Introduction. This article discusses the problem of the lack of special legislative regulation of the institution of smart contracts, which is expressed, among other things, in the absence of a definition of the concept of a smart contract and a distributed ledger of transactions (blockchain) in the law. The authors made an attempt to identify the presence of negative effects on legal relations due to the presence of a legislative gap in the regulation of this institution. Materials and methods. As part of the research, the author uses both general and specific scientific research methods. When studying the issue of the origin of the institution of smart contracts, the authors use the historical method, and when considering the issue of the existence of a gap in the legislative regulation of the institution of smart contracts in domestic law, they use the comparative legal method of scientific knowledge. Results of the study. The authors come to the conclusion that one of the main problems currently existing in the field of legal regulation of smart contracts is the lack of special regulation of this institution, as well as the lack of legislative recognition of the concept of a smart contract and a distributed registry of transactions. The identified problems create obstacles to the development and application of the institution of smart contracts in civil law relations. Discussion and conclusions. The study showed that the simplest solution to eliminating the regulatory gap of the smart contract institution is to legislate the concept of a smart contract and a distributed transaction registry in the wording proposed in the draft Law on the Central Federal District, which will make the use of this institution more attractive for participants in civil legal relations and will contribute to the development the specified institute.
Chelsea Medina, Lily Shaw, Dissy Vargas, Sundar Krishnan
This paper discusses the mechanisms of cryptocurrency, the idea of using security in the system, and the popularity of it. To begin, the authors provide a background on cryptocurrency and how it works. The authors understand that while most people may be familiar with the concept, they may not know how it works. Next, the authors discuss the security of cryptocurrency in-depth within the paper. The authors also provide examples of attacks on cryptocurrency systems to show the vulnerabilities within the system. Lastly, the authors discuss the popularity of the system to further express the need for security in cryptocurrency.
The article is devoted to the study of the current legal regulation of virtual assets in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. The author analyses the advantages and disadvantages of the relevant legal framework, as well as the possibility and feasibility of implementing the most successful solutions into Ukrainian legislation. Due to the lack of in-depth studies that would combine the main regulatory norms and definitions and provide a general overview of this regulatory system, it became necessary to study in detail the current legal system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, which is characterised by high autonomy from the rest of the PRC, and to identify the institutions that perform the functions of a regulator of virtual assets. Next, the author provide a legislative definition of virtual assets and their classification. Unlike other jurisdictions, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC focuses on the key features inherent in this particular object of civil rights, and excludes from the definition other objects that have similar features but are already regulated separately. The common law system makes it possible to regulate certain aspects of the circulation of virtual assets through precedents, which helps to quickly adapt to changes in this market, where new concepts and civil law relations emerge every few years. For example, it was through precedent that it was determined that cryptocurrencies are property and can therefore be the subject of a trust. Currently, not all objects created on the basis of blockchain technology are subject to regulation, such as non-fungible tokens or central bank digital currencies, as the possibility of their circulation is still being investigated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. The article also examines the new nuances of licensing service providers related to the circulation of virtual assets, which require dual licensing under two regimes regulated by separate legal acts. The author concludes that Hong Kong has managed to regulate the circulation of virtual assets in one way or another, but has not managed to create a clear system for all market participants, so it is possible to introduce some solutions into Ukrainian legislation, but in general, this legal regulation system has many disadvantages and sometimes creates legal uncertainty.
Open access
Security, Politics, and Digital Transformation
Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
Tema ovog rada je analiza tržišta kriptovaluta. Kriptovalute na neki način predstavljaju financijsku revoluciju, te virtualne valute su stekle ogromnu popularnost u zadnjih desetak godina i sve više postaju dio našeg svakodnevnog života. Sve od njihove prve pojave, kriptovalute su kontroverzna tema javnosti. Dok su nekima prilika za ozbiljnu zaradu, drugi misle da su prevara i da im se ne može vjerovati. Nemoguće je zanemariti ogroman utjecaj ovih naizgled nepostojećih valuta koje svakim danom mijenjaju način na koji ljudi gledaju na novac. Cilj ovog rada je prikazati nastanak kriptovaluta, njihov napredak i izrazito nestabilno tržište na kojem čak ni najveći stručnjaci ne mogu predvidjeti što će se sljedeće dogoditi. Osim toga, u radu su prikazane pozitivne i negativne strane kriptovaluta te su opisane neke od najpoznatijih kriptovaluta zajedno s njihovim načinom rada. Također su prikazane kontroverze koje prate digitalne valute tijekom godina. Nakon niza godina spominjanja kriptovaluta kao valute budućnosti, ta budućnost je stigla.
The role and significance of the cryptocurrency phenomenon is defined. The directions of criminal use of cryptocurrencies are outlined. Algorithms for the use of cryptocurrencies and illegal crypto markets by Russian criminals have been revealed. The prerequisites and features of the use of cryptocurrency mixers and tumblers for the purpose of concealing criminal cryptocurrency operations are disclosed. The decentralized service “Tornado Cash” and the directions of its criminal use are characterized. Modern ways of circumventing sanctions and avoiding sanctions pressure during the purchase of cryptocurrencies by Russian war criminals and hackers have been identified. The features of the functioning of centralized and decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges in the context of existing and probable restrictions on cross-border cryptocurrency payments and p2p transfers by Russians are detailed. The basic provisions of the EU law on AML were considered in order to introduce restrictions on the implementation of anonymous cryptocurrency transactions. The positive experience of Israel in combating the financing of terrorism with the help of cryptocurrencies is highlighted. The further directions of improvement of the mechanisms to prevent the use of cryptocurrencies for the purpose of supporting war criminals and financing terrorism have been identified, including within the framework of regulatory settlement.
This article explores the recent collapses of prominent crypto trading and lending firms Voyager and Celsius, investigates the prevailing business models of crypto firms and identifies potential causes of their failure. The insolvencies of Voyager and Celsius reveal complex legal problems, particularly concerning the determination and allocation of customer rights in deposited crypto-assets. The EU Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCAR) seeks to protect investors by requiring the safekeeping and segregation of crypto-assets held in custody. Yet it does not necessarily protect those investors who ‘lend’ their crypto-assets to crypto-lending platforms with the expectation of earning rewards. MiCAR lacks a dedicated legal framework for crypto-lending, which suffers from many classic financial sector vulnerabilities. To address this gap, we propose the adoption of a new instrument, MiCAR II. Drawing inspiration from existing regulations for financial intermediaries like banks, MiCAR II may incorporate five elements: (i) a large exposures regime, (ii) robust disclosure requirements, (iii) structural and organizational separation of custody and trading/investment activities, (iv) deposit-like guarantees and (v) a dedicated recovery and resolution regime for significant crypto firms. In 2022, the cryptocurrency market experienced a significant downturn (‘crypto winter’), which coincided with the downfall of several major market players. On 5 July 2022, the crypto trading and lending firm Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc. (Voyager) filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.1 Shortly thereafter, on 13 July 2022, Celsius Network LLC, a leading crypto-lending platform, and its affiliated entities filed for bankruptcy in the same court.2 Both Voyager and Celsius acted as lenders to one of the world’s largest crypto hedge funds, Three Arrows Capital Ltd. (3AC), which since June 2022 is itself subject to the liquidation proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. In November 2022, the cryptocurrency market turmoil reached a critical point when one of the largest crypto exchanges, FTX, and its affiliated crypto trader, Alameda, collapsed. Given the complexities and ongoing investigations surrounding the cases of FTX and Alameda, we will not address them separately here.3 This article analyses the collapses of Voyager and Celsius, examines the likely causes of their demise and explores some of the typical legal issues accompanying crypto failures. It also questions whether the Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCAR), a recently introduced law aimed at harmonizing the regulation of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) and crypto-asset services within the European Union (EU), can prevent or at least reduce the damaging effects of crypto failures and ensure sufficient protection of crypto investors. The article is structured as follows. Section 2 starts with a summary of the key features characterizing crypto failures. It continues with a discussion of a prominent issue observed in most crypto insolvencies, namely the attribution of rights in deposited crypto-assets in insolvency of a CASP. Section 3 introduces MiCAR and its provisions on the safekeeping and segregation of reserve and customer crypto-assets. Section 4 shifts the focus to Voyager and Celsius, examining their business models and addressing the legal challenges associated with crypto-lending more broadly. Section 5 consists of several parts. First, it considers the provisions of MiCAR that directly and indirectly impact the operations of crypto lenders. Second, it draws attention to the differences and similarities between crypto finance and traditional finance. Third, it puts forward several suggestions for future regulation, referred to as MiCAR II. Section 6 concludes. Instances of crypto failures are not unprecedented, with one of the most well-known examples being the infamous collapse of the Japanese crypto exchange Mt.Gox in 2014. Other notable cases include the failures of the Italian crypto exchange Bitgrail in 2019 and the New Zealand crypto exchange Cryptopia in 2020. The recent wave of crypto insolvencies raises some familiar questions, including: Are crypto-assets objects of property rights?4 Do crypto-assets transferred to a crypto exchange or another CASP become part of the insolvency or are property of between in and is the at which the of crypto-assets crypto-assets as The to questions on property and insolvency as as and by crypto firms. the crypto insolvencies of 2022 several First, the failures of crypto firms market crypto crypto hedge funds, crypto are and the in crypto-assets can The impact of a market downfall or the of a as a can to their and This not itself in the at least not to the same as Second, since the of in crypto-assets experienced or new as crypto-lending and of crypto firms to and the more recent collapses of Voyager and Celsius can at least to their and business business models crypto lenders to large exposures and and by finance and In some key the ongoing within crypto to the turmoil the financial of when issues as of and a significant impact on the Third, significant in the regulation of crypto services and crypto firms the The bankruptcy of Mt.Gox in financial and insolvency law issues which to for the in several The EU also to and crypto-asset This in which will from with the of the concerning which will on June as a for as it a of and This on the of that a crypto CASP. In this we of from protection to protection In the a crypto a the and is to or crypto-assets deposited with the This can to a and its to the a the of protection that the not the customer who not and may or in the of a customer to a crypto-asset may on First, whether this crypto-asset can from crypto-assets by and the Second, whether the crypto-asset is in or of the The of many crypto-assets as with of and and the of for the of deposited crypto-assets. In many large as crypto exchanges, their cryptocurrency or to the and that custody customer crypto-assets are are in crypto-assets are transferred to address by is a that will in the same by will a of crypto-assets held for the of this does not that are the same as those on the and of on a the can a a not since the the The is to the Yet is one rights are not with to are as of a of crypto-assets cryptocurrency or and their rights are in to the This the reached in the New Zealand of Cryptopia The the crypto exchange It that to the of and a the crypto-assets. The that their held in by them the of the In the that and with The that transferred by to Cryptopia held in that not part of the insolvency the that for of for the of the who deposited those of crypto-assets. their property rights with the crypto The of a crypto firm not in rights in transferred crypto-assets and in In this the of to the as to with the in the the transferred crypto-assets become part of the insolvency This in the insolvencies of Mt.Gox and In the the Japanese held that being not and a of the exchange not the deposited Japanese law at the of the property rights with to law cryptocurrency is not it not subject to property not prevent the adoption of the that to for in in in In the 2019 concerning the crypto exchange the in the Japanese in the Mt.Gox that to Italian cryptocurrency the of property as of Yet the that the deposited crypto-assets part of insolvency and not to the of the crypto to the of Italian the between the crypto exchange and its as the crypto-assets transferred to a address by the the property of the is likely to reached for a to a who is to its a of the of crypto-assets in and the of of investors may to their rights in deposited of crypto-assets in insolvency and of protection of crypto-assets in insolvency and of protection discussion the of the rights of crypto investors in the of as it directly the of investors in to the of This determination may on the organizational and for crypto-assets by a CASP the of a may on the the of property law and whether the legal the of property law EU it to of protection within the To address this the EU to regulations like the Markets in and concerning to crypto-assets in more recent insolvencies of Voyager and from the and in the the resolution of may also by the provisions in the between and their when with a crypto or its are to of to the of a and of Celsius Network LLC, services those which and on cryptocurrency transferred to Celsius, and cryptocurrency as and and cryptocurrency The Celsius of between and The on 2022, to the bankruptcy in to It the crypto-assets in custody a Celsius of 2022, held crypto-assets the in the of 4 of the by Celsius those for of the The of that the to held in custody at with and not to It that crypto-assets to the and not In 2022, the US bankruptcy the of crypto-assets held in to the of the In by the the ‘lend’ crypto-assets to Celsius in of a in the of crypto-assets the same crypto-asset as transferred to Celsius or the of are by Celsius in and for The with the the is on the Celsius of the that crypto-assets deposited in the property and part of the insolvency This that the of the are as the petition Celsius in the with crypto-assets at as of July Three First, the that the of of the in the is a law It the between Celsius and its that the of the Second, the the that the of the or the of to It that it is law that a of or property to another a Third, the that the their rights with to on the of This in to the of that crypto-assets in the The Voyager is On the one it to crypto-assets deposited with Voyager as On the it that a Voyager the to cryptocurrency held in in and to or or of cryptocurrency with rights of a like of The is a that to of the services by the of crypto-assets in the in the Voyager to the In the that by it is to of the subject to the Voyager to or the deposited crypto-assets. the of Celsius and Voyager that the of crypto-assets is and that it is crypto-assets will with in of insolvency and rights will to In the a filed with the US and by the crypto exchange held crypto may to the property of a bankruptcy in the of a the crypto we in custody on of subject to bankruptcy and as This In to to and a of that the exchange not at of that the in the a to the of the it as it the its with US and the to to a as is referred to as a and the is a the of this to the or its by can in the of crypto are the a and its may to property that is held by a for another as a financial does not to a as to the for a to with to a financial in that financial are held by the for the are not property of the and are not subject to of of the This financial are and In the of property is with to a issue of or financial The is to the one in the insolvency of Cryptopia This is not that is on law on the and crypto-assets as and their can that not in the insolvency To the legal between a customer and a crypto firm may by the organizational and of and and also by the custody between The examines MiCAR to address the On the European the Digital to and in the financial sector and to the EU a The Digital a of the for a Regulation on Markets in MiCAR is as it to a dedicated and framework for in crypto-assets in the It the largest of crypto-assets that seeks to them the financial or a finance to the accompanying the MiCAR (i) legal (ii) (iii) of and protection and market and (iv) ensure financial of the of MiCAR is to ensure of and protection within the cryptocurrency To the regulation provisions crypto-asset service CASP is as legal or or business is the of one or more crypto-asset services to on a The of crypto-asset services a of activities, custody and of crypto-assets on of of a trading for exchange of crypto-assets for and of for of crypto-assets and crypto-asset of MiCAR and for are by the provisions that address the safekeeping of as as the custody and of crypto-assets on of segregation is a aimed at the rights of are held by on and legal segregation can who and in this protect from the are their on segregation can in EU that a of financial and MiCAR the provisions the segregation and custody of customer and the concerning the segregation and custody of reserve of the of a the of a the of and significant are to and a reserve of reserve are to to the of a and protect who a of at the of as and in US and In one of the largest lending by and the of the to by cryptocurrency It is that as of July the largest and of the market of to the reserve of by a from the and from the reserve that in the of the to the reserve of The reserve of from the and to a firm or on the of crypto-assets deposited with CASP or a and held in the of It is that the of a of in the of the of as as it is to the as to reserve of This is likely to are for to The of and for the custody of reserve is a in the it is to that some may as associated with rights and the is a recent the of the deposited of its in at the of some of its and a by the of and on The On the same its and at To prevent on 13 the that of to their funds, leading to recovery of its This the from the on a of can impact the of a in the of or those In to the provisions with the custody of reserve MiCAR the the safekeeping and custody of customer by It that crypto-asset service providers that crypto-assets to to the rights of in the of the crypto-asset service The is to the of crypto-assets held in custody and to ensure that the to does not to a To this MiCAR several of customer to this that crypto-assets to their ensure that those crypto-assets are not or for their MiCAR that a of in the of to rights to the MiCAR that on the crypto-assets held separately from This can are to customer and crypto-assets. crypto-assets from the of a The of this segregation is that in of a CASP to crypto-assets held in custody. the of segregation and is the of FTX, the largest to the recent of who as the bankruptcy the of the the FTX customer and funds, and them with The that the customer and and the of as as for and to their and regulation can protection and of deposited in like the provisions on the segregation of reserve in the the on the custody of customer and the protection of rights and MiCAR does not necessarily those of crypto who crypto-assets for custody. This a significant of and The examines the business models of Voyager and Celsius and explores potential that to their Voyager is a crypto-lending and trading business a cryptocurrency that to and crypto-assets with also rewards. To to Voyager to in the of crypto-assets. The from to the to the In 2022, Voyager a with a hedge this Voyager and to This a In June 2022, the collapse of and in of the financial of Voyager of the This not and liquidation in the British Virgin Islands. To the on June 2022, Voyager a with Ltd. also in in the of in and as as customer not leading to a in To a on June 2022 Voyager from to the and on July 2022, Voyager customer and trading business of to the associated with The to a notable of this is the on the one of the key to the of The to a The of being to a This is is to a as the crypto in Mt.Gox to Voyager and the crypto the of crypto with collapses of and insolvencies of crypto firms. This the not impact on traditional financial and not in by financial the with The of Voyager can to the of namely a to a also referred to as the large exposures The of Voyager with being the largest of Voyager subject to significant The of large exposures is not a new of It is also not to the many introduced regulation that to prevent financial as banks, from large as a of a of a or of a of In the the regulation of large exposures introduced in the Capital Regulation of and by the Regulation This regulation to with the as the or This framework by the on which as the for regulation of to the the of of a to a or to a of not of the at a to another this is to The of is with to the in of its that a of a does not the The large exposures regime by and potential from Voyager the Celsius in and one of the largest finance platforms in the the of of crypto-assets transferred to Celsius and by this to more July 2022, Celsius and with of more and 6 in The and of Celsius the business as their crypto-assets to Celsius and from the to or those or on those at more traditional or cryptocurrency platforms that who the Celsius transferred their crypto-assets to Celsius in exchange for rewards. Celsius crypto-assets or on exchanges, to from its deposit-like Celsius from crypto lenders like and FTX, as as lending as and The crypto-assets deposited by as to in and rewards. Celsius also and Celsius to its business a of and when to that of Voyager business of insolvency to a or a business In to Celsius to and it not in it the to a the to a that to the In the for the in July 2022, Celsius the of its by since 2022, a in the market of and as a of crypto-assets by In the a a complex of problems, and to the the to the of to their significant Celsius on some of its crypto-asset in and the of to crypto-assets to to to the between the Celsius to and the from crypto-assets in the The as as to and the a from to June 2022, Celsius to its of the it This in a In the leading to the bankruptcy Celsius a of crypto market of a significant in from and a in from between June and June 2022, Celsius in a on June 2022, Celsius and on its This not the and not the business On 13 July 2022, Celsius filed for MiCAR does not provisions directly and crypto lenders like Voyager and focus is on custody services and of safekeeping and segregation of customer crypto-assets Section 3 In MiCAR that it not address the lending and of and not it may the business of crypto lenders at to crypto-asset service requirements, as and and of of business and of the MiCAR the of to with or services to as and are the concerning and those who issue The regulation of is by to the potential and of by of the that can for crypto-lending is the the of or by the of and to of to the of of to and crypto-asset service providers not when crypto-asset services to In this is as or to the of which a of The of in to the of by several This to by to reduce the that are as a of and to ensure financial by between traditional and particularly in the of to in the and may become a to of deposited with In as one of the key of the for in the in The on the of to of in in as a and to The with the the of to of to its It is which are by this and and of least of the are to the of is a a of from their or a of a in of and for the of This is the of a as the a crypto-asset for this the likely a impact on crypto-lending First, in most of crypto lenders not crypto-assets in the of Voyager and Celsius, to of and the to crypto-assets. Second, as to the of by the of it is that not on the from like and their in as and are to a of services to the of is a or of a not or are transferred to a CASP. This and their crypto-assets to crypto whether or It is that in law a may another The to the business models of crypto lenders and from and a to or this it with the operations of crypto their on deposited in a or it MiCAR does not the or of or The accompanying MiCAR that the is likely to the In the the of the that some entities from for a and them to and In this is most crypto lenders The European that this to to the of the of as not in lending their It can that when a and to a crypto this directly or the crypto-assets. a on as the European to to include crypto-lending within the of the To legal a of this is In the European in June 2022, the of the European that crypto-lending a MiCAR this and which or models it are questions that the of financial regulation and to crypto-assets. In recent of to cryptocurrency trading as The observed that crypto-assets like and that trading to part of the traditional financial services and of the that to the and a in a and This is a may significant and and turmoil in of the as the crypto lenders with the or their insolvencies may for and investors and the of by failures is not to those from at least for the In of one or at least in the to traditional financial services and to crypto-assets and crypto firms. is the of financial the The is whether the concerning and and its or to the of in the of for The differences in the and when this in it can observed that the business models of crypto lenders some similarities with those of traditional on financial and Voyager and Celsius customer in and them for their lending to In to to who in many cases transferred deposited crypto-assets to crypto firms Section 4 This Voyager and Celsius on a of and ongoing in the of them lending It also crypto lenders to to reserve a as a a of the deposited as and the to This and financial like banks, and in crypto and are not of large This is when crypto lenders in one crypto-asset in another The can insolvency to a between and as The of and the of a to their as as as the may those who and with This is from a custody which the of and their to legal in the of the The crypto-lending some similarities with the traditional to the that from the in one or another and to for banks, crypto lenders in and which them and to as by the cases of Voyager and to the of financial The the of in traditional by the of and and leading to a of of major financial The in the crypto the of their and on as and for The similarities not of the existing models to crypto lenders. Yet in the of to the of financial regulation, as market financial and This is the regulation of financial intermediaries can as a of inspiration for the regulation of crypto lenders in the MiCAR II. are five that regulation may are from the in the on the issues that in the cases of Voyager and are not to a framework for crypto-lending and in and large the of the large exposures regime is to prevent a financial from large to the of or a of This regime to ensure financial in financial and MiCAR does not for large to those to financial in the In of the of crypto-lending services and the potential to large may to prevent the and failures. disclosure insolvencies the of and disclosure to of crypto firms. To address this disclosure and the of deposited crypto-assets and whether the to a crypto the disclosure the rights of in the of the of a and financial of a crypto of deposited crypto-assets by a crypto and with the of disclosure it is that disclosure is to ensure protection and market robust disclosure requirements, can investors with the to and in the crypto-lending of custody and trading/investment The cases of Celsius and the associated with custody and or trading activities, as as the that a in one of them can to the of of financial by some the the sector structural of 2019 that services and to and and from and a and by legal is in the with the of the which some on and of which include from in of financial and of crypto-lending and trading from services by crypto-asset service providers the of this will on the of the and the to and The collapses of Voyager and Celsius by which their This is in the referred to as can also subject to of from investors on the the to and leading to the to in a are not by or to traditional lending and guarantees and the to protect and prevent In the guarantees are to to a to investors the services of The of for the crypto-lending sector may The concerning the of and the by them separately to ensure their resolution regime and resolution regime with for can a in addressing the of financial that significant In the for resolution is by the and and the a and a and and MiCAR introduces for significant crypto-asset service significant crypto a to financial or causes significant a legal framework by the recovery and resolution regime, with of This article examines the regime for crypto-assets and crypto-asset service providers in the in of the recent of crypto failures. is the the of regulation and the of and from of and financial insolvency is not a new of the and most well-known cases is the collapse in of which the world’s largest trading we a wave of crypto failures which in the some legal in many crypto insolvencies, are to a business or a of business the is the determination and allocation of rights deposited crypto-assets. This article that the to the of in and a of may on the organizational and for crypto as as property law and the of a between a crypto firm and its To protect crypto MiCAR and segregation of crypto-assets held in custody and that from the of This is a in the Yet it does not necessarily protect those investors who ‘lend’ their crypto-assets to with the expectation of earning rewards. The collapses of Voyager and Celsius the of their business models and the of crypto-lending and MiCAR does not to a legal framework for and of business for service In this we that a new instrument, MiCAR is to a of for crypto-asset lending platforms at the EU the of crypto protect investors in the of crypto in crypto-lending, their and and in crypto This the of this new regulation the and of Celsius, to a are not the business models of Celsius and Voyager those of traditional financial the differences between traditional finance and crypto finance the or of financial like to crypto we that inspiration from the existing regulation of financial on the of crypto we five of future (i) a large exposures regime, (ii) robust disclosure requirements, (iii) structural and organizational separation of custody and trading/investment activities, (iv) deposit-like guarantees and (v) a recovery and resolution regime for significant crypto firms. is in of at The to and for and also for by The of this article at the Bankruptcy the in of the the of the of and the and by the for The
The article provides an analysis of German legislation on the legal regulation of blockchain, bitcoin and other crypto-assets, which is one of the new means of payment. It also cites Germany's official position on digitization and its elements. It was emphasized that in order to make the most effective use of digital technologies in various spheres of public life, the legislation should find a compromise between public interests, economic needs and technological opportunities.
The Communications website, https://cacm.acm.org, features more than a dozen bloggers in the BLOG@CACM community. In each issue of Communications , we'll publish selected posts or excerpts. twitter Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/blogCACM https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm Carlos Baquero investigates cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens.
Objective : to research the existing problems and promising directions of the legal regulation of digital financial assets as a relatively new tool of the modern digital economy. Methods : the methodological basis of the work is the set of scientific cognition methods such as theoretical analysis, research, comparison, synthesis, and summarization of scientific literature. Results : the work analyzes the existing approaches to legal regulation of digital financial assets in the Russian Federation and some foreign countries, reveals the existing gaps in the Russian legislation in the field of circulation of digital financial assets, gives estimation to the prospects of development of the legal regulation of these tools and forms proposals for its improving. Also, during the research, the approaches to legal regulation of digital currencies and digital financial assets, adopted in certain foreign countries, were analyzed, the trends were considered, and the positive and negative aspects of using cryptographic algorithms for the goals in economic and juridical spheres of the global economy were reflected. Scientific novelty : within the work, the topical issues of legislative regulation of such a relatively new notion as digital financial assets are considered. The positions of Russian and foreign jurist are considered concerning the existing problems and risks associated with “tokenization” and “blockachainization” of private law. Besides, the author comes to a conclusion about the existence of significant gaps in the current approach to legal regulation of digital financial assets, indicates them and proposes certain mechanisms to solve these problems. Practical significance : is due to the imperfect current legislation in the sphere of relations occurring when using the technologies based of distributed ledger, including digital financial assets. Research of these problems allows evaluating the risks, considering the existing ways of overcoming and solving the emerging disputable questions. Also, the conclusions obtained can be used to improve the Russian legislation, as well as in the academic literature devoted to the topical issues of developing the digital legislation.
