Latest Research Topics in Online Dispute
Resolution in Finance

Introduction

Over the years, Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) has brought many new digital assets and financial instruments into the financial sector, drastically changing global finance. Such rapid innovation naturally leads to a few disputes in DLT finance. These disputes arise from problems caused by false statements pledged at token launches or custodial failures in preventing hacks [1]. Addressing these disputes effectively requires much consideration of traditional and novel modes of dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, this article lays down the possibilities for future legal research toward greater dispute avoidance and resolution in the DLT financial arena.

Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in DLT Finance

Financial disputes are typically settled through court litigation or arbitration, which is the most traditional approach [1]. However, offenders face difficulties due to the peculiarities of traditional DLT. These issues range from the parties' anonymity to the jurisdictional problems that arise from decentralized DLT and the applicability of choice-of-court agreements [1]. These obstacles necessitate a reassessment of current legal frameworks, assuming that they are capable of handling the complexities associated with and resulting from DLT.

Emerging Tools for DLT Dispute Prevention and Resolution

New technologies beyond the classical models have the effect of offering interesting avenues for dispute prevention and resolution in the field of DLT finance. For example, smart contracts could execute and enforce agreements automatically, which would be expected to limit the area of dispute. However, their rigidity and the potential for coding errors present limitations. Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) offer peculiar internal mechanisms for dealing with conflicts. But still, they pose new uncertainties about legal status and enforceability. The developing lines of future research will take a close look at integrating such tools into existing legal frameworks.

Research Agenda

To address the complexities of dispute resolution in DLT finance, the following research directions are proposed:

• Comparative Analysis of Anonymity in Legal Proceedings: Study the methods employed by various jurisdictions in handling lawsuits brought by or against parties accused of being anonymous, assessing the effectiveness and the shortcomings of these approaches.
• Jurisdictional Frameworks for Decentralized Transactions: Assess the adequacy of jurisdictional rules as currently configured in view of the decentralized nature of DLT and suggest adaptations to align the legal framework fully with the realities of the technology.
• Scope and Enforcement of Choice-of-Court Agreements: Analyze the enforceability of jurisdiction clauses in contracts related to DLT, with particular emphasis on tort claims and secondary market conduct.
• Integration of Technological Tools in Legal Processes: Explore the possibilities and limitations of smart contracts and DAOs in dispute resolution, focusing on their legal recognition and the challenges of integrating them into traditional legal systems.

Proposed Methodology

The proposed research will employ both doctrinal legal analysis and empirical study. The analysis will examine laws, regulations, and decisions in several jurisdictions to identify gaps and inconsistencies in DLT. The empirical study consists of conducting surveys and interviews with practitioners of law, regulators, and participants in the DLT to derive insights. This mixed method would hope to achieve richer insight into the problems encountered and hence assist in informing the development of conducive legal frameworks.

Potential Implications

Developments in these fields have significant legal and financial repercussions. Participants in DLT finance benefit from greater protection in a more stable legal environment, which boosts confidence and adoption of emerging financial technologies. Furthermore, integrating these technological tools into the dispute-resolution process will improve the efficacy and efficiency of the final resolutions, reducing the strain on established legal systems and enhancing access to justice.

Example Title #1: Comparative Analysis of Anonymity in Legal Proceedings

Background

Anonymity, which is a defining feature of DLT transactions, is fundamentally a barrier to tracking down unlawful acts. Some jurisdictions permit the filing of a lawsuit against an unidentified defendant, others require identifiable parties. The practical success or failure of these frameworks raises concerns about judicial enforceability and access to justice. Accordingly, a comparative analysis could be useful in identifying the most effective procedures and potential legislative changes to address anonymity in financial disputes.

Research Questions

• How do different jurisdictions approach lawsuits against anonymous defendants?
• What legal mechanisms exist for enforcing judgments against unidentified parties?
• How does anonymity impact plaintiffs' ability to seek legal remedies in DLT-related disputes?

Implications

This research can inform policy recommendations for harmonizing legal approaches to anonymity in financial litigation. It may also enhance legal certainty for plaintiffs and defendants, influencing regulatory frameworks for digital asset transactions.

Suggested Reading

• De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2025). A research agenda for online dispute resolution for DLT finance. Edward Elgar Publishing. Link
• Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Link
• European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2023). Regulatory Challenges of Anonymity in Blockchain Transactions.

Example Title #2: Jurisdictional Frameworks for Decentralized Transactions

Background

Finances via DLT are transacted across borders which cause challenges for traditional jurisdictional principles; courts usually go for territorial-based rules when it comes to jurisdiction, but those may be insufficient for decentralized structures. Updating the jurisdictional framework is clearly a need in order to accommodate the delocalized background within which digital assets exist.

Research Questions

• How do different legal systems establish jurisdiction over decentralized financial disputes?
• What jurisdictional challenges arise when dealing with smart contracts and DAOs?
• How can legal frameworks be adapted to accommodate the decentralized nature of DLT transactions?

Implications

Findings may contribute to the evolution of international jurisdictional rules, fostering legal clarity for cross-border digital finance disputes. They could also support regulatory convergence efforts, benefiting policymakers and financial institutions.

Suggested Reading

• Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., & Arner, D. W. (2022). Legal Challenges in Regulating Decentralized Finance (DeFi).
• European Commission. (2023). Jurisdiction in the Digital Economy: Implications for DLT Finance.
• Elgar Online. (2025). Distributed Ledger Technology Law and Jurisdictional Dilemmas. Link

Example Title #3: Scope and Enforcement of Choice-of-Court Agreements

Background

Most financial contracts contain clauses for choice of court to provide certainty in regard to dispute resolution. However, the efficacy of such agreements under DLT finance remains uncertain particularly in cases involving secondary market participants or tortious claims. Courts may limit their enforcement due to consumer protection laws or jurisdictional rules.

Research Questions

• To what extent are choice-of-court clauses enforceable in DLT-related disputes?
• How do courts handle jurisdictional conflicts arising from secondary market transactions?
• What legal reforms are needed to enhance the predictability of jurisdiction agreements in DLT finance?

Implications

Clarifying the enforceability of choice-of-court agreements can reduce legal uncertainty for investors and financial institutions. It may also encourage uniformity in judicial interpretations, facilitating dispute resolution in DLT transactions.

Suggested Reading

• Born, G. (2021). International Commercial Arbitration and Jurisdiction Clauses in Digital Finance.
• Financial Stability Board (FSB). (2024). Regulatory Challenges in Cryptoasset Dispute Resolution.
• De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2025). Choice-of-Court Agreements and DLT Finance: Legal Uncertainty and Reforms. Link

About PhD Assistance

For researchers and academic scholars, research topics are quite critical to get. People often get lost in the process of selecting a topic. At PhD Assistance we, support academic scholars and researchers to walk past the hurdle of topic selection with our PhD topic selection services.