This paper explores the contemporary aesthetics of one of the latest forms of digital art known as non-fungible tokens, aka NFTs, and how and why they are affecting and shaping today’s society. Using Manovich’s theory of metamedium, Lanza’s theory of biocentrism, blockchain technology, and NFTs can be theorized as a form of medium which represents many other media while augmenting them with many new properties. The main theoretical problem with NFTs in the domain of art theory is the question of their originality. When put to use through various digital art collections and online tech platforms, the backend section of the blockchain smart contract code also becomes part of art, hence it can sometimes be difficult to define NFTs’ originality of the art itself. Due to the repetitive nature of NFTs, it can be argued that the most unique component of the NFT metamedium is not art, or blockchain smart contract, but the owner of the digital art piece. With the collection of 10,000 similar pieces of art, the originality of art is evolving through the ideology of cultural groups associated with desired collections. It is shifting from the art itself to the owner. Throughout the unification of technology, software, and art, artists have a new way to extend their creations, while actively participating in the shaping of the cultural landscape. This gives both creators and collectors of the NFT metamedium a brand-new transcending meta experience beyond the art itself that gives a unique point to the originality of the art piece. Article received: May 8, 2022; Article accepted: July 15, 2022; Published online: October 15, 2022; Original scholarly paper
Open access
Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
The article analyses a foreign practice of the criminal legal measures for counteracting cyberterrorism. An analysis of the US Code chapter 18 1030(a)(5), amended by USA PATRIOT Act 2001 (a response to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001), is presented. The substantial features of cyberthreats on the part of terrorist organizations, stated in annual threat assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community, are marked out. The experience of the Western European countries in the field is also summarized. Particularly, the routine activity of the secret services and law-enforcement authorities which rarely involves the criminal responsibility. A special attention is drawn to the legal acts of the People's Republic of China which ground counteracting cyberterrorism on the general conception of the digital sovereignty. In PRC the measures of counteracting to modern cyberthreats are arranged in three main blocks: development of own technologies, ideological propaganda, state policy. As a result of technological progress the structure of terrorist organizations and the tactics of criminal actions are changed. The use of networking model has resulted in emergence of the "single person terrorists", multi-integration of various organizations, frequently committing their operations in distance one of another, self-radicalization as a key model of involving to the criminal activity,decentralization in management while lacking of the "command centres", making use of the blockchain in the financing model. The article also proposes general positions for the criminalization of the cyberterrorism in the Russian Federation. The recommendations for amendment of criminal legislation are made.
Complex socio-economic processes are simultaneously taking place in Russian society: the economy is adapting to external economic challenges and, due to the COVID-19 epidemic, many aspects of social life are being transferred online. As a result, there is a transformation of all types of entrepreneurial activity, oriented both to the end consumer and to another legal entity (B2B transactions). The digitalization of commerce objectively requires an effective legal response to the procedures for concluding and executing contracts. A feature of the Russian legal system for regulating digital assets can be considered the impossibility of concluding direct transactions, bypassing a specialized information platform.
 The article discusses the features of smart contracts as a civil law way of disposing of digital rights. The activity of an information platform operator or a market maker as an intermediary is analyzed. Their positive and negative impact on the digital asset market is shown.
 The conclusion is substantiated that the disposal of digital rights through the use of a smart contract cannot be identified with all other classical contractual structures. Smart contracts, including those that are made using blockchain and Ethereum technology, are legally different from the electronic form of a civil law contract. Despite the obvious advantages of a smart contract as a way to manage digital assets, in the absence of legal regulation, significant business risks arise that require a prompt and effective legislative solution
Disputes regarding smart contracts are inevitable, and parties will need means for dealing with smart contract issues. This article highlights the need for dispute resolution mechanisms for smart contracts. The author provides analysis of the possible mechanisms to solve disputes arising from smart contracts, namely dispute resolution by traditional arbitration institutions and blockchain arbitration. Article acknowledges the benefits and challenges of both mechanisms. In the light of this, the author concludes about instituting a hybrid approach aimed at resolving disputes that will not stymie efficiencies of smart contracts.
