On 29 January 2021, the Kemp Little team joined Deloitte Legal. Click here to view the press release.

As of 30 January 2021, Kemp Little LLP ceased to operate as a firm of solicitors and practice law and ceased to be regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Kemp Little LLP has been re-named KL Heritage LLP.

If you are looking to contact a specific individual to seek legal advice or in respect of any other business relationship, please contact Deloitte Legal.

If you are seeking to contact the old Kemp Little LLP in relation to a previous business relationship or matter, please get in touch with KL Heritage LLP.

For enquiries relating to Kemp Little technology products and training portal, please email deloittelegal@deloitte.co.uk

 


 

Kemp Little is a trade name used under licence by KL Heritage LLP (formerly Kemp Little LLP, registered number OC300242 and VAT number 182 8854 65).

On 29 January 2021, the Kemp Little team joined Deloitte Legal.  As of 30 January 2021, Kemp Little ceased to operate as a firm of solicitors and practice law. From this date Kemp Little ceased to be authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and is being re-named KL Heritage LLP.

All references to Kemp Little herein are references to KL Heritage LLP, which used to carry on business in that name.

KL Heritage LLP is not connected to or associated with Deloitte Legal or Deloitte LLP in any capacity.

 

Kemp Little
  • Looking for someone?
  • Email us
  • Search
MENU MENU
Insights overview

Commercial technology · 15 September 2017 · Rich Folsom

Weighing vs voting – distributed ledgers as governance devices

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” – Benjamin Graham The ‘forking’… Read more

more content below

“In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” – Benjamin Graham

The ‘forking’ of Ethereum in the summer of 2016 and Bitcoin in the summer of 2017, has given us two interesting examples of the role that a consensus based system can have in resolving disputes and acting as a governance system in a quasi-legal manner.

The ‘classic’ approach to governance in negotiated contracts involves an increasing series of escalations and decision-making committees, compelled to meet, take into account certain information, and come to a decision. Those committees are bound by rules agreed in advance about the state of play. Typically, there are states of appeal, but ultimately, a single body will make a decision to resolve the dispute. The parties will have agreed if this is a private entity, such as an arbitrator, or a public servant such as a judge – but the end result is a single (or very low number of) minds voting on the right decision based on the pre-agreed rules. Typical hallmarks of this system are a private disagreement, confidential disclosures and arguments, cost-pressure to resolve the dispute speedily and amicably, and a sometimes public outcome, but which contains a small fraction of the relevant information.

This is quite straightforward to picture in a contract setting: for example, a dispute over the timeliness of an outsourced service, the supplier arguing that it was not given the necessary materials or instructions, the customer saying the supplier should have had or known these things.  The first few committees cannot agree, but narrow the issues, the matter is then escalated to the account managers, who may agree the issue, or take the matter to arbitration or the court system for a third party to vote on.

The picture is muddied when we consider a far softer governance framework. The global domain name unique identifier system is run by ICANN, a non-profit organisation which was established effectively to implement U.S. Department of Commerce policy. ICANN has by-laws and committees, but was dogged for many years with ambiguity about the exact scope of its remit and authority.  From 2010 onwards, pressure increased to move ICANN out of its contract and oversight from the Department of Commerce and into the ‘global multistakeholder community’. This process has been complicated and political, but, for this article, the key feature is that it required both a groundswell movement of support and lobbying, along with the consent of particular parties (such as Congress and the Department of Commerce). The end result, a ‘multistakeholder model’ still comes to decisions. It aims to do so through a ‘bottom-up’, decentralised, inclusive, process, but it still makes a binary decision – yes or no, A or B, etc..

Compare this with ethereum and bitcoin. Sweeping governance issues arose during the DAO controversy leading to the ethereum fork, and during the block size debate which led to the bitcoin fork. In each case, a public and violent debate ensued, containing everything from principled positions, to pragmatic solutions, to nasty name-calling. The decentralised, anonymous nature of these platforms, with less chance of recurring transactions with any one counterparty, make this hearty and vitriolic debate more likely than in a private governance model.

