The Potential Impact of Web 3.0 on Digital Economy, Competition, and Regulation

Almudena Arcelus is a senior advisor, Maks Khomenko is a manager, Mihran Yenikomshian is a managing principal, and Melody Zhang is a former senior analyst at Analysis Group, Inc. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Analysis Group or its clients.

Abstract

Web technologies play an essential role in modern society. These technologies, which have evolved from static Web 1.0 to interactive platforms in Web 2.0, are now at the forefront of a new development stage powered by blockchain technologies: Web 3.0. These technologies offer a shift from a centralized to a decentralized paradigm and new perspectives on certain aspects of the digital economy. This paper provides an overview of these ongoing changes, the benefits and challenges they may bring, the hurdles facing Web 3.0’s large-scale adoption, and the potential implications of Web 3.0 for competition and regulation.

EVOLUTION OF WEB TECHNOLOGIES

Internet and web technologies have become an indispensable part of the modern economy and society. They evolve constantly, transforming how users access, share, and interact with information and their role in the ecosystem.

In the early stage of the web, referred to as Web 1.0, users were passive information consumers of static webpages, with limited means of engaging with the content. This changed with the advent of Web 2.0 in the early 2000s. [1] Users began contributing to content creation through their interactions with websites and web applications that allowed for dynamic and interactive user experiences. This trend culminated in the creation and rise of social media and other web applications that power user-generated content, collaboration, and social networking. [2]

The digital economy is now at the forefront of a new development era: Web 3.0. [3] Web 3.0 distinguishes itself from its predecessors in its reliance on blockchain technologies that enable ownership distributed among users or participants that may not require third-party management.

Web 3.0 is regarded as a promising development to enhance user control over data, privacy, and efficiency in interactions while maintaining dynamic and personalized content. [4] While the interaction and integration of decentralized Web 3.0 technologies with established Web 2.0 platforms may foster innovation and transform certain aspects of the digital economy, it may also present novel regulatory challenges, as many other emergent technologies have.

This paper discusses Web 3.0 and how it builds upon and differs from its predecessors from a technological perspective, as well as the opportunities and considerations it may present for the digital economy. We also discuss the potential technological limitations of Web 3.0 and how they may affect Web 3.0 evolution and adoption. Finally, the paper explores the potential regulatory implications of Web 3.0 for competition and oversight in the digital economy.

BLOCKCHAIN: THE BACKBONE BEHIND THE DECENTRALIZED INFRASTRUCTURE AND WEB 3.0 TECHNOLOGIES

Web 3.0 technologies are built on another widely discussed technical concept: blockchain. Traditional databases are managed by a single entity, and only those users with access to the hosting device and necessary database permissions can modify, delete, or add records. In contrast, blockchain databases are distributed across multiple independent devices, ensuring that no single entity has complete control over the database to alter data records without consent from other co-hosts.

Blockchain databases, as the name suggests, operate by appending new data entries to the end of a chain of data blocks. Each new data record is “linked” to the previously established blocks and must undergo an approval or validation process through predefined rules called a consensus mechanism. [5] Consensus mechanisms prevent unauthorized modifications of data entries, which would require changing the preceding approved blocks. Circumventing such blockchain security mechanisms may be computationally difficult or unreasonably expensive. [6]

There are three main types of blockchains. Public blockchains are accessible to anyone, without permission, and support the operations of popular cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ether. [7] In contrast, private blockchains, commonly used for internal enterprise applications, are accessible only to users with necessary permissions. [8] Permissioned or consortium blockchains represent a mix of public and private blockchains. While such blockchains are decentralized, with no single entity in charge, a group of users may have the right to grant or restrict access to certain network nodes or types of actions, such as writing or reading. [9]

In addition to providing decentralized data access and storage, blockchain technologies enable smart contracts. Smart contracts are computer programs that execute predefined instructions on a blockchain, enabling decentralized applications (DApps). DApps form a basis for the operation of Web 3.0 technologies.

