In 1965, Gordon Moore posited that computing power would double roughly every year. 1 Since 1965, this has proved to be relatively true, but the doubling period is closer to eighteen months. Even though physical barriers are being approached, new methods of creating circuits hold the promise of potentially decades more to come. 2 This is just hardware, and says nothing of the layers of software, algorithms, and other hardware built on top of it. The rapid pace of technological change created an undreamt of wealth, increased lifespan, and decreased worldwide violence and poverty. 3 On the flip side, the inability of regulators to effectively and efficiently regulate emergent technologies led to a vast disparity of outcomes, polarization of politics, and attitudes towards society and other people. 4 Now, more than ever, effective regulation of emergent technology is needed to prevent crystallization of inequality and inequity without stymying innovation and progress. While punishment and justice for victims are important considerations, it is not the most effective method of achieving the dual goals of safety and innovation. Instead, in hyper emergent technology, the regulatory focus should be incentivizing prosocial behaviors and not simply punishing bad actors for harms like fraud or embezzlement.
The first section is background defining what blockchain is and how punitive regulatory frameworks have proved inadequate when dealing with bleeding edge technological innovation and created a false dichotomy between safety and innovation. The second section is an exploration of the behavioral science behind punishment and reinforcement-based models. The third section is an explanation of why blockchain technology is a perfect regulatory sandbox for incentive based regulatory schemes. The final sections are a discussion of specific kinds of regulations and challenges in implementation and recommendations for how to solve them.

When 17-year-old Noelle Martin conducted an innocent Google search in 2012, she was confronted with a new, unfortunate reality—her face was being implanted onto other women’s bodies in online pornographic videos, 1 a phenomenon known as “deepfakes”. 2 When Martin first found her likeness implanted into these pornographic videos, there was no federal law for her to turn to for relief. 3 Twelve years later, Martin is still experiencing harassment over the deepfake pornographic content that she was doctored into, 4 and yet still no federal law addressing deepfake pornography exists allowing her to seek relief. 5 Despite being victimized by this technology, Martin has refused to remain silent about the need for regulation of this use of deepfake technology. 6 Forbes credits her continued action as a “major factor” behind legislation that makes the circulation of nonconsensual intimate images illegal in Australia. 7 Martin’s story is one of resilience, not tragedy, and it serves as a call to action for society to join her in the fight against nonconsensual deepfake pornography.
Deepfake artificial intelligence is a technology that allows users to copy and paste someone’s likeness onto a different person’s body to depict a real person in a fictional scenario. 8 While deepfake technology is not inherently malicious,9 96% of the total deepfake videos on the internet depict nonconsensual pornography. 10