Objective : tokenization of creativity, alongside with cryptoeconomy and Web3 network infrastructure, is a notable trend in the development of modern society in the third decade of the 21st century. The objective of this article is to explore the risks and prospects emerging in the process of disposition of the creative labor results in the form of non-fungible tokens. Methods : the research methodology is based on analysis of varied viewpoints on the problem, including diametrically opposing concepts. The opposing views of the observers manifest their attitude to tokenization of creative products as a speculative scheme, on the one hand, and a promising tool of creative industries development, on the other. Results : the probable negative consequences of tokenization of intellectual activity results are identified; author’s recommendations on managing these risks are given. Another result of this publication is analysis of economiclegal prospects stemming from tokenization of the objects of copyright and neighboring rights by the example of musical pieces. Scientific novelty : it consists in presenting and substantiating a hypothesis that the relations formed in the musical industry under the modern sociocultural and technological realities will be reproduced in other creative industries. Also, scientific novelty consists in the analysis of prospects of tokenization of such results of intellectual activity as gaming artifacts, works of traditional and digital visual arts, patents and scientific achievements. The use of nonfungible tokens the ecosystem of network computer games will allow gamers to buy and sell rights to game pieces autonomously from game publishers. Tokenization of industrial property objects and individualization means will ensure protection of intellectual rights of their authors while waiting for the issuance of a state protection document. In the modern society, there will be many of those wishing to become an owner of a token for a scientific work, as the popularity of science and innovations is constantly growing in developed countries. Ownership of a token for a scientific work will be regarded a moral investment, increasing the prestige and status of its owner. Tokens for scientific works have a high potential as a means of measuring value in a post-economic society. Practical significance : it consists in the description of innovative means of using creative products and business models based on tokenization of the results of intellectual activity, ready to be implemented in practice.
The research paper investigates the profound impact that cryptocurrencies have exerted on traditional financial systems since the emergence of Bitcoin in 2009. The rapid growth of cryptocurrency market and its increasing integration in global economics have raised significant questions about the future coexistence and potential transformation of traditional financial structures. The study employs a multidisciplinary approach, combining economic analysis, regulatory examination and technological insights to explore the multifaceted implications of cryptocurrencies.
The past year has witnessed significant growth in the size, and mainstream profile, of financial markets built on distributed ledger technology (“DLT”), in particular “blockchain”. In February 2021, the market capitalisation of the cryptoasset Bitcoin, which is built on the first operational blockchain, topped USD 1 trillion. So-called decentralised finance (“DeFi”), built mostly on the Ethereum blockchain, grew from less than USD 1 billion to over USD 80 billion in May 2021. Even if one adopts a sceptical posture towards these developments, “crypto” markets cannot be ignored by scholars or practitioners of financial and monetary law.
Andrey A. Tymoshenko, Vadim R. Feyzov, Igor Chernov
The paper is devoted to the study of state regulation in the sphere of cryptocurrencies in the Russian Federation (RF). In the course of the study a scenario-cognitive model of the subject area is developed, as well as scenarios of possible options for the implementation of the management of socio-economic systems are obtained. The purpose of modeling is to assess the impact of cryptocurrency on social stability. A number of modifications of the model took into account the proposals of the regulatory authorities of the Russian Federation and the possible directions of legal regulation.
Like any other major legal institutions in international law, international sanctions were created to face the challenges of the analogue world, not those of the digital world. Today, when international sanctions are in the foreground, due to the war of aggression in Ukraine, it is necessary to investigate to what extent financial sanctions (as a type of international sanctions) are also applied to cryptoassets and cryptocurrencies. These two blockchain based assets and currencies represent a way to evade the financial sanctions regime imposed by United Nations, European Union, United States of America, United Kingdom and any other states or entities? Providing examples from the recent practice of the states, through the case study method, and studying the legal doctrine in the field, the article analyses the effects that the absence of an international regulation of cryptocurrencies can have on the efficiency and effectiveness of financial sanctions regimes and tries to find some solutions possible.
The paper discusses one of the most promising and widespread digital innovations in FinTech, the so-called smart contracts, which have the potential to increase the financial stability of the economy and entrepreneurship based on the digital modernization of other industries, including digital law. Methods. Based on the IMD statistics, a profile of the development of smart contracts in the Russian Federation in 2021 has been compiled. A factor analysis of the development of smart contracts in the Russian Federation in 2013–2021 has been carried out using the regression analysis method. Results. A forecast has been made and alternative scenarios for the development of smart contracts in Russia have been identified. It is proved that in Russia the current (as of 2021) level of development of smart contracts is moderate. A set of practical recommendations has been proposed to improve it. Conclusions. The key conclusion based on the results of the study is that the basis of the organization of smart contracts is the use of machine code and security protocols. The most common technology for securing smart contracts is blockchain. The results of modeling, forecasting and the proposed authors’ recommendations have identified significant prospects for the development of smart contracts in the financial sector in Russia.

 The 21st century is known for its strong technological advancements, where blockchain technology and a cutting-edge product built on it like cryptocurrencies are evolving daily. According to recent research, bitcoin is particularly appealing to both experienced and novice investors. Numerous individuals and legal entities around the world accept cryptocurrencies as payment. Cryptocurrency can be used to purchase both products and services. As a result, the need for legal regulation of cryptocurrency is high on the priority list.