The article analyzes the problems and threats associated with the use of the latest information technologies for criminal purposes, as well as the use of cryptocurrencies in the process of legalizing proceeds from crime to finance terrorism and extremism
In recent years, cryptocurrencies' economic application and speculative value have soared. Cryptocurrency is being used as a means of trade, even in Pakistan. The government does not legalize it, but it is traded like many other states. Globally it causes fraudulent investment schemes. Cryptocurrencies are speculative, as the dot-com boom of the 1990s. Even though these organizations lacked a product, business plan, and profit potential, the stock market was eager to invest heavily in internet-related companies. A few years later, a dot-com catastrophe ended an era of unjustified and speculative online firms. The gold rush occurred much earlier. In the 1800s, people worldwide sought their fortune in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. They rapidly understood that mining a significant gold stake was dangerous and unlikely to succeed. In 2021, cryptocurrencies will become the dominant form of money. 2021 was the landmark year. Bitcoin became the new gold rush and caused online fraud, known as cryptocurrency fraud. We will examine cryptocurrency, crimes, laws, and regulations to combat crypto crimes.
The article presents the authors’ view on the ongoing changes in the process of resolving new “digital” disputes. The authors assess the global practice of resolving digital disputes through arbitration, as well as the new form of digital rights protection - blockchain arbitration. They analyze regulation of the new procedure for the protection of digital rights in foreign practice. The authors believe that the developed foreign experience in resolving smart contracts is progressive and effective. The findings of the research can be outlined as follows: 1) for the first time, special rules for resolving digital disputes have been formulated; they have been developed in tight cooperation of lawyers and IT specialists; 2) disputes from smart contracts and blockchain were isolated into a separate form of rights protection; 3) special approaches to settling digital disputes at the stage of concluding smart contracts have been worked out; 4) the process of enhancing the procedure for resolving digital disputes is ongoing.
Whenever a new technology emerges and provides new opportunities for business and potentially new and different solutions for real-world problems, developers of the technology, developers of its business applications, and investors supporting the developers, are looking for guidance from regulators. Ideally, the guidance will be more than a snapshot of what is currently allowed but also include reliable information on what will be allowed, and on what conditions, in the foreseeable future. This is more important if development of marketable applications using the new technology is time-consuming and expensive, and if the technology is not just providing incremental improvements to existing solutions and business models but seems to be promising revolutionary changes that may well upend entire industries and make at least some of the existing solutions and business models—and therefore some of the existing businesses—obsolete. Blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT) is an example of such a technology since it promises an upgrade to everything we have been doing on the internet. While we have been able to do financial transactions on our smart phones, such as checking our bank balances, making payments via Paypal or Venmo, and ordering stuff on Amazon and Doordash, those were evolutionary or incremental improvements to existing technologies and business models. They largely did not require new and special regulation. The risks presented by those innovations—occasional fraud on the side of misrepresenting “vendors” and occasional fraud by misrepresenting “buyers”—was largely absorbed within the existing systems of customer protection in the credit card market, i.e., by banks and other centralized institutions acting as trusted intermediaries. The emerging applications of Blockchain and DLT will be very different. The technology is creating a trustless environment, i.e., a financial system without the need for trusted intermediaries. In the brave new world of cryptocurrencies, there is no need for commercial banks to facilitate funds transfers, nor for central banks to issue currency and control interest and exchange rates. There also are currently no authorities with clearly defined supervisory powers, no guarantees by institutions or insurers, and not even rules of the road enacted by legislators or courts. Yet, the equivalent of USD 3 trillion are held by millions of individuals in the form of more than 10,000 new digital currencies in more than 200 million cryptocurrency wallets, completely disconnected from traditional bank accounts and credit cards.1 This sum is more astonishing given the fact that every one of those “virtual currencies”2 was privately created and managed, and none of these wallets is protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any equivalent mechanisms in other countries. Further, other than holding value and transferring value from one wallet to another, there is presently not much that can be done with all the crypto money, since there are not a lot of goods or services that can be bought with crypto, and, more importantly, there are hardly any smart-contract applications3 on the market that could reliably deliver innovative and sophisticated business solutions.4 Last but not least, the entire market is characterized by extreme volatility where a single coin—and to some extent the entire market cap—could jump up or down by 10% or more in a single day.5 Although much of the promise of DLT remains to be demonstrated in practice, and the technology is currently struggling with scaling up,6 what ensures that Blockchain and DLT will not become bubbles that are bound to burst and be forgotten is the sustained investment into actual business solutions via the development of smart applications on a In sustained investment USD in every single the technology its in we may that the investors to more into the development of actual business models and for a what the technology can and and what are with all is is the guidance by the in different The of digital were by a of traditional control and in the world was to of the financial and the just the financial with USD trillion in funds that were money, the existing and, the value of and in the of and currencies are by central banks are are or by and and to and by are by the on of or by mechanisms potentially all those and the currency developers, wallet The of the currency of the of and it to of is one of the of the and the financial is not to up control currencies without a In it did not that a of of were also such as with and not business models with the of by on the by cryptocurrencies, as well as and making financial to and from and This will an of and created for DLT and at the and at the of the in the The provides for a of and to the the in the the have the to on the it not done and it is that will be at the in the foreseeable future. This not that there are no of to developers, and of Federal and other services as well as of financial can in important in is the and of enacted in to the financial of Although not a of and with to it important The of is to in the of banks and financial The banks from in and other the and with as of a to the risks from the system and the of more in the form of This is by a that be and on the of via a smart to of the and on a distributed such as a it is a and to the of This the crypto that it will the crypto exchange in to be able to crypto in the a system to financial institutions of i.e., important institutions can to the financial and to the by In of is to banks and other financial from business and from to This is for the DLT financial since some are the or could be important and to its central the of the The is a new Federal and other financial The the to and for of the its While some of these do not to transactions DLT and cryptocurrencies, some the and in its in on and are and any or credit to with of or or credit card rules are not to banks but also to any form of credit by technology in the of digital wallets and smart of bank and not or not the technology or financial a bank or a it is that a financial services can without protection by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is bank up to USD there is no in a could not become a of the and the other protection on such as protection and as well as are to financial in the Blockchain In to and protection financial services with rules customer The of is the services is defined in by the a of the of the with and other financial services or in or and a of are to and as well as of and those technology that do not services are “virtual by the and, the of as financial institutions and and on the the to issue and for and to those with and and for the crypto have been for by the created to for the of the is the and of the the it to into or a the or of a for the is on a exchange and by a in the the to such and the and its and the of The supervisory of the even to of if to in the In to its to cryptocurrencies, the that “virtual such as have been to be the Federal in and a cryptocurrency may need or as of The of the to that any in of the is to for actual of the to of a is the of the it can be from the can of up to USD million or the to the for such is as well as to of by of the The and was created by the of and is with that the of and other protection The can rules the of The to in and financial information can or such to the The a of for making it for any to transactions in that are not on a exchange or a to The of the and the While the is on i.e., for of a at a at some for the of a at a in the future. in such with the and the and with the and the This is for in the cryptocurrency the that are and to as the that cryptocurrencies, for the are and to The is not to crypto, not an exchange of for crypto or crypto for crypto, or a of goods or services with crypto, as such transactions are to of and of on the digital a of the a to a of to of to cryptocurrency transactions in the a fraud and an and its to in the and of up to or on at the of the funds to a and held a in a for investors to the interest payments on the accounts from to investors and to down since could not all The that was a at least for and the that as a of fraud from investors to or more than USD million on currently exchange also that nor have the interest payments to the Although that did not to cryptocurrency and, that the Federal the an its holding that in were investment and, The that the were investment and from the In the held that investment for of the a or a in a and is to from the of the or a an investment of in the form of into a with the and other and with the of from the of the or are not in every of cryptocurrency by a or the of is more than it is the for is to the of the by investors crypto than potentially the in that the of the were in of the were using to the of the in for a of million equivalent at