Cryptoinsurance

Innovation and Economic Growth, Privacy and Security and Artificial Intelligence

Article Snapshot

Author(s)

Michael B. Abramowicz

Source

Wake Forest Law Review, Vol. 50, pp. 671-709, 2015

Summary

So far, technology has not enabled disruption of the traditional insurance industry. However, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin could support new decentralized insurance systems that bypass regulation.

Policy Relevance

A system of insurance supported by cryptocurrency would be difficult to regulate.

Main Points

  • In the next half century, an upstart business model could use technology to radically disrupt the insurance industry, avoiding regulatory restrictions and costs to offer insurance at lower rates.
     
  • Unregulated competition can test whether the traditional regulations are really beneficial; disruption of a regulated industry is most likely:
     
    • When the new unregulated business model is legal;
       
    • When existing regulation entails high costs;
       
    • When provision of the new service is decentralized and hard to control.
       
  • Cryptocurrency could enable an insurance company in one jurisdiction to offer insurance to those in other jurisdictions; third-party escrow agents could oversee the insurer's spending to block the insurer from absconding with the funds.
     
  • Alternatively, smart contracts and cryptocurrencies could be used to offer insurance without the involvement of an insurance company.
     
    • Participants would pay premiums into a fund using a cryptocurrency.
       
    • A decentralized peer-to-peer mechanism could determine whether a loss had occurred.
       
    • Periodically, the fund could be distributed to participants, with the amount of the payout depending on how much the participant had contributed and estimates of the risk of loss.
       
  • This cryptoinsurance system would be similar to a type of mutual insurance historically known as “La Crema.”
     
    • Each household in a village would annually declare the value of its property.
       
    • If a house burns, the homeowners would receive a payout of the amount they declared, so that those who made larger payments would receive more in the event of loss.
       
  • Traditional insurance regulation might be beneficial, as it is designed as consumer protection; for example, cryptoinsurance might undermine laws barring genetic discrimination.
     
    • Cryptoinsurance would be hard to regulate directly.
       
    • Regulators could confiscate payments to buyers of cryptoinsurance.
       
    • Regulators could require the purchase of traditional insurance rather than cryptoinsurance.
       
  • In the long run, market forces rather than the government will decide whether radical financial disruption is beneficial.
     

Get The Article

Find the full article online

Search for Full Article

Share