DApps enable Web 3.0 technologies by replacing the central operator of an online service with automated rules that run on a blockchain. Instead of relying on servers to store information, enforce terms of use, or settle transactions, a DApp uses a smart contract to perform these functions. Because the smart contract is shared across many independent computing devices, no single party can unilaterally change how the application works or alter data. Many DApps also pair the blockchain with decentralized storage systems, ensuring that information is not held in a single location. Together, these elements enable Web 3.0 services to provide users with direct control over digital assets, verify the authenticity of transactions, and facilitate online interactions without relying on intermediaries. For instance, a Web 3.0 realtor can create a DApp powered by a smart contract that automatically transfers ownership of an asset, such as a house, as soon as the following predefined conditions are met: (1) A buyer expresses a willingness to pay a certain price; (2) the buyer possesses the required funds; and (3) the seller approves the price. [10] The smart contract verifies these conditions and, relying on the consensus mechanism, executes the transaction and stores the relevant blockchain records without relying on any third party. [11]

THE CONSIDERATIONS OF WEB 3.0

Web 3.0 technologies have the potential to transform industries and the digital economy by enhancing security, transparency, and efficiency, benefiting individual consumers, businesses, and regulatory agencies.

When relying on decentralized public blockchains, Web 3.0 applications are often built on protocols with publicly available codes and licenses to view, modify, and distribute, allowing for connectivity and interoperability without being owned or managed by any particular entity. [12] This differs from proprietary protocols controlled by companies with restricted access to and limited compatibility with other protocols. This decentralized, interoperable model may lower entry barriers to markets with the active presence of Web 3.0 technologies and reduce development and interoperability costs. [13]

In addition to changing how digital markets may operate in terms of barriers to entry and interoperability, Web 3.0 technologies may also facilitate the creation of new industries, services, and products. Existing examples are non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and decentralized finance. In addition, Web 3.0 may also contribute to the growth of existing industries that may benefit from decentralized data sharing, such as the internet of things, supply chains, social media, video games, and self-driving vehicles. For example, IBM’s blockchain-based platform Food Trust enables transparent and secure tracking of food logistics to improve traceability and efficiency. [14,15]

Web 3.0 may also alter certain services currently offered by Web 2.0 by permitting features such as encrypted and secure communications for email and messaging apps and decentralized content sharing for music and video streaming services [16]. In addition, reliance on blockchain technologies may enhance security by reducing the risk of fraud. For instance, smart contracts could automate and enforce agreements by distinguishing genuine and fraudulent sellers, ensuring that payments are only made when services are successfully delivered. [17]

Innovations stemming from Web 3.0 technologies may not be limited to only businesses and consumers but also benefit regulators. [18] The expansion of Web 3.0 could allow streamlining and automating compliance checks for example, by enhancing traceability in supply chains through blockchain-based tracking or simplifying royalty distributions to creators in media via decentralized platforms.

However, the efforts to increase interoperability may also expand the vectors for potential attacks, introducing vulnerabilities that hackers may exploit to compromise multiple systems simultaneously. [19] For example, protocols that facilitate the transfer of tokens and data between networks, called cross-chain bridges, could become targets for hackers [20]. In addition, the reliance on intermediaries to resolve interoperability and scalability issues (i.e., Layer 2 networks) [21] may be a step away from decentralization, the core paradigm behind Web 3.0 technologies.

Web 3.0 technologies are not entirely sheltered from data security issues and may involve challenges similar to traditional centralized systems. While decentralization can reduce risks like fraud or single points of failure, it does not eliminate security threats. [22] Rather, it shifts them to new areas, creating a need for robust security and oversight frameworks for Web 3.0 applications. For example, smart contracts are not immune from coding errors and vulnerabilities. High-profile cyberattacks and erroneous operations that may incur substantial financial loss may be hard to rectify without complex regulatory and technical processes, given the immutable nature of blockchain.

All of these developments, however, are still in nascent stages and will depend on various factors, including user adoption, regulatory approaches, and strategic decisions across the industry.

COMMERCIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL OBSTACLES TO WEB 3.0 ADOPTION

Native tokens, such as Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana, play a crucial role in the functioning of DApps and Web 3.0 ecosystems. They serve as the primary medium of exchange, enabling participants to interact with and utilize DApps. Additionally, these tokens help internalize externalities by incentivizing validators and other network participants, ensuring the security and efficiency of the decentralized system. But Web 3.0’s reliance on the more volatile underlying cryptocurrencies may lead to more volatility for its applications. [23] For example, market downturns have significantly reduced venture capital funding for blockchain startups, creating uncertainties for developers and projects. [24] Similarly, in early 2024, Ethereum experienced a year-to-date low in active validators that coincided with declining asset values. [25] This instability may be further compounded by limited access to traditional financing options, as many investors may remain wary of the perceived risks associated with blockchain-based ventures.

