forefront of which we have a responsibility to facilitate the growth of a culture of healthy social and ethical norms that foster individual and collective responsibility. This working group focuses on the following macro issues: