There are various negative sides to anonymity and avoiding liability online, moving forward measures need to be put into place to deal with the issues caused by anonymity on the internet. Some operations need to be encrypted or anonymous (banking, automated vehicles, etc) but it is increasingly clear from social media, the inciting of hate, violence, or terrorism online and cyber-bullying that anonymity and avoiding liability online can have overtly negative effects also. Likewise avoiding liability in a smart contract that should be binding will have negative outcomes and needs to be avoided.
Just as with current legal contracts, smart contracts can be susceptible to vulnerabilities, studies have found that around 45% of Ethereum contracts have vulnerabilities in them. Smart contract are promising but are still susceptible to hacks, insider manipulation or interference, and unintended outcomes from code failure or unanticipated situations arising. Measures can be put in place to alleviate some of these issues, however anonymity surrounding smart contracts may require further contractual stipulations such as consequential damage contracts or clauses. But just as greater guidelines will be needed moving forward legally surrounding blockchain, so will better guidelines to deal with anonymity and what are the safe boundaries to being anonymous online.