Another significant challenge that may threaten mass adoption is the lack of user-friendly interfaces for DApps. Unlike traditional web applications, many Web 3.0 platforms require users to navigate complex setups. For example, to interact with Uniswap, a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange, a user needs a basic understanding of blockchain concepts and the ability to manage encryption keys and interact with smart contracts to execute decentralized trades. [26] In addition, more complicated means of interacting with Web 3.0 apps may lead to security concerns such as losing funds due to user errors like mistyped wallet addresses, creating further barriers to large-scale adoption.

The decentralized nature of Web 3.0 has also led to fragmentation, with multiple protocols and a lack of industry-wide standards, creating several technologies that may lack compatibility despite the potential interoperability benefits discussed above. [27] As a result, different blockchain networks often operate in isolation, making it difficult to transfer assets or data between chains, limiting the potential for creating interconnected DApps that can leverage the strengths of multiple networks. Without a universal standard, platforms using different smart contract languages or consensus mechanisms introduce complications for transactions and validations. This fragmentation of the ecosystem may eventually limit Web 3.0’s network effects and slow large-scale adoption. [28]

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF WEB 3.0 ON REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT OF COMPETITION

The emergence of new technologies may necessitate new or updated regulations, and the nuances of how those technologies operate may require adjustments to ensure that oversight promotes efficient market operations without imposing excessive burden and hindering innovation.

A notable example is the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), adopted in June 2023. MiCA represents a landmark regulatory framework aimed at harmonizing rules for crypto assets across the EU and addressing concerns surrounding investor protection, market integrity, and financial stability by establishing comprehensive requirements for crypto asset issuers and service providers. By providing regulatory clarity, MiCA balances fostering innovation with mitigating systemic risks, and offers an environment that encourages the adoption of blockchain technologies. [29]

Regulators will likely need to balance benefits and risks brought by technological advances and design regulatory frameworks with those choices in mind. The interoperability and decentralization features of Web 3.0 have the potential to foster an efficient digital economy, for example, by reducing the scope of anticompetitive conduct (e.g., public blockchain infrastructure may reduce the risk of vertical foreclosure). At the same time, decentralization does not eliminate all potential concentration or exclusion risks. Web 3.0 networks may develop influential validators, core developers, or governance coalitions whose control over protocol updates or network throughput could function as a gatekeeper. [30] Web 3.0 may also introduce novel regulatory challenges relating to interoperability issues, as discussed above, or it may not prevent Web 3.0 companies with sufficient scale from anticompetitive conduct, including influencing a blockchain network to limit access to essential infrastructure through artificially elevating network load and transaction costs. [31]

Web 3.0 technologies could potentially increase efficiency for regulators by means of smart contract solutions for automating compliance verifications or simply due to more visibility into firms’ activities if recorded on public blockchains. [32,33] There may be concerns that smart contracts could be used to share information among competitors and help facilitate collusion or monitor each other’s actions recorded on public blockchains, or to enforce collusive agreements by imposing automatic punishments for deviations without explicit communication. [34]

Another area that may see changes with the advent of Web 3.0 is intellectual property (IP) rights. With a publicly available codebase, blockchain-based technology may facilitate the infringement of IP rights, creating a potential trade-off between transparency and IP protection, which may affect innovation incentives. A code published online without appropriate licensing enforcement may be easier to copy and use. [35] This tension has been observed with other types of open-source and licensed versions of software provided by companies. The legal challenges to licensing have been based on alleged violations of the Lanham Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). [36] Similar legal disputes could prevail within the Web 3.0 context, where open-source norms promote auditability and trust but may undermine exclusive control over proprietary innovations.

