Deepfake Bills in Denmark and the Netherlands: Right idea, wrong legal framework

This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5375309

Freedom of expression, Human rights, Intellectual property

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-08-01
T1  - The European Court of Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Still Waiting for the New Innovation Frontier?
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5375309
AB  - This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Human rights
K1  - Intellectual property
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {The European Court of Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Still Waiting for the New Innovation Frontier?},
	author = {Izyumenko, E.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-08-01},
	abstract = {This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).},
	keywords = {Freedom of expression, Human rights, Intellectual property},
}

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 6 maart 2025 (ONB e.a. / Belgische Staat) download

Hugenholtz, P.B.

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 22, num: 177, pp: 3521-3523, 2025

Abstract

Harmonisatie van de wetgevingen. Intellectuele eigendom. Auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Uitvoerende kunstenaars die onder een administratiefrechtelijk statuut zijn aangeworven. Overdracht van naburige rechten bij regelgeving. Reproductierecht en recht van beschikbaarstelling voor het publiek. Vastleggingsrecht, recht tot uitzending en mededeling aan het publiek en distributierecht. Billijke vergoeding in exploitatiecontracten. Toepassing in de tijd. Begrippen ‘handelingen die verricht zijn’ en ‘rechten die verkregen zijn’.

Links

NJ_2025_177

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Opinie: Optreden tegen deepfakes is een goed idee, maar doe dat dan wel via het portretrecht external link

Valk, E.G.

NRC Handelsblad, 2025

Links

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/07/29/optreden-tegen-deepfakes-is-een-goed-idee-maar-doe-dat-dan-wel-via-het-portretrecht-a4901612

deepfakes, portretrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Proposal for an EU-Wide Secondary Publication Right external link

Sganga, C., Margoni, T., Senftleben, M. & Szkalej, K.

IIC, vol. 56, iss. : 8, pp: 1516-1552, 2025

Abstract

As of 2025, six EU Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria – have introduced forms of Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) as an effective tool for rebalancing the bargaining powers of authors and publishers, enhancing Open Access (OA) to scientific publications, and fostering national Open Science (OS) policies. Building on the results of a study conducted for the European Commission and published in 2024, this article supports the introduction of an EU-wide SPR as one of the key priority actions needed to fully align EU copyright law with the policy goals of the European Research Area (ERA). Given the fragmented nature of national approaches and the inherently transnational nature of much of scientific communication and publishing, a harmonised SPR with carefully tailored and balanced features is a precondition for creating a level-playing field for all scientific authors operating within the ERA. This article explores the potential of SPRs and where they intersect with OS, analysing their origins and underlying rationales. It then makes a comparative analysis of national SPR implementations and their main features. On this basis, it makes specific proposals for an EU-wide SPR, emphasising design, scope, and potential impact on stakeholders. It concludes by reflecting on the broader significance of integrating an SPR into the EU’s OS agenda.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Sganga, C.
AU  - Margoni, T.
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Szkalej, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-22
T1  - Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Proposal for an EU-Wide Secondary Publication Right
JO  - IIC
VL  - 56
IS  - 8
SP  - 1516-1552
UR  - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-025-01620-6
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01620-6
AB  - As of 2025, six EU Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria – have introduced forms of Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) as an effective tool for rebalancing the bargaining powers of authors and publishers, enhancing Open Access (OA) to scientific publications, and fostering national Open Science (OS) policies. Building on the results of a study conducted for the European Commission and published in 2024, this article supports the introduction of an EU-wide SPR as one of the key priority actions needed to fully align EU copyright law with the policy goals of the European Research Area (ERA). Given the fragmented nature of national approaches and the inherently transnational nature of much of scientific communication and publishing, a harmonised SPR with carefully tailored and balanced features is a precondition for creating a level-playing field for all scientific authors operating within the ERA. This article explores the potential of SPRs and where they intersect with OS, analysing their origins and underlying rationales. It then makes a comparative analysis of national SPR implementations and their main features. On this basis, it makes specific proposals for an EU-wide SPR, emphasising design, scope, and potential impact on stakeholders. It concludes by reflecting on the broader significance of integrating an SPR into the EU’s OS agenda.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Proposal for an EU-Wide Secondary Publication Right},
	author = {Sganga, C. and Margoni, T. and Senftleben, M. and Szkalej, K.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01620-6},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-22},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {56},
	issue = {8},
	pages = {1516-1552},
	abstract = {As of 2025, six EU Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria – have introduced forms of Secondary Publication Rights (SPRs) as an effective tool for rebalancing the bargaining powers of authors and publishers, enhancing Open Access (OA) to scientific publications, and fostering national Open Science (OS) policies. Building on the results of a study conducted for the European Commission and published in 2024, this article supports the introduction of an EU-wide SPR as one of the key priority actions needed to fully align EU copyright law with the policy goals of the European Research Area (ERA). Given the fragmented nature of national approaches and the inherently transnational nature of much of scientific communication and publishing, a harmonised SPR with carefully tailored and balanced features is a precondition for creating a level-playing field for all scientific authors operating within the ERA. This article explores the potential of SPRs and where they intersect with OS, analysing their origins and underlying rationales. It then makes a comparative analysis of national SPR implementations and their main features. On this basis, it makes specific proposals for an EU-wide SPR, emphasising design, scope, and potential impact on stakeholders. It concludes by reflecting on the broader significance of integrating an SPR into the EU’s OS agenda.},
}

