Working Group

Smart Contracts

Working Group Health

Overall the working group is going as planned. The initial goal to finish the Taxonomy work product was accomplished and ver.1 is ready and published on the wiki. New members joined the group and there is an increasing interest from people with different backgrounds (technical, law, business).


There are no issues at this time.

Overall Activity in the Past Quarter

All the meeting agendas and notes are created on confluence following the templates provided. We are using the mailing lists to inform people for upcoming meetings and the agenda. The chat channels are not so much used, this was somewhat expected because the group is having regular bi-weekly meetings and works on the wiki mostly. The audio recordings of the meetings are uploaded along with the notes on wiki. Our working group finished the Taxonomy work product, created a mind map and a summarizing table of this. Many other work products started regarding a 101 contract law work product, a 101 smart contract work product, we also created pages to summarize the SC languages, the Business and Use cases, the different frameworks and the features and SDKs. Additionally, based on the Taxonomy we created a work product for each aspect to provide a way for people with different interests to work in parallel. We keep all this material on the wiki to be easily indexed and accessible from everywhere by everyone. We believe that the group has potential, and we intend to create a blog post about the group's activities to let people know of our work and how to participate and contribute.

Planned Work Products

We are going to work on defining Security aspects of the SC, on setting Standards for SC and pursuing Interoperability between the different platforms regarding SC. We will also continue our work products regarding Functional requirements, Computation and Law.

Participant Diversity

The working group started with many participants and interest from different contributors. After a few weeks, there was a doodle posted for people to decide about the day and time of our meetings. After the doodle was finished and we changed the day many participants (included those who voted for the date/time change) stopped attending the meetings. I (Sofia) sent a reminder to the mailing list for the change of date and time and contacted personally for the same reason every member I had their email. After that, although old members didn't start to attend again new members joined the group and started contributing. Concerning the diversity, we have people from Australia, US and Europe attending and contributing.

Additional Information


Reviewed By

  • Arnaud Le Hors
  • Baohua Yang
  • Binh Nguyen
  • Christopher Ferris
  • Dan Middleton
  • Hart Montgomery
  • Kelly Olson
  • Mark Wagner
  • Mic Bowman
  • Nathan George
  • Silas Davis

  • No labels


  1. Has the SCWG considered the Architecture WG's vol2 report on Smart Contracts) in its work? I see reference to Fabric docs, but the vol2 white paper isn't cited. Also, if the taxonomy is considered completed, shouldn't it be reviewed? Or is this just a working document and not intended as something used formally.

  2. Chris thanks for pointing out that Architecture WG's vol2 report on Smart Contracts was missing as a link. It was mentioned in one of our previous meetings and we had a discussion about it before starting this work product of "what a smart contract is".  As for the reviewing process of the taxonomy I didn't know there was one. Please give me some directions on how to do this, should I apply somewhere or just send an email to the TSC? I have also uploaded a paper here Blockchain 3.0 Smart Contracts in e-Government 3.0 Applications which is about to be reviewed and discussed by our SC members in our next SC WG meeting, people from soramitsu expressed an interest to work on it as well. We would like to make something more official from it, maybe a whitepaper. Which is the procedure of applying for a review for this one as well in order to be used formally?