On the other hand, blockchain technology may help address IP disputes by aiding ownership confirmation and authenticity by providing immutable records. For example, the technology enables inventors and businesses to convert their trademarks or patents into digital assets such as NFTs for verification. Additionally, NFTs may provide a transparent way to keep records of transfers of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other forms of IP. Smart contracts could offer potential alternatives to managing and enforcing IP agreements via automating processes such as licensing, royalty distribution, and payment transmission, ensuring real-time compliance and efficiency. [37] These tools may streamline enforcement but may not replace the need for legal remedies or regulatory oversight, especially where off-chain conduct determines the scope or validity of underlying rights. This, however, does not diminish the role regulators will need to play in preserving incentives to innovate in a decentralized digital economy.

The evolution of new technologies such as AI and machine learning will need to be considered as part of the evolution of blockchain technology, particularly in developing smart contract validation mechanisms and the subsequent legal challenges to their implementation.

The decentralized nature of Web 3.0 may also bring ambiguity in jurisdiction allocation. Since Web 3.0 technologies operate across borders, they may not be subject to traditional regulatory structures. [38] For example, in In re: Tezos Securities Litigation, the US District Court for the Northern District of California had to rule on whether a US investor was entitled to bring a private securities litigation against a worldwide initial coin offering (ICO) project initiated by the Switzerland-based Tezos Foundation, and whether the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 applied extraterritorially to this international project. [39] The court ultimately held the Securities Exchange Act applied to the Tezos ICO, with findings that showed transactions had substantial connections to the US, and denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. [40] The court issued a judgment in 2020 approving a settlement. [41]

As another example, in 2022, the US Congress passed the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act, which grants states the same deference as the federal government when selecting a venue to enforce federal antitrust laws, thereby enhancing the use of broader state laws such as California’s Unfair Competition Law. By empowering states to play a more active role in enforcing federal antitrust regulations, the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act also introduces a more decentralized regulatory approach, which could help address multi-jurisdictional challenges but may also increase compliance complexity for blockchain enterprises.

Considering the potential improvements and continuously evolving challenges, two aspects of Web 3.0 technologies that will be essential to address in those regulations are the timing and extent of regulatory intervention, as there is a delicate balance to strike between ensuring fair competition and allowing the space to mature and innovate. Premature attempts to regulate Web 3.0 technologies may risk stifling innovation. Overly prescriptive rules or stringent requirements might limit the exploration of new solutions or disproportionately burden innovative firms.

While Web 3.0 holds promising potential, it may not provide a comprehensive solution to all regulatory and antitrust considerations associated with preceding technologies. Some Web 3.0 services may need to integrate with existing Web 2.0 technologies, which may create additional complexities and regulatory challenges. Hybrid models may introduce new layers of dependency, raising questions about which components fall under which regulatory regimes and how obligations should be allocated across decentralized and centralized elements. As with past regulations for telecommunications and later internet companies, understanding technical nuances and the use of new technologies will be essential when designing effective regulatory frameworks for the Web 3.0 era.

[1] Yuqing Fan, Tianyi Huang, Yiran Meng & Shenghui Cheng, The current opportunities and challenges of Web 3.0, arXiv (June 6, 2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03351; Introduction to Web3, Ethereum.org, https://ethereum.org/en/web3/ (last visited Nov. 18, 2025).

[2] Fan, et al., supra note 1; Web 2.0, Web Design Museum, https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/web-design-history/web-2-0-1999 (last visited March 31, 2025).

[3] Introduction to Web3, supra note 1.

[4] Why is Web 3.0 important?, supra note 4; Christian Catalini & Joshua S. Gans, Some Simple Economics of the Blockchain, Rotman School of Management Working Paper No. 2874598, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 5191-16 (2019), available athttps://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874598.

[5] Paul Wackerow, Proof-of-Work (PoW), Ethereum.org, https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pow/ (last visited Nov. 18, 2025); What is Consensus? A Beginner’s Guide, Crypto.com (May 13, 2022), https://crypto.com/en/university/consensus-mechanisms-explained; Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms Beyond PoW and PoS, Gemini.com Cryptopedia (March 10, 2023), https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/blockchain-consensus-mechanism-types-of-algorithm.

[6] Ethereum proof-of-stake attack and defense, Ethereum.com (last updated Oct. 22, 2025) https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/attack-and-defense/.

[7] Toshendra Kumar Sharma, Types of Blockchains Explained – Public Vs. Private Vs. Consortium, Blockchain Council (June 6, 2024), https://www.blockchain-council.org/blockchain/types-of-blockchains-explained-public-vs-private-vs-consortium/.