Save .bib

Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis external link

Senftleben, M., Szkalej, K., Sganga, C. & Margoni, T.

IIC, vol. 56, iss. : 7, pp: 1329–1358, 2025

Abstract

This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.

Links

Copyright, open science, research exceptions, right to research, technological protection measures, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Szkalej, K.
AU  - Sganga, C.
AU  - Margoni, T.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-22
T1  - Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis
JO  - IIC
VL  - 56
IS  - 7
SP  - 1329–1358
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5130069
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01604-6
AB  - This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - open science
K1  - research exceptions
K1  - right to research
K1  - technological protection measures
K1  - Text and Data Mining (TDM)
K1  - three-step test
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis},
	author = {Senftleben, M. and Szkalej, K. and Sganga, C. and Margoni, T.},
	url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-025-01604-6},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-025-01604-6},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-22},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {56},
	issue = {7},
	pages = {1329–1358},
	abstract = {This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.},
	keywords = {Copyright, open science, research exceptions, right to research, technological protection measures, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test},
}

Save .bib

Copyright as a Freedom of (Artistic) Expression Right? The Dangers and Human Rights Law Misconceptions in the AG’s Opinion in Pelham II external link

Izyumenko, E.

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/copyright-as-a-freedom-of-artistic-expression-right-the-dangers-and-human-rights-law-misconceptions-in-the-ags-opinion-in-pelham-ii/

Copyright, Freedom of expression, Human rights

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices external link

Boss, S & Bodó, B.

Journal of Law, Market & Innovation, vol. 4, iss. : 2, pp: 304-326, 2025

Abstract

This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain's consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum's consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum's potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform's decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.

Links

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Boss, S
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-17
T1  - Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices
JO  - Journal of Law, Market & Innovation
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
SP  - 304-326
UR  - https://ojs.unito.it/index.php/JLMI/article/view/12272
DO  - https://doi.org/10.13135/2785-7867/12272
AB  - This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain\'s consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum\'s consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum\'s potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform\'s decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Decentralised law enforcement: A case study of Ethereum’s proof of stake mechanism for moderation practices},
	author = {Boss, S and Bodó, B.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.13135/2785-7867/12272},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-17},
	journal = {Journal of Law, Market & Innovation},
	volume = {4},
	issue = {2},
	pages = {304-326},
	abstract = {This paper examines the evolving role of the Ethereum blockchain\'s consensus layer as a potential tool for decentralised law enforcement, with a focus on its Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism and its implications for moderation practices. While it was traditionally designed for credible neutrality, Ethereum\'s consensus layer is now facing increasing pressure to assist in regulatory enforcement, particularly concerning the U.S. OFAC sanction list. This shift raises fundamental questions about whether a decentralised platform can effectively meet regulatory requirements without compromising its core principles of transparency, security, decentralisation and censorship resistance. This paper dives into the roles and incentives of actors in the consensus mechanism, with a main focus on builders, relays and validators. It also looks into the complexities introduced by Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) and the Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS). The paper critically assesses Ethereum\'s potential to function as a regulatory enforcement tool by discussing its inherent limitations, the current stance on adhering to OFAC sanction lists, and other relevant decision-making factors. It also considers the risks associated with leveraging this decentralised platform for regulatory purposes, including the potential for unintended consequences such as privacy and security concerns, and the erosion of core values. Ultimately, this paper aims to provide insights into whether Ethereum can effectively be leveraged as a regulatory enforcement technology while maintaining its fundamental attributes. We find that Ethereum can leverage compliance to a certain degree, particularly through mechanisms that incentivise validators to exclude sanctioned transactions, and with simple regulation to adhere to. However, the platform\'s decentralised nature and commitment to censorship resistance means that complete alignment with traditional regulatory frameworks is unlikely. This highlights the fundamental trade-offs that are inherent to attempting to impose centralised control on a decentralised system.},
}

