Regulating Initial Coin Offerings and Cryptocurrencies : A Comparison of Different Approaches in Nine Jurisdictions Worldwide

Abstract

Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and cryptocurrencies are applications of blockchain technology that offer many benefits.ICOs are increasingly used by companies for crowdfunding, allowing startups to find investors.Cryptocurrencies allow cheap, fast and straightforward international money transfers.However, along with such benefits also come risks, like volatility of cryptocurrency rates, abuse by (cyber)criminals, and other risks and uncertainties for investors.Governments across the globe are struggling with the question whether and how to regulate cryptocurrencies and ICOs.The technologies and applications are similar in different jurisdictions, but the responses of legislators, regulators and supervisory authorities widely differ.In this article, we investigate the regulatory responses to cryptocurrencies and ICOs in nine jurisdictions worldwide.The aim of investigating different approaches towards regulating cryptocurrencies and ICOs is to identify different approaches, to make a comparison between jurisdictions, and to identify potential good or best practices.The nine jurisdictions that are compared in this paper are Australia, Belgium, China, Estonia, Japan, Switzerland, The Netherlands, the United States, and the European Union. of cybercrime.Moreover, it should provide some sort of consumer/investor protection and clarity when it comes to tax liability.A legislative and regulatory framework that provides all these aspects will prevent abuse and may enable governments to intervene when issues occur.