[8] Kumar Sharma, supra note 7.

[9] Kumar Sharma, supra note 7.

[10] A concept of ownership is often executed in Web 3.0 in the form of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). An NFT is a unique digital asset that represents proof of ownership and authenticity, leveraging the security provided by blockchain. Together with smart contracts’ capabilities, they provide a mechanism to assign and verify ownership of digital (and even real) assets without relying on trust in one single entity.

[11] Almudena Arcelus, Mihran Yenikomshian & Noemi Nocera, Mitigating Antitrust Concerns When Competitors Share Data Using Blockchain Technology, 34 Harv. J.L. & TECH., 2-3 (2021).

[12] What Are Open-Source Protocols?, UnchainedCrypto.com (November 20, 2023), https://unchainedcrypto.com/open-source-protocols; What is Ethereum?, Ethereum Foundation, https://ethereum.foundation/ethereum (last visited April 2, 2025); Bitcoin, bitcoin.org (last visited April 2, 2025).

[13] Christian Catalini and Scott Duke Kominers, Can WEB3 Bring Back Competition to Digital Platforms?, Competition Policy International (Feb. 23, 2022), https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/can-web3-bring-back-competition-to-digital-platforms/.

[14] Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) Explained, Amazon Web Services, https://aws.amazon.com/blockchain/nfts-explained/ (last visited April 2, 2025).

[15] Internet of things (IoT) refers to the interconnected networking of computing devices integrated into everyday objects. See Thomas Stackpole, What Is Web3? Harvard Business Review (May 10, 2022), available at https://hbr.org/2022/05/what-is-web3; Kaustub Moni Kalita, The Next Phase of the Web: Web 3.0 Evolution, Medium (August 3, 2023), https://medium.com/@Kaaustubhkalita/the-next-phase-of-the-web-web-3-0-evolution-54044ea92c76; Arcelus, et al., supra note 11; Vishal Gaur and Abhinav Gaiha, Building a Transparent Supply Chain, Harvard Business Review (May-June 2020), https://hbr.org/2020/05/building-a-transparent-supply-chain; IBM Food Trust, IBM.com, https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/food-trust (last visited April 2, 2025).

[16] Secretum is a decentralized application (DApp) with encrypted messaging that relies on blockchain-based validation instead of personal information. See Secretum, Secretum.io. LedgerMail is an email service that uses blockchain technology and encryption to protect the content of communications and facilitate email exchanges. See LedgerMail, LedgerMail.io. Audius is a streaming service that relies on blockchain technology and allows content creators to post their music and earn token rewards. See Audius, Audius.co. EdgeCast is a video streaming DApp that allows for the storage, transfer, sharing, and delivery of videos across devices. See Steve Walters, THETA EdgeCast, Coinbureau (March 29, 2023), https://coinbureau.com/review/theta-token/#theta-edgecast.

[17] Lin William Cong and Zhiguo He, Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts, 32 The Review of Financial Studies, 1754-1797 (2019).

[18] Giovanna Massarotto, Can Blockchain Technologies Resolve the U.S. Antitrust Enforcement Problem?, 25 U. PA. J. BUS. L. 657 (2023).

[19] Guneet Kaur, The risks of using cross-chain bridges, Cointelegraph, https://cointelegraph.com/learn/articles/risks-of-using-cross-chain-bridges (last updated April 4, 2024).

[20] The current state of interoperability between blockchain networks, EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum (Nov. 28, 2023), https://blockchain-observatory.ec.europa.eu/publications/current-state-interoperability-between-blockchain-networks_en.

[21] Layer 2 networks are scalability solutions built on top of blockchains like Ethereum to improve transaction speed and reduce costs by handling transactions off-chain while relying on the underlying Layer 1 for security and finality. However, many Layer 2 solutions rely on centralized sequencers to process transactions, which can introduce centralization risks, potentially undermining the decentralized nature of blockchain networks. See, e.g., Tom Ngo, L2 centralization is a ticking time bomb for blockchain, Blockworks (Aug. 20, 2024), https://blockworks.co/news/layer-2-centralization-poses-dangers-for-blockchain; What are Layer 2 solutions?, Kraken (November 26, 2024), https://www.kraken.com/learn/layer-2-solutions; Ethereum Layer-2 Growth Flashes Centralization Concerns: Should You Be Worried?, BlockNews (Dec. 8, 2024), https://blocknews.com/ethereum-layer-2-growth-highlights-centralization-concerns-amid-expansion/; Layer 2 Smart Contracts: Opportunities and Challenges, Metana (March 12, 2025), https://metana.io/blog/layer-2-smart-contracts-opportunities-and-challenges.