 The purpose of this article is to evaluate the legal status of cryptocurrencies, namely what its legal character is and whether it is conceivable to treat cryptographic currency as an object of private law, as property, as electronic money, or as virtual cash. Is it better than traditional currencies, and if so, what are they? All of the foregoing will be reviewed in light of the suggestions of the United States of America, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Zealand, Japan, South Korea, China, Georgia, and the European Central Bank.
Introduction. This scientific article dedicated to certain aspects of such virtual benefits/assets as the NFT token (non-fungible token) and place of them in the obligations relationship. The legal framework and legal practice regarding non- non-fungible token is currently absent, which is a characteristic situation not only for domestic jurisprudence, but also for the world. In view of the above, there is a need to investigate the nature of this phenomenon. Summary. The article analyzes the proposed legislative definition of "virtual asset" in relation to the NFT token. The study of individual features of this phenomenon makes it necessary to turn to its displayed technical characteristics at the current stage. Yes, it is determined that the NFT token performs an authentication function and cannot exist independently without its attachment to another object of civil rights. Without such a combination, exclusively as a code (a set of signs), the token cannot be regarded as an intangible (virtual) benefits, since the token certifies a subjective right to another object of civil rights, and therefore should be considered precisely as an asset (benefits), which has a providing nature. Attention is focused on the fact that one of the main problems of legal uncertainty in this category is the question of what exactly individuals acquire when buying an NFT token, since in fact the token is usually associated with another object, which gives it a real value. The relationship between the non-fungible token and the start-contract was analyzed and the possible legal consequences of their interaction determined. Conclusions. Non-fungible tokens exist in a decentralized system and are closely related to the smart contract already at the stage of their creation, therefore, provided there are no imperative requirements from the law, the latter can be considered as a type of civil law contract, which, in turn, due to constant interaction the connection between them makes it possible to single out certain features of the binding nature of this phenomenon.
Mohamed Imran Zacky, Syahri Helmi, Isadora Della Cella
Since the invention of Bitcoin, blockchain technology has expanded to include more than just digital money. Because it was quickly developed and widely adopted, the blockchain allows users to perform secure transactions in an unreliable environment. One of the most critical components of real-world blockchain applications is the smart contract. In addition to being integrated into well-known blockchain-based development platforms like Ethereum and Hyperledger, smart contracts have in the digital economy and in the intelligent industries, there are a variety of potential application situations, including, among others, management, healthcare, the Internet of Things, and financial services. This paper's main objective is to present a comprehensive analysis of the research on smart contracts, including information on their inner workings, basic architecture, use cases, challenges, most recent developments, and possible future paths. Though they are still in their infancy, smart contracts have significant technical difficulties like security and privacy concerns that require more investigation. Before proposing a study of a framework based on a for smart contracts revolutionary architecture with six layers, the technique first described the workings and popular platforms of blockchain-enabled smart contracts. Second, a list of the current state of the research is provided, together with the technical and legal difficulties. In the third place, we provided several typical application examples. We talked about the several directions that smart contracts could take at the end. The purpose of this document is to serve as a useful guide and source for future research projects.
This paper presents arguments about a need to study a new phenomenon in cyberspace - non-fungible tokens (NFT) as an object of legal relations and an object of accounting. A brief essential characteristic of these objects is given; the market of their turnover, Russian legal norms and accounting standards were studied. The objects of accounting from the Russian Federal Law No. 402-FZ "On Accounting", the criteria of referring to these objects in relation to NFT are considered. Afterward, we outlined the legal and accounting problems associated with the emergence of a new object and the ways for further research. Keywords: assets, expenses, business transaction, digital assets, copyrights, intellectual property, cyberspace, digital product, token.
The subject of the research is the study of mining, cryptocurrency, crypto assets in the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic. Relevance . The relevance of the article is due to the presence of gaps in the field of mining, cryptocurrency, crypto assets in the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic. The objectives of the article are to analyze the areas of mining, cryptocurrency, crypto assets and identify legal problems, as well as make proposals for improving the national legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic. Methodology . The authors use scientific methods: general methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, comparison); special methods (legal, comparative legal). Main results. Problems were identified, such as: lack of legal status of crypto assets, cryptocurrencies; lack of legal status of a cryptocurrency exchange operator; the system of risk management in the field of cryptocurrency is not indicated; lack of detailed study of the legal status of mining; subjects of mining, mining objects, classification of mining, standards for conducting financial transactions are not defined; lack of understanding of the nature of cryptocurrencies, crypto assets and virtual assets; lack of licensing and permitting activities in the field of mining, cryptocurrency, crypto assets; the absence of the category of mining, cryptocurrencies, crypto assets in the State Classifier of Economic Activities; lack of legal status of blockchain in the format of a regulatory legal act and etc. Relevant proposals were given: to finalize and adopt a single regulatory legal act (in the form of a law) in the field of crypto assets, cryptocurrencies, since they are interconnected; establish the legal status of a cryptocurrency exchange operator and introduce licensing and permitting activities (obtaining a license from the National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic); develop and adopt a regulatory legal act (in the form of a law) on mining, with a detailed designation of what mining is, its classification, mining object, mining subjects; understand the nature of cryptocurrencies, crypto assets, virtual assets and understand what they can be attributed to, in particular, to money, a product, a medium of exchange, a universal service or other activity; Enshrine in civil law the concepts of cryptocurrency, crypto assets, virtual assets, including the rights and obligations arising from them; add to the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic "On licensing and permitting activities of the system in the Kyrgyz Republic" paragraph 61 of Article 15 - the activity of mining, cryptocurrency, crypto assets; add a category to the State Classifier of Economic Activities - mining, cryptocurrencies, crypto assets; form a working group at the level of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Kyrgyz Republic to study blockchain technology with areas of application, both in the private sector and in the public sector, including smart contracts and etc. Conclusion. Introduce legal regulators in the field of mining, cryptocurrency, crypto assets in the Kyrgyz Republic in order to avoid possible legal gaps that can lead to negative consequences in relation to the state, ranging from various shadow schemes in the economy that can slow down the digital transformation of the country.
The subject . The paper considers the legal status of non-fungible tokens – a technology that allows to secure and confirm the possession of a certificate that refers to a specific digital object, based on a distributed ledger (blockchain). The purpose of the article is to research the current state of the legal status of NFTs in the Russian Federation, as well as to determine the applicability of the current Russian legislation to NFTs. The research methodology is based on the application of methods of systemic and structural analysis, formal logic, as well as methods of legal forecasting and interpretation of legal norms. The results. There is a lack of comprehensive studies on this issue in legal science. The value of NFT is substantiated through the categories of "rivalrousness" and "scarcity". The process of creating NFT - "mint", that is, the tokenization of a digital object, is described. The legal status of NFT is investigated, as a result of which it is concluded that the token is not equivalent to a digital object, but rather acts as a custodian of information about this object. Taking into account, firstly, the independent nature of the NFT, which is not only a digital copy of the original work, secondly, the vast scope of utilitarian application and, thirdly, its independent commercial value, it is indicated that in the perspective of the development of legislation and judicial practice, NFT should be regarded as an independent digital asset, the rights to which are subject to legal protection. Conclusions. At present, Russian legislation does not contain a legal structure suitable for NFTs. The problems of using NFT are highlighted, including the "tokenization" of other people's works, interference in the operation of trading platforms using technical vulnerabilities, as well as fraud. Since NFT can confirm not only the right of ownership, but also represent any subjective right, it is assumed that this technology can be used to maintain decentralized blockchain registries of real estate, shares, members of the society, vote in elections, as well as to verify identity, while simultaneously ensuring the protection of personal data.
Before a good can be purchased, it must be understood who has the authority to sell it, and once a purchase has been made, ownership must be transferred from the seller to the purchaser. The solution provided by NFTs allows parties to agree on a common agreement i.e., smart contract of what constitutes ownership. Digital artists truly faced many problems in the ownership and credit of their artworks in fast growing digital world. They are worried about conducting online exhibitions of their artworks because it can be easily forged or replicated by someone. The same problems apply to real-world works of art, although things are a bit simpler when it comes to determining their authenticity. Blockchain is a revolutionary technology and will have great positive effects in our business environment soon. NFT stands for Non-Fungible Token. An NFT can be considered just a digital form of real-world entities. They are traded online, generally with different types of cryptocurrencies.
Южно-Российский институт управления – филиал Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте РФ, Ростов-на-Дону, Россия, Шатковская Татьяна Владимировна, Ростовский государственный экономический университет (РИНХ), Ростов-на-Дону, Россия, Евстафьева Алина Александровна · 5 authors
The article is aimed at developing practical recommendations for overcoming the problems of changing and terminating smart contracts due to gaps in their legislative regulation. The authors analyze the possibility of applying the general provisions for changing and terminating the contract, enshrined in Chapter 29 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to a smart contract. The article proposes legal mechanisms for changing and terminating a smart contract. The authors conclude that now, when changing and terminating a smart contract, it is not enough to rely on the general provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, there is an urgent need to solve this problem both through legislative changes and by developing practical mechanisms for implementing existing grounds and methods.
When one country illegally invades another sovereign country, repeatedly, utilizing the mechanism of sanctions to try and curb the misconduct, has become a favored approach among democratic countries.Russia once again invaded Ukraine in the early part of 2022, defying all international pressure, to refrain from the illegal act.The rapid response from the international community was a litany of sanctions intended to cripple and deter Russia's actions.Sanctions evasions are not a new challenge for sanctioning countries and agencies.A United Nations (UN) report notes that low levels of governmental oversight in the cryptocurrency sector have enabled North Korea to generate income at an alarming rate.The efficacy of financial sanctions in this way is consistently undermined through illicit cryptocurrency transactions.As the cryptocurrency sphere exceeds forty-two million users worldwide, the question on those issuing sanctions remains: If cryptocurrency is left unregulated, will financial sanctions lose their power?This article will outline the use of sanctions as a preferred foreign policy tool and how they work.I look at the various sanctions the United States, European Union, United Nations have levied against the Russian Federation in response to repeated invasions of Ukraine's sovereign territory.I will also analyze cryptocurrency, defining what it is, how it works to lay the groundwork for the analysis of the current cryptocurrency regulations and how this relates to concerns of illicit activity within the cryptocurrency sphere, as a means for sanctions evasion.Several countries including The Russian Federation (Russia), The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela), The Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea (North Korea) are using innovative cybercrimes and other crypto-based efforts to evade economic and financial sanctions.This article will consider the pushback on regulation from the crypto industry as well as illuminating the loopholes that are causing increased concern and current incidences of illicit activity internationally.Finally, I propose a few areas of consideration for creating an international regulatory framework to help combat the evasion of financial sanctions, using cryptocurrencies.