If, as has been claimed by one of their most successful proponents, blockchain technologies “automate away . . . center[s]” of authority, in lieu of subordinating peripheries, then what might this imply for global governance: already the work of a distributed politico-legal regime without a single center? Does blockchain seem likely to emancipate and equalize in the ways frequently anticipated? Whose authority is being “automate[d] away” and whose is being augmented by prevailing blockchain implementations? How might blockchain-borne redistribution bear upon law and legal institutions, or what might it demand of those, on the international plane? How might we envision blockchain-based futures on the global plane? These are among the questions taken up by contributors to this symposium. Before examining the various ways in which this rich suite of essays approach these and other cognate questions, the central object of their concern—blockchain—warrants brief, explanatory attention.

This essay considers the ideological context of blockchain technology. This technology is often celebrated for its potential for decentralization, distribution, privacy, and a lack of intermediaries and coordinators for transactions and general governance. Because of these features, blockchain technology, and, in particular, its most famous inauguration—the bitcoin blockchain—is frequently identified with libertarianism. In this essay, we argue that the ideological context of blockchain technology is much more complicated. In addition to unraveling a number of background ideologies and their role in this technology, we raise the ontological issue concerning the relationship of ideology to technology. These matters have implications for, among other things, the approach that should be taken to blockchain's governance, as well as how international lawyers may approach this “foreign”-seeming phenomenon that has its proponents from the European Central Bank to the United Nations (not, however, forgetting the private sector nor the digital underground).

Blockchain technology has spurred the emergence of powerful narratives to promote new ways of governing outer space. The list of proposed uses for blockchain applications in outer space is endless—from property registries for asteroid mining, to supply chain management systems, or interplanetary cryptocurrencies for the space economy—along with Elon Musk claiming that “SpaceX is going to put a literal Dogecoin on the literal moon.” Yet, thus far, none of these projects have gone beyond simple declarations or white papers, mostly due to the inherent limitations on the effective enforcement of blockchain-based rules outside of their own technical framework. In this essay, we argue that blockchain technology is relevant for outer space because it fosters novel narratives advancing possible futures characterized by new modes of governance. The strongest and most prominent of these narratives is the crypto-libertarian one, which draws heavily on the absence of a state, the sanctity of property, and the primacy of private ordering through decentralized markets. But there are other narratives proposed by relevant actors in the blockchain space that are dedicated to other modes of governance. By focusing on alternative narratives for blockchain technology, we illustrate how the possible applications of blockchain technology in outer space may extend beyond the current libertarian dreams, to support a more commons-based approach to outer space governance.

In spite of decades of efforts to digitalize trade, it remains labor- and paper-intensive. Shipping a container from Mombasa to Rotterdam generates a pile of paper that is twenty-five cm. high. Around thirty actors and more than one hundred people are involved throughout the journey, with the number of interactions exceeding two hundred. The unique characteristics of blockchain make it a promising technology to remove the multiple frictions and inefficiencies that plague international trade today and that have been put into sharp focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential is significant, but technology on its own can do little. Trade digitalization cannot happen in a legal and regulatory vacuum. While law and regulation are often seen as constraints or means to counter unintended consequences of technological developments, they also play a key enabling role. International legal instruments already provide useful guidance in some areas, but gaps remain to be filled and more proactive action is needed across the globe to transpose existing legal instruments into national legislation. International organizations have a key role to play to help coordinate action on these two fronts.

Decentralized finance (DeFi) is an ecosystem of financial applications that are built on top of blockchain networks. DeFi aims to create an open-source, permissionless, and transparent financial system that operates without any central authority. Instead, a smart contract—which is a self-executing contract with the terms of the agreement between transacting parties written into lines of code—replaces financial institutions in the transaction. As a result, DeFi is available to everyone with reliable access to electricity and Internet connectivity. It also serves as a form of non-custodial finance since users maintain full control of their assets and transact through smart contract programs that facilitate peer-to-peer interactions. While DeFi presents huge opportunities, it also poses significant risks to traditional finance ecosystems, including the use of stablecoins and the absence of a know-your-customer framework. This essay argues that for DeFi to secure credibility, it needs to be adequately regulated in a way that aligns with how the technology works.