New York University School of Law professors Max Raskin and Jack Millman have published a paper in the Journal of Emerging Technologies that explores the utilization of blockchain-based smart contracts for what they term "personal growth bets." These personal growth bets are essentially unilateral contracts that individuals make with themselves to promote self-improvement by adopting or quitting specific behaviors within a specified timeframe.
To illustrate the concept, the paper provides the example of an individual trying to lose weight. A simplified version of a personal growth bet might be structured like this: "If Max doesn't lose 10 pounds in the next six months, he must pay Jack $1,000. However, if he does lose weight, Jack must pay Max for a steak dinner."
The primary argument put forth in the paper is that incentives can be potent drivers of positive behavioral change, but without a mechanism for accountability, these incentives often fall short. Smart contracts, the authors suggest, can act as both enforcers and monitors, enabling individuals to effectively hold themselves accountable without requiring external involvement.
Raskin and Millman propose a framework in which blockchain-based smart contracts are created using "contract software," which involves hardware for monitoring or verifying the conditions of the bet to ensure compliance. For instance, in a case of quitting smoking, they describe an individual investing $10,000 in a smart contract that necessitates staying smoke-free for 30 days before the funds are released. If the person fails, the funds can be automatically directed to a predefined charitable organization.
To enforce the terms of the bet, the authors envision a system where users can validate compliance by employing a carbon monoxide breathalyzer, which detects the presence of cigarette smoke in the breath, similar to an alcohol breathalyzer used for measuring blood alcohol concentration. If the user misses the required check-in or fails the breathalyzer test, the smart contract's terms would be executed automatically, resulting in the forfeiture of the user's stakes.
Although the concept appears straightforward, the legal standing and enforceability of self-contracts remain somewhat ambiguous. The researchers argue that there should be no inherent legal obstacles preventing individuals from committing their financial assets to their self-made bets, provided that the terms are legally considered. However, they caution that there should be limitations on what individuals can use as stakes, particularly considering the autonomous nature of smart contracts.
The paper also delves into a hypothetical scenario where an individual is willing to implant a bomb in their own head as a pledge to repay a loan, with the bomb set to detonate if they default or attempt to withdraw the loan prematurely. While deemed a "strong" smart contract due to its terms imposing prohibitively high costs for rescission by the debtor, the paper highlights that such a contract may not be legal as a self-contract due to various laws regarding suicide.
