Blockchain Evidence in Civil Procedure: Application Predicaments and Path to Improvement

China’s legislative framework for blockchain evidence has initially taken shape, but it places undue emphasis on the recognition of formal technical requirements. It fails to fully regulate critical issues, such as pre-chain risks and the qualifications of blockchain service platforms. Consequently, the volume of relevant cases has surged, while the conversion rate of blockchain-stored evidence remains low. Furthermore, differences in platform attributes have resulted in a two-tiered system of evidentiary probative capability, alongside inconsistent jurisdictional review criteria. The key dilemmas are first reflected in the coexistence of blind trust and reluctance to adopt blockchain evidence. In addition, the technical self-verification advantages of blockchain can hardly be realized. Meanwhile, there are no unified rules for the examination of evidence authenticity. Additionally, legality verification is limited solely to platform qualifications, and the review of evidence relevance is not supported by dedicated rules. These issues arise from technical structural vulnerabilities, judicial risk avoidance, deficiencies in the platform filing system, and outdated legal norms. To address these challenges, it is imperative to integrate technological and legal logic, balancing the trust in evidence with review mechanisms. We must strengthen pre-chain controls and establish an evidence framework that prioritizes technical self-verification, supplemented by public credibility. Simultaneously, we should unify the technical qualifications and operational norms of platforms. Furthermore, a three-tier review system should be established to examine both formal and substantive authenticity in the pre- and post-chain stages. Equally important, refined criteria are needed for determining the legality and relevance of electronic evidence.