Save .bib

Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi external link

Bodó, B. & Filippi, P. de

Regulation & Governance, vol. 19, num: 3, pp: 740-760, 2025

Abstract

Trust is a key resource in financial transactions. Traditional financial institutions, and novel blockchain-based decentralized financial (DeFi) services rely on fundamentally different sources of trust and confidence. The former relies on heavy regulation, trusted intermediaries, clear rules (and restrictions) on market competition, and long-standing informal expectations on what banks and other financial intermediaries are supposed to do or not to do. The latter rely on blockchain technology to provide confidence in the outcome of rules encoded in protocols and smart contracts. Their main promise is to create confidence in the way the blockchain architecture enforces rules, rather than to trust banks, regulators, and markets. In this article, we compare the trust architectures surrounding these two financial systems. We provide a deeper analysis of how proposed regulation in the blockchain space affects the code- and confidence-based architectures which so far have underwrote DeFi. We argue that despite the solid safeguards and guarantees which code can offer, the confidence in DeFi is still very much dependent on more traditional trust-enhancing mechanisms, such as code governance, and antifraud regulation to address some of the issues which currently plague this domain, and which have no immediate, purely software-based solutions. What is more, given the risks of bugs or scams in the DeFi space, regulation and trusted intermediaries may need to play a more active role, in order for DeFi to gain the trust of the next generation of users.

Links

blockchain, Regulation, trust

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bodó, B.
AU  - Filippi, P. de
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-07-17
T1  - Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi
JO  - Regulation & Governance
VL  - 19
NV  - 3
SP  - 740-760
UR  - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rego.12637
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12637
AB  - Trust is a key resource in financial transactions. Traditional financial institutions, and novel blockchain-based decentralized financial (DeFi) services rely on fundamentally different sources of trust and confidence. The former relies on heavy regulation, trusted intermediaries, clear rules (and restrictions) on market competition, and long-standing informal expectations on what banks and other financial intermediaries are supposed to do or not to do. The latter rely on blockchain technology to provide confidence in the outcome of rules encoded in protocols and smart contracts. Their main promise is to create confidence in the way the blockchain architecture enforces rules, rather than to trust banks, regulators, and markets. In this article, we compare the trust architectures surrounding these two financial systems. We provide a deeper analysis of how proposed regulation in the blockchain space affects the code- and confidence-based architectures which so far have underwrote DeFi. We argue that despite the solid safeguards and guarantees which code can offer, the confidence in DeFi is still very much dependent on more traditional trust-enhancing mechanisms, such as code governance, and antifraud regulation to address some of the issues which currently plague this domain, and which have no immediate, purely software-based solutions. What is more, given the risks of bugs or scams in the DeFi space, regulation and trusted intermediaries may need to play a more active role, in order for DeFi to gain the trust of the next generation of users.
K1  - blockchain
K1  - Regulation
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Trust in context: The impact of regulation on blockchain and DeFi},
	author = {Bodó, B. and Filippi, P. de},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12637},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-07-17},
	journal = {Regulation & Governance},
	volume = {19},
	number = {3},
	pages = {740-760},
	abstract = {Trust is a key resource in financial transactions. Traditional financial institutions, and novel blockchain-based decentralized financial (DeFi) services rely on fundamentally different sources of trust and confidence. The former relies on heavy regulation, trusted intermediaries, clear rules (and restrictions) on market competition, and long-standing informal expectations on what banks and other financial intermediaries are supposed to do or not to do. The latter rely on blockchain technology to provide confidence in the outcome of rules encoded in protocols and smart contracts. Their main promise is to create confidence in the way the blockchain architecture enforces rules, rather than to trust banks, regulators, and markets. In this article, we compare the trust architectures surrounding these two financial systems. We provide a deeper analysis of how proposed regulation in the blockchain space affects the code- and confidence-based architectures which so far have underwrote DeFi. We argue that despite the solid safeguards and guarantees which code can offer, the confidence in DeFi is still very much dependent on more traditional trust-enhancing mechanisms, such as code governance, and antifraud regulation to address some of the issues which currently plague this domain, and which have no immediate, purely software-based solutions. What is more, given the risks of bugs or scams in the DeFi space, regulation and trusted intermediaries may need to play a more active role, in order for DeFi to gain the trust of the next generation of users.},
	keywords = {blockchain, Regulation, trust},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex