In late February 2022, the escalation of the Eastern European conflict triggered a global stock sell-off. Over the course of the day, the MOEX plummeted by 33%, WIG20 recorded an 11% drop and the VIX fear index surged. Instinctively, investors began to relocate the capital to traditional safe assets. This article aimed to verify whether cryptocurrencies can be treated by investors as a financial safe haven. The article presents the post-war-outbreak behavior of major cryptocurrencies in comparison with selected stock market indices and traditional safe havens. Three hypotheses were tested: whether cryptocurrencies can be a safe haven during crises, whether certain types of cryptocurrencies are outperforming others at protecting capital, and how the time horizon affects their properties. Despite the uncertainty in the scientific world, the article proves that cryptocurrencies do not meet the criteria for safe havens. The analysis and modeling were based on the DCC-GARCH approach.
The article discusses the features of the tax and legal regulation of cryptocurrencies in the Republic of India and the Russian Federation. A study of legal regulation and a study of the positions of legal scholars of the Republic of India, in terms of regulating the turnover of cryptocurrencies, as well as the experience of regulatory regulation of the turnover of cryptocurrencies in the Russian Federation. As a result of the study, the author identified a gap in the legal regulation of taxation of cryptocurrencies in the Russian Federation, in comparison with the legal regulation of the Republic of India. Public relations arising in connection with the turnover of cryptocurrencies are not regulated in any country of the world at the moment, including in terms of taxation of transactions using cryptocurrencies. In this connection, it is necessary to take into account the foreign experience of legal regulation of taxation of cryptocurrency turnover, including the Republic of India. The problem lies in the fact that amendments to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation have not been adopted at the moment, which would regulate the taxation of cryptocurrency turnover in the Russian Federation. To investigate the experience of legal regulation of taxation of cryptocurrencies of the Republic of India and to identify aspects that could be applied to form the legal regulation of taxation of turnover of cryptocurrencies in the Russian Federation. Previously, comparative legal research in this area has not been conducted.
В статье анализируются конституционные нормы, выступающие основой текущей нормативно-правовой регламентации оборота криптовалюты в Российской Федерации, которая на современном этапе характеризуется довольно активным расширением массива источников права, регламентирующих общественные отношения, возникающие в данной сфере. Автором проанализированы действующие нормативно-правовые акты, находящиеся в настоящее время на рассмотрении в Государственной Думе РФ, проект Федерального закона «О цифровой валюте», а также судебные решения, которые в условиях отсутствия детального нормативно-правового регулирования выступают в качестве своеобразного судебного прецедента при исследовании специфики оборота криптовалюты в России.
The paper tackles the conflicts of laws on property rights over cryptocurrencies, starting from characterization issues. Building upon the distinctive nature of cryptocurrencies as “pure” de facto assets, that do not give a claim against an issuer, and the relevance of control over said assets as a suitable alternative to the traditional possession, the paper supports the characterization in terms of “assets”, over which property rights may, subject to the relevant lex causae, be constituted and enjoyed. By examining the available options for a conflict-of-law regime and considering the first legislative efforts conducted in this area of law both at the supranational and national level, the elective situs approach is identified as the most appropriate, possibly backed by some regulatory requirement, whilst different approaches are envisaged for the fall-back rule applicable to cryptocurrencies originated in, respectively, permissioned and permissionless DLT systems.
Maria A. Egorova, V. V. Grib, L. G. Efimova, О. В. Кожевина · 6 authors
The article deals with the national practicies of direct and indirect taxation of income from cryptoassets in some countries of the world, including Russia, France, Italy, USA, Great Britain, etc. The authors study various approaches to the concept of cryptocurrency for the purposes of fiscal management: macroeconomic, cost, accounting, legal and institutional approaches. According to the authors position cryptocurrencies for tax reasons should be treated as a property and means of payment. Therefore, any income in cryptocurrencies received by taxpayers should be subject to personal income tax or corporate income tax, respectively. The recognition of cryptocurrencies as a means of payment (that is, private money) leads to the need to exempt taxpayers from paying value added tax in cases where cryptocurrencies perform these monetary functions in transactions performed by taxpayers, in particular, they perform the function of a means of payment. Payment of taxes on income of taxpayers received in cryptocurrencies can be carried out both in cryptocurrencies and in national (fiat) currencies. It is permissible to establish a tax declaration of transactions for cryptocurrency. The foundations of the legal regime of taxation of digital currencies in the Russian Federation have been formed. The problems of introducing effective taxation of cryptocurrency transactions in the Russian Federation are identified, as well as changes to tax legislation are proposed, in particular, clarification of the range of objects that can be classified as “digital currency”, synchronization with the law on digital financial assets, determining the tax base and implementing tax control of transactions with cryptocurrency. As the study showed, the approaches to indirect taxation are the most unified. Tax regulation is a potential incentive to reduce the speculative interest of participants in transactions with cryptocurrencies and increase the transparency of taxation of cryptocurrencies.
The article provides information on the state of the issue in the field of standardization of development and application of distributed ledger technology and blockchain. The current state in the development of normative documents, including documents on standardization, is analyzed. The international experience in the development of documents on standardization is reflected on the example of the International Organization for Standardization and the International Telecommunication Union, as well as the experience of developing documents in the national standardization system on the example of technical committees for standardization. Possible scenarios for the use of distributed registry technology and blockchain in the national standardization system are considered, taking into account international experience and trends in the development, development and use of national standards in digital formats, as well as promising interaction with other information technologies that are already standardized at the international and national levels.
Jannik Woxholth, Dirk Andreas Zetzsche, Ross P. Buckley, Douglas W. Arner
Abstract At the height of the ‘crypto winter’, with several crypto intermediaries filing for insolvency and subjected to schemes of arrangement, who owns what and who has a claim on what becomes all important. At the same time, distributed ledger technologies are frequently presented as a digital solution to these perennial problems of competing claims to the same asset. This article makes two contributions to the literature. First, we show that neither current technology nor law solves the competing claims issue. Second, we suggest policy solutions based on a comparative legal analysis. In essence, the law must: (i) recognize property rights in crypto-assets; (ii) protect bona fide purchasers that receive crypto-assets from a transferor who exerts control over private keys; and (iii) facilitate the enforcement of titles in crypto-assets by the interplay of private and financial law. While full harmonization of national private laws is out of reach, some level of international consensus around these three principles would strengthen the impact of private law in the proper ordering and enforcement of claims to crypto-assets.
En 2021, le sujet des <i>Non Fungible Tokens</i> (NFTs) et de la <i>blockchain</i> a connu une grande impulsion. À titre d’exemple, le célèbre cas de la vente aux enchères organisée par Christie’s d’une œuvre d’art numérique réalisée par l’artiste Beeple peut être cité. Par ailleurs, ce travail s’appuie fortement sur ce cas et plus précisément sur les conditions générales de Christie’s. L’objet de cette analyse se concentre non seulement sur les <i>smart contracts</i> et leur validité juridique au regard du droit suisse, mais également sur les aspects liés au transfert des droits relatifs à une œuvre d’art numérique, notamment en ce qui concerne la propriété matérielle et les droits d’auteur. L’analyse se conclut par la possibilité d’adapter le droit de suite, habituellement appliqué aux œuvres d’art physiques, aux œuvres d’art numériques, grâce à l’efficacité que les technologies de la <i>blockchain</i> et des <i>smart contracts</i> offrent. Bien que l’intérêt médiatique pour les NFTs et l’art numérique semble s’atténuer depuis quelques années, les questions juridiques qui en découlent demeurent très intéressantes, ouvrant la voie à de futures évolutions dans ce domaine en plein essor.
The article considers some aspects of legal regulation of smart contracts, which are becoming more and more relevant with the development of information technologies. The legislation and legal experience of foreign countries on conclusion and execution of "smart contracts" are studied in detail. As is known, currently there are several ways of integrating smart contract into transactions. The most relevant model of smart contract conclusion is the mixed model, the positive sides of using this form are analysed in the relevant provisions of the article. In its turn, the very legal nature of this type of contracts causes lively disputes in the civilistic environment, which is demonstrated by various opinions given in the article on the topic under consideration. There is no doubt that the widespread development of smart contracts in the near future can significantly help to reduce risks for the parties to the contract, exclude unscrupulous performers and suppliers from the market, as well as show a number of other advantages.
The paper examines the legal status and treatment of crypto assets in the context of contractual obligations. The analysis begins by considering the evolution from cryptocurrencies to crypto-goods, with special reference to definitions and terms used in the context of private law transactions. Then, the author focuses on the contractual parties under the EU Regulation on Markets in Crypto Asset (MiCa, 2023) and the Serbian Digital Assets Act (DA Act, 2020), where crypto-assets are predominantly treated as investment assets. Special attention is given to e-money tokens in the context of monetary obligations, as well as to Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that have not yet been covered by regulations. The paper also refers to the contracting of crypto services, exploring how contractual relationships are formed and regulated, and elaborating on legal transactions based on contracts within the blockchain environment and tokenization. In conclusion, the paper draws attention to the problematic terminology used in the Serbian Digital Assets Act (2020), stating that the term "digital asset" (srb. "digitalna imovina") is too broad and inadequate, and proposes the term "crypto asset" (srb. "kripto dobro") which is defined through two key elements: the private nature of the good and the use of cryptography within the Digital Ledger Technology (DLT). This paper correlates the general theory of contract law and nominate contracts when the contractor's performance is in crypto.
Emergence of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) has led to considerable changes in the creative industries markets associated with the emergence of fundamentally new opportunities for the transfer and protection of intellectual property rights. The explosive growth of the NFT market has led to close attention of both regulators and market participants to the problems of legal regulation of the turnover of these digital assets. The lack of a legal definition gives rise to problems related to the delimitation of NFTs from other digital assets named in the legislation. This article examines the legal nature of NFTs, distinguishes them from securities, digital rights, digital financial assets, digital currencies and utilitarian digital rights. The author analyses the draft law on NFT and draws conclusions about the prospects for legal regulation with special emphasis on the legal problems of acquiring NFTs. Based on the study, the author concludes that it is possible to classify NFT as &quot;other property&quot; and that it is necessary to develop a special legal regime.
New financial tools, like as cryptocurrencies, NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), and metaverse, have emerged in the 5.0 era of investing.Investors from around the world, including those from Indonesia, have started to show interest in this new investment product.There are legal issues that surface behind the hope for investment success in the 5.0 age.NFTs and the metaverse are not covered by Indonesian laws and regulations, which solely govern bitcoin market activities as commodity assets.One of the problems that occurs is the existence of different thoughts or concepts betweentr the government and the public in interpreting the essence of the three digital assets.In order to give actors engaged in investing in digital assets legal certainty, this study aims to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the application of laws and regulations.It also aims to serve as a guide for legislators as to the substance of laws and regulations pertaining to investing in digital assets.In order to support this research, this study employs a qualitative research design with a juridical-normative approach.Finding a concept for legislation that can control digital asset investment activities in line with the stated goals of developing the law is the outcome of this research.Find the issue with the efficiency of current regulations next.
This article addresses the lack of comprehensive studies on Web3 technologies, primarily due to lawyers' reluctance to explore technical intricacies. Understanding the underlying technological foundations is crucial to enhance the credibility of legal opinions. This article aims to illuminate these foundations, debunk myths, and concentrate on determining the legal status of crypto-assets in the context of property rights within the distributed economy. In addition, this article notes that the intangible nature of crypto-assets that derive value from distributed registries, and their resistance to deletion, makes crypto-assets more akin to the autonomy of intellectual property than physical media. The article presents illustrative examples from common law (United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand) and civil law (Germany, Austria, Poland) systems. Proposing a universal solution, it advocates a comprehensive framework safeguarding digital property - data ownership - extending beyond the confines of Web3. This article presents a comprehensive, multi-layered approach to the analysis of tokens as digital content and virtual goods. The approach, universally applicable to various of such goods, scrutinizes property on three distinct layers: first, the rights to the virtual good itself; second, the rights to the assets linked to the virtual good; and third, the rights to the intellectual property intricately associated with the token. Additionally, the paper provides concise analysis of the conflict of laws rules applicable to virtual goods. It also delves into issues concerning formal requirements for the transfer of intellectual property rights, licensing, the first sale (exhaustion) doctrine, the concept of the lawful acquirer, and other crucial aspects of intellectual property in the realm of virtual goods, particularly within the emerging metaverse.
This scientific article discusses the issues of legal status of such terms as blockchain, blockchain technologies, as well as crypto assets, stable coins and tokens. The article reveals the issues of legal regulation of relations arising in course of cryptocurrency transactions and the use of blockchain technologies, which also include the activity of crypto exchanges, the use of smart contracts and the processes of buying and selling tokens. The author provides examples of countries where crypto assets are legalized, and conducts a comparative analysis of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Czech Republic regarding the mechanisms for carrying out cryptocurrency transactions and the use of blockchain technologies. When studying the legislation of Uzbekistan, attention is paid to the latest ongoing reforms in the field of digitalization and the development of the electronic economy and government in our country. When analyzing the legislation of countries such as Germany and the Czech Republic, relevant situations and examples of court decisions are given in order to determine the effectiveness of law enforcement in the field of blockchain technologies and cryptocurrency and identify existing problems in this area. At the end of the article, the relevant conclusions of the author and proposals for improving the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan are given.
Today, a crypto economy is actively developing throughout the globe based on the use of cryptographic technologies for the creation of new digital products, including the issuance of digital financial instruments. The topic of regulation of digital financial assets (hereinafter referred to as DFA) is relevant in the world: since 2019, some countries, including Russia, began to introduce legal norms regarding the issuance of DFA, as well as the sale and turnover of such assets on the market. This article compares approaches to the regulation of DFA in Russia and globally, including the issue of determining financial instruments that will be related to these assets, aspects of the procedure for issuing, storing, and trading them, including the basic rights and obligations of issuers and investors in such assets, and the features of the operation of trading floors and platforms for issuing DFA. In general, two approaches to the regulation of DFA can be distinguished. The first approach is the application of existing rules to tokenized assets (for example, laws on securities and financial instruments); this approach is used in the United States. The second is regulation through the introduction of a new framework for the application of distributed ledger technology in financial services, for example, in Russia, Germany, Luxembourg, the European Union (EU), and Switzerland. This article examines the second approach, which is currently implemented in Russia, to identify differences with foreign regulation, for example, the use of custodian institution for accounting and storing digital assets, converting DFA into traditional financial assets, and creating rules for trading digital financial assets.
The importance of legal protection and ensuring the prevention of criminal offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency was noted. The history of legal regulation of the use of cryptocurrency in Ukraine is briefly analyzed. An analysis of the Law of Ukraine "On Virtual Assets" was carried out and some of its shortcomings were identified. Cryptocurrency is proposed to be considered one of the types of virtual assets, namely digital currency (electronic funds), the emission and accounting of which is based on asymmetric encryption, the use of cryptographic protection methods. It is indicated that activities to prevent crimes related to the use of cryptocurrency should be extremely diverse, taking into account the fact that violations of the circulation of cryptocurrency will eventually penetrate into all major spheres of public life, and will require adequate measures. The concept and main types of general social principles for the prevention of offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency in Ukraine are defined. It is indicated that such preventive activity is a humane means of maintaining the country's security and law and order. These include verification of state regulation of the virtual assets market, control over the activities of participants in the virtual assets market, identification of criminogenic factors in legal entities where offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency are most often committed; development of rules for the use of cryptocurrency typical for all participants of the virtual assets market and others. The implementation of general social principles for the prevention of offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency in Ukraine, along with the protection of society from these offenses, protects offenders from committing more serious offenses, and thus saves them from severe criminal punishment. Special criminological measures to prevent crimes related to the use of cryptocurrency are analyzed. It is emphasized that such measures involve the creation of an optimal system for detecting the facts of these offenses and identifying persons who commit such actions. For this, it is necessary to reach a situation where the maximum possible number of sources of information regarding offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency will function. Individual approaches to the prevention of offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency involve the work of authorized bodies with individual individuals. Forms of individual prevention include studying the identity of potential offenders, interviewing individuals, surveillance and other measures. An important measure of individual prevention of offenses related to the use of cryptocurrency is the creation of a data bank on persons who have committed offenses in the specified or related areas.
The paper is devoted to the study of the legal nature of a non-fungible token — NFT. The paper discusses the concept and types of tokens. The author defines a token as a unit of accounting in a distributed ledger that digitally represents financial instruments or other assets that expresses the economic value of the objects being represented and allows the rights associated with them to be exercised. According to a common point of view, NFT serves as a means of digital expression of a particular object, it has characteristics (signs) inherent exclusively to it, by virtue of which it cannot be exchanged for another token, and the cost of one NFT is not conditioned by the cost of other tokens. The author notes that the listed features are not inherent in NFT in all cases. In addition, using the example of NFT, the author draws attention to the problem of artificial limitations of the mechanism of legal regulation of fundamentally new digital objects. It is determined that, with regard to NFT, today in the Russian Federation, both the legislator and the financial market regulator maintain the status quo: the state intervenes in public relations that develop during the turnover of non-fungible tokens only if transactions involving them violate the law. Meanwhile, it can be expected that eventually the problems of the issue and circulation of NFT in the financial market will receive their regulatory and legal resolution.
With the development of blockchain technology and digital assets, the problem pages of digital assets at the legal level are becoming more and more prominent. This article will start with smart contracts and combine the case of Shenzhen Ethereum to analyze the legal issues based on blockchain technology and digital assets. The current status of conservation and its possible future development directions are analyzed. This article will specifically discuss the issue of contract law regulation of smart contracts from the perspective of legal system construction, as well as the compatibility between smart contracts and current contract law. Finally, the following conclusions are drawn: Firstly, consciously accepting the law needs to adapt to social changes and accepting the fact that the law needs to be adjusted. Secondly, at the operational level, the use of technology must comply with. Thirdly, at the research level, relevant legal research must be done, and legal scholars must have inter-professional knowledge and capabilities.