Abstract
In the present techno-political moment it is clear that ignoring or dismissing the hype surrounding blockchain is unwise, and certainly for regulatory authorities and governments who must keep a grip on the technology and those promoting it, in order to ensure democratic accountability and regulatory legitimacy within the blockchain ecosystem and beyond. Blockchain is telling (and showing) us something very important about the evolution of capital and neoliberal economic reason, and the likely impact in the near future on forms and patterns of work, social organization, and, crucially, on communities and individuals who lack influence over the technologies and data that increasingly shape and control their lives. In this short essay I introduce some of the problems in the regulation of blockchain and offer counter-narratives aimed at cutting through the hype fuelling the ascendency of this most contemporary of technologies.
Highlights
Part of what Manuel Castells called the rise of network society (Castells 2010), as well as falling within the scope of notions of ubiquitous or pervasive computing and ambient intelligence promoted by the likes of IBM in the latter part of the twentieth century (Wright et al 2006, pp. 7–9), distributed ledger technology (DLT), or as it is popularly known blockchain, is impacting and in many cases transforming thought and practice in information and communication technology and beyond
Whilst focus on blockchain by economic elites in Davos arguably stems from perceived and potential threats to legacy financial control and power, which cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and blockchain are said to represent by influential stakeholders in the blockchain ecosystem (Swan 2015; Tapscott and Tapscott 2016; Masters 2016), there is far more to the unfolding story of so-called blockchain ‘disruption’
The present lack of or reluctance toward critical regulatory oversight threatens to result in an exclusive commercial dictate with little or no democratic or government accountability. On this basis it is imperative that critique questions, as it has done in relation to the growth of the Internet, mobile technologies and big data; what is at stake from blockchain’s continuing embeddedness in economic logic and reason; and to consider what other options might exist to benefit and empower community over self-interest
Summary
Part of what Manuel Castells called the rise of network society (Castells 2010), as well as falling within the scope of notions of ubiquitous or pervasive computing and ambient intelligence promoted by the likes of IBM in the latter part of the twentieth century (Wright et al 2006, pp. 7–9), distributed ledger technology (DLT), or as it is popularly known blockchain, is impacting and in many cases transforming thought and practice in information and communication technology and beyond. The present lack of or reluctance toward critical regulatory oversight threatens to result in an exclusive commercial dictate with little or no democratic or government accountability On this basis it is imperative that critique questions, as it has done in relation to the growth of the Internet, mobile technologies and big data; what is (and will be) at stake from blockchain’s continuing embeddedness in economic logic and reason; and to consider what other options might exist to benefit and empower community over self-interest. Blockchain critique is important at this moment because the technology remains undefined in the wider public consciousness and its politics are not set This point is important because blockchain’s legitimacy and authority does not, I argue, derive from technological credentials, but from being a (relatively) novel lens through which to view the world undertaking a fourth industrial revolution and the potential to order and control people, institutions, systems and networks in that world. Blockchain is a powerful cultural and political product that has emerged from turbulent conditions post-financial crisis and it derives legitimacy and authority from promises of inter alia radical transparency that are tantalizing yet rightly brought into question (Han 2015; Pasquale 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