[22] Catalini & Kominers, supra note 20.

[23] Crypto Market Volatility: What it is and how to navigate it, Kraken (October 21, 2024), https://www.kraken.com/learn/crypto-market-volatility.

[24] Lawrence Wintermeyer, Investors Remain Cautious As Clouds Clear Over The Web3 Investment Landscape, Forbes (February 15, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencewintermeyer/2024/02/15/investors-remain-cautious-as-clouds-clear-over-the-web3-investment-landscape.

[25] What’s the Impact of the Declining Active Validator Count on Ethereum, CryptoView.io (January 15, 2024), https://www.cryptoview.io/en/news-en/impact-of-declining-active-validator-count-on-ethereum-4.

[26] Getting Started Guides, Uniswap Labs, https://support.uniswap.org/hc/en-us/categories/32174051347341-Getting-Started-Guides (last visited March 28, 2025); How to get a crypto wallet, Uniswap Labs, https://support.uniswap.org/hc/en-us/articles/8699029297677-How-to-get-a-crypto-wallet (last visited March 28, 2025).

[27] The current state of interoperability between blockchain networks, supra note 27; See also Seth Djanie Kotey, Eric Tutu Tchao, Abdul-Rahman Ahmed, Andrew Selasi Agbemenu, Henry Nunoo-Mensah, Axel Sikora, Dominik Welte & Eliel Keelson, Blockchain interoperability: the state of heterogenous blockchain-to-blockchain communication, 17 IET Communications, 891-914 (2023).

[28] The current state of interoperability between blockchain networks, supra note 27.

[29] Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), European Securities and Markets Authority, https://www.esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/digital-finance-and-innovation/markets-crypto-assets-regulation-mica (last visited April 3, 2025).

[30] The crypto ecosystem: key elements and risks, Bank for International Settlements (July 2023), https://www.bis.org/publ/othp72.pdf; Parma Bains et al., The Crypto Ecosystem and Financial Stability Challenges, in Global Financial Stability Report: Covid-19, Crypto, and Climate: Navigating Challenging Transitions, 41-57 (International Monetary Fund, 2021); Adem E. Gencer et al., Decentralization in Bitcoin and Ethereum Networks, Financial Cryptography and Data Security Twenty-Second International Conference (2018), https://fc18.ifca.ai/preproceedings/75.pdf.

[31] Blockchain Technology and Competition Policy, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (April, 26, 2018), https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/blockchain-technology-and-competition-policy_55f347f1-en.html.

[32] John McCaskill, Euel Elliott, James Harrington & L. Douglas Kiel, Antitrust Policy and Blockchain Technology: An Exploration from the Complex Systems Perspective, 2 Stanf. Computational Antitrust, 122 (2022) (discussing how blockchain could improve efficiency and transparency with smart contracts).

[33] Massarotto, supra note 25.

[34] Cong and He, supra note 24.

[35] For a more extensive discussion on this topic, see Arcelus, et al., supra note 15.

[36] Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-07182, N.D. Cal. (Nov 28, 2018).

[37] Birgit Clark and Ruth Burstall, Crypto-Pie in the Sky? How Blockchain Technology is Impacting Intellectual Property Law, 2 Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 252 (2019).

[38] Yueh-Ping (Alex) Yang, When Jurisdiction Rules Meet Blockchain: Can the Old Bottle Contain the New Wine?, 6 Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 147 (2023).

[39] Yang, supra note 43.

[40] In re Tezos Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-06779-RS, N.D. Cal. Civil L.R., 13-14, 19 (Aug. 7, 2018).

[41] In re Tezos Securities Litigation, No. 17-cv-06779-RS, N.D. Cal. Civil L.R., 1-4 (Aug. 28, 2020).