The next part however is more interesting: in effect a decision does not have to be made. The ‘classic’ governance described above requires a private agreement, or a decision to be voted on by pre-agreed categories of people using a pre-agreed system.  With a distributed ledger system, anyone can put forward a solution, anyone (with a few trivial formalities) can vote on their preferred answer, and multiple ‘solutions’ to the dispute can be accepted and form the go-forward system. Take the bitcoin fork, into classic bitcoin and bitcoin cash.  A dispute about block size could not be resolved with a unanimous consensus. Two prevailing views formed about the optimal block size, and the proponents of each formed a packaged ‘brand’ for their proposal. The fork eventually came, and each group moved to their preferred system.  Miners and traders each vote with the electricity or their money by mining or purchasing one fork over another.  This voting however is on-going, open to all, and can be done in a non-attributable way, over and over again. This makes the ‘voting’ quite different to the ‘voting’ in the previous examples. There is never a final and conclusive answer, never a holistic decision made, just a quantitative indicator of how aligned each view is with the rest of the market, and how much consensus there is for each view.  It is in fact more akin to a prediction market, or a stock market – but for an idea, not an asset per se.

It will be interesting to see how this model plays out, and what other applications this form of ‘messy’ governance may have – particularly in systems which seek a ground-up consensus, and want to operate in a global manner while anticipating a changing world order.

  • Share this blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Rich FolsomRich Folsom is a commercial technology partner & the cryptocurrency lead

Get in touch

View the team

Sign up for our newsletters

  • Share this Blog

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin

Other stuff you might like

  1. Are your offices ready for a post-lockdown return to work?
  2. Preparing for the New Normal | Webinar
  3. Retail reconsidered | KL Stores: a case study series exploring innovation in retail
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • EBA outsourcing
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • KLick Trade Mark
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
close
The hottest topics in technology
  • Adtech & martech
  • Agile
  • Artificial intelligence
  • EBA outsourcing
  • Brexit
  • Cloud computing
  • Complex & sensitive investigations
  • Connectivity
  • Cryptocurrencies & blockchain
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data analytics & big data
  • Data breaches
  • Data rights
  • Digital commerce
  • Digital content risk
  • Digital health
  • Digital media
  • Digital infrastructure & telecoms
  • Emerging businesses
  • Financial services
  • Fintech
  • Gambling
  • GDPR
  • KLick DPO
  • KLick Trade Mark
  • Open banking
  • Retail
  • SMCR
  • Software & services
  • Sourcing
  • Travel
Kemp Little

Lawyers
and thought leaders who are passionate about technology

Expand footer

Kemp Little

138 Cheapside
City of London
EC2V 6BJ

020 7600 8080

hello@kemplittle.com

Services

  • Commercial technology
  • Consulting
  • Disputes
  • Intellectual property
  • Employment
  • Immigration

 

  • Sourcing
  • Corporate
  • Data protection & privacy
  • Financial regulation
  • Private equity & venture capital
  • Tax

Sitemap

  • Our people
  • Insights
  • Events
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Cookies
  • Privacy
  • Terms of use
  • Complaints
  • Debt recovery charges

Follow us

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters

Kemp Little LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC300242) and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Its registered office is 138 Cheapside, London EC2V 6BJ. The SRA Standards and Regulations can be accessed by clicking here.

  • Cyber Essentials logo
  • LORCA logo
  • ABTA Partner+ logo
  • Make Your Ask logo
  • FT Innovative Lawyers 2019 winners logo
  • Law Society Excellence Awards shortlisted
  • Legal Business Awards = highly commended
  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Business restructuring and reorganisation
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Digital content & reputation risk
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
    • Travel
  • Resources
  • Insights
  • Covid 19: Your Business Continuity
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
close
close
close

Send us a message

Fill in your details and we'll be in touch soon

[contact-form-7 id="4941" title="General contact form"]
close

Sign up for our newsletter

I would like to receive updates and related news from Kemp Little *

Please select below any publications that you would like to receive:

Newsletters

close

Register for future event information

[contact-form-7 id="4943" title="Subscribe to future events"]
close
close
Generic filters
Exact matches only

Can't remember their name? View everyone

  • Home
  • Our people
  • Services
    • Business restructuring and reorganisation
    • Commercial technology
    • Consulting
    • Corporate
    • Data protection & privacy
    • Digital content & reputation risk
    • Disputes
    • Employment
    • Financial regulation
    • Immigration
    • Innovation
    • Intellectual property
    • Private equity & venture capital
    • Sourcing
    • Tax
    • Travel
  • Resources
  • Insights
  • Covid 19: Your Business Continuity
  • Events
  • About us
    • Who we are
    • Our social responsibilities
    • Our partnerships
    • Join us
  • Contact us
  • FlightDeck
  • Sign up for our newsletters
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn