Even the most advanced of technology is not immune to human politics. There will always be ways for humans to influence the tech that also, in turn, limits human actions. With regards to blockchain, developers can only try to strike a balance between the two. They cannot truly opt for one without considering the other. Failure to consider human rights in Web3 is not being impartial, but rather a conscious decision to overlook them. Impartiality is, in essence, a rejection, a lost opportunity, and a failure to imagine.

Given the current state of affairs, the existing global system is falling through on its responsibilities. It is time for a new order to unveil. With blockchain, decentralised communities have the potential to address current shortcomings of our political and social apparatus. Smart contracts can enforce commitments that are not tied to any national legal system. Instead, agreements could be enforced and facilitated by decentralised networks without the need for lawyers or diplomats. This could lead to a shift away from governments and corporations as the primary actors on a global stage.

At the heart of blockchain technology, certain rights already exist. The most prominent are the right to control assets through ownership of account keys and the right to make untraceable payments. Almost every line of code has been a political and social decision. However, Web3 players should continue to address the potential liabilities posed by cryptocurrencies and whether they are appropriate for governing other domains of human lives beyond economic value.

Creating a conducive environment for Web3 builders involves ensuring that human rights are not an obstacle but rather an enabler. For Web2 businesses, compliance can be easily achieved by obeying local laws. They tend to leave the burden of upholding international human rights agreements on their governments. When it comes to Web3, it is not as simple due to the absence of a single central authority. However, blockchain protocols could still be an ideal location for incorporating mechanisms to protect human rights. If there were a widely accepted set of blockchain-based Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it could attract more adopters. Founders could focus on developing and launching products with more confidence, while users could onboard with a strong assurance that they have a full set of protected rights in Web3.

How this blockchain-based human rights article could look like will depend on the context. Take the right of privacy for example. Since the definition of this concept may vary according to different blockchain platforms, how it could be encoded may be best determined by individual dApps. However, there could be shared libraries for developers to streamline the coding of rights into their product. Enforcing these rights could work in a similar way to how validators verify and validate transactions on a blockchain. There could be separate nodes dedicated to monitoring user addresses and redistributing funds. “Digital courts” or specialised DAOs could settle disputes on-chain. KYC and due process could be incorporated into a protocol, eliminating the need for intermediaries. Engaging with such thought experiments could lead to new types of enforcement mechanisms that are not possible under traditional systems.

One way to determine which rights should be encoded in blockchain is for more developers to start pushing each other to build stronger rights mechanisms. Users can also organise in a decentralised movement, demanding rights as a requirement for their onboarding to certain dApps or protocols. By embedding human rights into blockchain, we could reconstruct the technology as one that furthers political and social justice instead of one that chooses to evade.

The decentralised space is already building commitments to public goods into code. Zcash provides an additional right to privacy by enabling untraceable payments, which could be seen as a way to protect human rights and prevent surveillance. 0L blockchain allocates a portion of all validator rewards to users who contribute to the development and maintenance of the infrastructure. Encoding some human rights into the blockchain can prevent us from falling into another iteration of society where we would need to coordinate and continuously fight for our basic freedom as members of multiple DAOs. Instead, we can dedicate more of our time on building viable use cases and products.

We can only hope that more crypto projects will prioritise human rights in the long run. With more government regulators cracking down the industry, it is likely inevitable that some regulations like investor protections may soon become part of blockchain protocols. Any wrong act could damage a brand, even in the world of crypto. This is obvious with fallen companies like FTX and Terra. However, relying solely on market forces to achieve a public good is likely to be ineffective. We have seen how the stock market can indirectly encourage bad labour conditions and environmental damage by incentivising companies to prioritise short-term financial gains. Creating a decentralised world of rights will require more than just market competition.

It is important to note that replicating nation-state structures on Web3 should not be the goal. Governments often selectively enforce human rights. Many times, they have taken a particular moral stance against certain activities based on political motivations. How different countries are divided over China’s political moves serves as an example. Thus, blockchains should be used to help protect rights that states have failed to defend. This does not mean forcing one culture's preferences on others. Rather, it is about creating distinct and diverse governance designs that serve different needs and uses. Since multiple blockchains can exist at the same time, various rights regimes can overlap and interact.

While blockchain technology has enormous potential for promoting human rights, more efforts should be made to integrate basic protections into code. The development of blockchain infrastructure for the next global era should be judged based on whether it expands or undermines the hard-won human rights we already have.

Even the most advanced of technology is not immune to human politics. There will always be ways for humans to influence the tech that also, in turn, limits human actions. With regards to blockchain, developers can only try to strike a balance between the two. They cannot truly opt for one without considering the other. Failure to consider human rights in Web3 is not being impartial, but rather a conscious decision to overlook them. Impartiality is, in essence, a rejection, a lost opportunity, and a failure to imagine.

Given the current state of affairs, the existing global system is falling through on its responsibilities. It is time for a new order to unveil. With blockchain, decentralised communities have the potential to address current shortcomings of our political and social apparatus. Smart contracts can enforce commitments that are not tied to any national legal system. Instead, agreements could be enforced and facilitated by decentralised networks without the need for lawyers or diplomats. This could lead to a shift away from governments and corporations as the primary actors on a global stage.

At the heart of blockchain technology, certain rights already exist. The most prominent are the right to control assets through ownership of account keys and the right to make untraceable payments. Almost every line of code has been a political and social decision. However, Web3 players should continue to address the potential liabilities posed by cryptocurrencies and whether they are appropriate for governing other domains of human lives beyond economic value.

Creating a conducive environment for Web3 builders involves ensuring that human rights are not an obstacle but rather an enabler. For Web2 businesses, compliance can be easily achieved by obeying local laws. They tend to leave the burden of upholding international human rights agreements on their governments. When it comes to Web3, it is not as simple due to the absence of a single central authority. However, blockchain protocols could still be an ideal location for incorporating mechanisms to protect human rights. If there were a widely accepted set of blockchain-based Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it could attract more adopters. Founders could focus on developing and launching products with more confidence, while users could onboard with a strong assurance that they have a full set of protected rights in Web3.

How this blockchain-based human rights article could look like will depend on the context. Take the right of privacy for example. Since the definition of this concept may vary according to different blockchain platforms, how it could be encoded may be best determined by individual dApps. However, there could be shared libraries for developers to streamline the coding of rights into their product. Enforcing these rights could work in a similar way to how validators verify and validate transactions on a blockchain. There could be separate nodes dedicated to monitoring user addresses and redistributing funds. “Digital courts” or specialised DAOs could settle disputes on-chain. KYC and due process could be incorporated into a protocol, eliminating the need for intermediaries. Engaging with such thought experiments could lead to new types of enforcement mechanisms that are not possible under traditional systems.

One way to determine which rights should be encoded in blockchain is for more developers to start pushing each other to build stronger rights mechanisms. Users can also organise in a decentralised movement, demanding rights as a requirement for their onboarding to certain dApps or protocols. By embedding human rights into blockchain, we could reconstruct the technology as one that furthers political and social justice instead of one that chooses to evade.

The decentralised space is already building commitments to public goods into code. Zcash provides an additional right to privacy by enabling untraceable payments, which could be seen as a way to protect human rights and prevent surveillance. 0L blockchain allocates a portion of all validator rewards to users who contribute to the development and maintenance of the infrastructure. Encoding some human rights into the blockchain can prevent us from falling into another iteration of society where we would need to coordinate and continuously fight for our basic freedom as members of multiple DAOs. Instead, we can dedicate more of our time on building viable use cases and products.

We can only hope that more crypto projects will prioritise human rights in the long run. With more government regulators cracking down the industry, it is likely inevitable that some regulations like investor protections may soon become part of blockchain protocols. Any wrong act could damage a brand, even in the world of crypto. This is obvious with fallen companies like FTX and Terra. However, relying solely on market forces to achieve a public good is likely to be ineffective. We have seen how the stock market can indirectly encourage bad labour conditions and environmental damage by incentivising companies to prioritise short-term financial gains. Creating a decentralised world of rights will require more than just market competition.

It is important to note that replicating nation-state structures on Web3 should not be the goal. Governments often selectively enforce human rights. Many times, they have taken a particular moral stance against certain activities based on political motivations. How different countries are divided over China’s political moves serves as an example. Thus, blockchains should be used to help protect rights that states have failed to defend. This does not mean forcing one culture's preferences on others. Rather, it is about creating distinct and diverse governance designs that serve different needs and uses. Since multiple blockchains can exist at the same time, various rights regimes can overlap and interact.

While blockchain technology has enormous potential for promoting human rights, more efforts should be made to integrate basic protections into code. The development of blockchain infrastructure for the next global era should be judged based on whether it expands or undermines the hard-won human rights we already have.