the to USD more than were individuals in the The by the a for the of a new of in the crypto i.e., without a or created to in other Blockchain the innovative was a promise that the of the be and without any all and in the of for of the be a smart on the Blockchain and, from the on and from in value of the as it was to be on The an for in of of the on the of The with the nor information to to make an investment since the been by a the did not it to an In the a and of the was in and to and as well as i.e., on the The that the of an as defined by of the and was with the nor an from This in of of the a market for the of and in that as defined by of the by it to a than for the crypto and and individuals in was the of The was in in is in the and of example a is the for and by on a that was in the Although as there are not to or or While the and the of the to cryptocurrency are to for and, as of an investment and are the the more is to what extent can do other business with without of the and The guidance for of is of in In the to a for a digital is an investment and and of a digital are Yet, the not the of investment of money, and of from of a digital at the of its or the on the and The of the guidance some that make it that the is The distributed ledger and digital are and of the digital are able to it for its on the The digital and is and to the of its than to as to its value or development of its the digital can be on the and can be held or in that to a for in the value of the digital are the of the digital provides that its value will or even and, a not be to the digital for as an to a digital to as a it can be to make payments in a of or as a for This that it is to for goods or services with the digital without to it to digital or it is characterized as a the digital as a of value that can be and for of value at a to a digital that to a or it currently can be within a or to or those goods or The digital is in a that the of the digital and not the for the in market value of the digital on the of the digital are with the and not a the the of a market, of the digital may be by and of the The that with these of or are to be investment This will hardly be for to a DLT or cryptocurrency business with in the example is the The did not make a or that are and that are not and all and all in all wallets of the to be an for the that the done a to the and that currently the of not a of the was and an in value was the with and that even if the a at the of the it not the from a In the of the Blockchain the interest and as the business to down and the funds in the and the The The may be as for or to in value of and can be to as investment an or any other of such is to be as an investment by the and to be of not as is to be as an investment by the if the is and the are on and there may be an of in The may be for if are and there is an of The is different for or that in making for The are as well as or with or that more or The to of with the to in value as investment is not This the of by a into the of if the were that the of the will make the more to goods or services for cryptocurrency and need to with the can for a from the The need to a of business and it not be in of the and can be and the no to every The is to the on the and in the the business the the is the to the in The a of are the of is and While of without to have by cryptocurrency the for by the such to be a or with the and the with a conditions, making a with the are not to but include to the of and on the the development of cryptocurrency were to and other by the of potentially by to its are to more financial to all in the as well as if are and doing business in the This cryptocurrency if the are on what not been is the the to or are on crypto the one was clearly not by the the was the other the to of and the as and are in since have been by an in that could an investment as in or may be investment the it to any of business with cryptocurrency and smart and and investors in the for without financial a the of the crypto one The are largely to in or into the do and some do not from and other in much all the the the of providing actual and in the and to be in the of of the as and the as the more its as to the also of the that are not currency for but are This for the of and Blockchain and crypto is for on an in value at the the crypto is if a at USD and it at USD a of USD 10,000 The on the crypto was held for a or The is more While the have been very with its the in the to the as is that a in value the and the can also be from as a and can be to in other crypto transactions the to the in and potentially to the wallet and on an are also in crypto can in other for example in remains to be The of crypto currency may also be as a wallet digital for for example in an or a the as an is in crypto, as and the may have to Federal and the on an or a is goods or services in exchange for crypto, for the and can The is for the market value of the at the the is and the crypto is the can also in the of and the in the the funds in an are to since the is a of This is not the for the of in an or or of in as as for from is not to the are and and not just or the to an a Federal provides for of or in to business and Although an as a of the as of or or can be investment a not a business the and the of the or This is different for a The value of the digital be in at the the were or the was This can a of the value of a or can a single is if a the or of crypto in exchange for in at USD is at that into the are if there is no for example if the digital is by or in an or if the the exchange of one for the of with The of market but that it can the to for the the is on the for the of the value of the there are of digital for there is no by The may some for the that the will in the foreseeable in to by those in is in and, at least at the was the cryptocurrency exchange In it was in and million with transactions of USD In the of of payments and or of and by system for all transactions in the to with the and the to the to accounts at least the equivalent of in any one or in any one the The not include bought and held the or for the even the to million transactions of some to the by the the to of information have to be as for the of the of any making a where none been the of any for any any such In the the that to some but not all the was to for accounts with at least the equivalent of in any one or in any one the to the of or other the and of the and the of to the and all of or the the that of and all wallet all for all as well as of or a or and and the or any with to the to the or were not at the of the the did not to information at of into we can from the is the of it is a crypto exchange or the millions of In every a a of with that a of that a or for In practice, the will have to on the of our authorities to and on is just example of the of our legislators and to and guidance for in the Blockchain and all of existing business by those in could of on or or In the have with DLT technology and The have to any new They can different of other and as of can to rules by by the such as the been largely by all DLT and cryptocurrencies, the a The of was to a the of in business such as or holding or of or digital of value within for currency or on the of services individuals or are from the or a The was at the of financial in DLT and digital money, for business models. for the protection of were The not currency and is to all of digital Although by the and by the enacted The for the of was to on into currency and the of and to of that be with on was by to the the to was by the its and is The to a accounts the or the to the is a to the of to to in the other The to digital and the important done by the is the The the to smart and other business transactions and on a Blockchain a of cryptocurrency is a of the extent the not to be by and those the created a on the and The presented a for to all of the and of a new in The been an of on to of digital of digital of the and the in and as well as and of goods to Blockchain or DLT or to on the is largely the as well as the of a have the to and goods and, if the fact that the to the is an that even the of the to emerging is not The is also 3 on be for in of is of in and can without to and 3 to be to in are with to on and the is looking at by of created and to what extent be those not by cryptocurrency and the of are if as The is also on is given new and emerging and, the the of transactions to and funds may be of interest is the of the and are given and fraud banks can a to a is that of the The bank is largely protected if it the and the in i.e., it was of a or that the was by an as in the business of and a and credit and This not goods or services in exchange for nor currently existing those that are in business of The of the with to on of is to of of and other and in the of on a Blockchain that may be in to of for on of The of the is and the of the on the and of or interest by a business or is a interest in a or is not a it is in or on or in its that it is a by an interest in a or is a financial if it is held in a are held and from traditional the is changes need to be to to crypto on with transactions in one in for the of goods or and a interest in by the other The is in the crypto it of or to by to from in to a of the crypto the is also not to provides for a the into a that provides for and is a the be to be if the into or the the will if the interest was on the of and may be by or control of the or by a with a a of for a the of that can be for a In to these include to a interest and that have been and are as for the as and the all of to be be to transactions using as could be as on the of the The a different that not on the of the or the that that are as in at least one is the a interest can be by control to In and for all other digital the a new on The provides that the not those that are created using existing technologies such as distributed ledger technology but also to to that may be created using technologies that have to be or even for the of the to some be in an and the the to or the the control the with a the from The a interest in crypto be control a to be is in control of a the a to or with the or a system in the is the the to of all the from the and to from of all the from the and control of the to or to control of as a of the of the and the a to or with the or a system in the is the to in any by or as the in can also be to and of control are for transactions and require from one wallet with its to are more if the of the digital is not but in a or a by crypto from a of for the control of the could be the of wallets the from of the crypto without the of the in the of such an and if at least one not been to the may not have been the to form the to these in that the are not and that currently for and in the crypto and DLT in the the is by the and by the The important in the can be as The of in is to include of exchange that is currently or by a or by an or to an or more This include since its as in it currently all other The for a are to that a be from a or since it become make a from a different to have been from such an of and to be on a with the not a for the of and can be by to or with the of an or with the to or the This will be as a The is for of of credit in In control a of is from a single to or more if it is to and for example with a the and of and and The that are not also a of and The financial is to to the and the by of that is with to a the financial as to the interest or of the or to the that interest or if a a or other financial a the financial as to the or to the the to a digital as a financial and the digital is in fact held in a for an the rules to not to the to the financial the financial is a the rules in to the with to the a of are for to with the new technology and the new The of is from a to to to the the to is for of the can be in the traditional by a with the or by control of the for example the to a crypto interest in a or that is by control a interest that is by on and of is to that interest is the and with to the if the are value been the in the or the to in the to a and one of the is the is a in form and the been to the to the or the is money, investment or and the control or to the or the is and the and control to the to a of acting in the of a interest and a of acting in the of a interest control of the the of the new is not to rules for DLT and Blockchain technology but also for that may be created using technologies that have to be or even The the of as The of DLT important in have to value to some that no to and without any or the world have to currencies such as as a of exchange and of are using the or of to to to of other services or of and other in and will in to and and other as to the for these commercial The of these risks will as these is to these risks by providing the rules the and for in rules the in a that a systems for transferring are that the of a is to the of the or the of the the rules make in the that a for value a of of a interest in the the is and by the it remains to be it will be by the that the will be well to a of transactions digital of smart for the of and the is and the in the They may or may not to the of the in to rules and solutions for the of the and been and The of a with to all by any of the as well as the of the and the The it of a to the into it to in The of those and or at least the development of have much that the technology is to and can be for in the are as investment and the of the are that have not enacted any or have created an to the and
The current hype cycle surrounding non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, has been going on for close to two years. As we continue to move through this phase and into whatever is next, it is important to look at the current use cases out there and some of the intellectual property issues facing companies that avail themselves of this technology. What follows are excerpts from my contributions to a discussion panel that took place in November 2021, modified as necessary for clarity and for the purposes of this Article. 
 The first question one might ask is, “Why are companies choosing to enter into the NFT space in the first place?”
In this research, we discuss the smart contracts, legal acts, Block Chain rules and their scope, the legal problems that they arise, and how the theory of contracts has been developed accordingly. At the current time, the smart contracts, specially those relating to Block chain rules and cryptocurrency trading, are creating a radical transformation where the conventional language has fallen back and a new and unique phenomenon, known as the language of codes, has emerged. Thus, the digital relationships performed within smart contracts raise several questions. Hence, the question arises here: to what extent these contracts need a specific legislation to address all the problems that they pose?
Digital art is the result of creative activity practiced in the virtual space. There is no unified concept of digital art in Russia, and there is no legislative consolidation of this term. In this regard, attempts to find an answer to what digital art is and what rights its acquirer has are topical issues of Russian legal science. At the same time, under the influence of technology, as a result of the development of the blockchain, new ways of handling digital art objects have appeared. The appearance of non-fungible tokens (NFT) causes a lot of legal problems. The study of these problems is the most important task for modern lawyers. The purpose of the study is to identify the legal qualification of digital art objects. In this regard, the author sets the task to study the structure of NFT as an object of civil law. The purpose of the article is also to identify potential risks for intellectual property rights holders when issuing NFT. The methodology of this research is based on the use of a set of general scientific methods and specific methods of analysis used in legal science: system-structural method, system-functional, induction and deduction, analogy, method of formal logic and system approach. In particular, the dialectical method provides an opportunity to systematically explore the unity of social content and legal form of art objects in the digital space. The formal legal method makes it possible to form legal categories by highlighting the main features of phenomena related to research questions. The author has made assumptions about the legal nature of digital art and NFT, as well as their place in the system of intellectual property law. The author has come to the conclusion that crypto art is one of the types of digital art. A specific feature of cryptographic art objects is that their emergence and existence is possible only in blockchain. As a result of the conducted research, it has been revealed that not all NFTs connected to art objects are crypto-art objects in digital commerce.
A transnationalization of corruption practices, born by globalization processes, is one of nowadays negative phenomenon that deserves intensive studying. Digital technologies smooth the pathways for transnational corruption. On the other hand, digitalization also provides tools for building up respective countermeasures. This article examines the potential of digital technologies, primarily artificial intelligence (AI), in preventing corruption practices. Firstly, the characteristics of the «global corruption» phenomenon are outlined. The experience of implementing digital technologies in the corruption countermeasures has been analysed that revealed problems and prospective trends in the development of digital anti-corruption mechanisms at the supra-national level of governance. Digital tools for detecting and tracking of transnational corruption schemes were described in the framework of international journalistic investigations or anti-corruption control technologies in the European Union. One of key factors preventing the effective application of AI against the transnational corruption is the lack of the consolidated international regulatory regime for data evaluation. However, AI is ambivalent for both fighting corruption and creation new corruption pathways. Arguments in support of the distributed ledger technologies as the promising corruption-preventing techniques are provided. The study discloses factors inhibiting the scaling of the implementation of blockchain or smart contracts as mechanisms of reducing the risks of corruption. The need to develop international standards for the use of AI technologies in the fight against corruption practices is emphasized. The creation of a transnational structure with appropriate rule-making and control powers in this area becomes extremely important.
Maria A. Egorova, Д. В. Пономарева, О. В. Кожевина
In this article, the authors consider the features of smart contracts as a fundamentally new model of contractual relations, relevant in view of the comprehensive digitalization of various spheres of life. Smart contracts are considered as the so-called self-executing contracts, in which the terms of the agreement between the buyer and the seller are directly spelled out in lines of code. At the same time, the code and the agreement associated with it exist in a distributed decentralized blockchain network. Smart contracts guarantee a very specific set of results, which makes it possible not to resort to litigation, in fact, avoiding conflict situations. The authors analyze various types of smart contracts, problems associated with changing the terms of a smart contract, and limitations connected with the use of such a model of contractual relations. The article draws attention to the fact that the automated execution of the terms of the contract will cause problems, because the lines of code, unlike a traditional written contract, cannot be changed with the same ease. In conclusion, the authors discuss the impact of digitalization processes on the development of smart contracts.
The development of modern technologies has led to the creation of a new way to conclude agreements through automated systems — smart contracts, the emergence of which was largely due to the development of distributed ledger technology (Blockchain). The advantage of the system of “smart contracts” is the ability to make transactions directly with counterparties, without resorting to the services of banks, payment system operators and other transaction operators, which, in turn, reduces costs. Smart contracts can also be used during remote electronic voting, allowing you to solve problems related to security, reliability of data and their protection. Many states have managed to assess the advantages of this technology, having decided to implement it in the digital economy. But before implementing the achievements of scientific and technological progress, it is necessary to understand their technical and legal nature in order to form proper legislation regulating their application. Within the framework of this work, the technical and legal features of smart contract technology are considered in comparison with the traditional form of concluding contracts, and it is also proposed to use it in economic turnover within a special platform.
The problem of legal regulation of cross-border private law relations in the field of intellectual property implemented through blockchain technologies requires thorough scrutiny on behalf of both legal theorists and practitioners. The use of blockchain technologies is relevant for both copyright and industrial property issues. A practical method to establish a technological basis for the protection of intellectual property rights that is used for their storing and for other purposes provides for implementation of so-called blockchain ledgers. At the same time, the main function of blockchain ledgers is to protect the rights of copyright holders and to provide them with an opportunity to use results of their intellectual activity simultaneously in several jurisdictions. In this respect, the use of distributed ledger technologies should be regulated by a system of rules established by the participants of legal relations within the framework of implementation of certain cross-border private law relations. This article considers, inter alia , lex registrum as a system of rules regulating relations under consideration.
Cryptocurrencies are a new technology that has given impetus to the modernization of the entire economy. Already, a huge number of people use cryptocoins for payment, participate in their production and earn on market volatility.To date, cryptocurrencies are at the stage of formation and improved versions are released annually, which try to eliminate the shortcomings in the technology. But it is already obvious to many experts that cryptocurrencies are the money of the future with great potential for development.
Based on a systematic analysis of the general provisions of civil law on the forms of transactions, contracts and methods of performance of obligations, and doctrinal points of view on the essence of the smart contract as a product of digitalization conclusions are made that the smart contract has a complex and ambiguous legal nature, allowing to define it as a kind of electronic contract, a separate form of written transaction (contract), a way to fulfill an obligation. In the absence of its legal concept, it does not replace the traditional civil law contract. The subject composition and content of the smart contract is mediated by the scope of its application. We should not exaggerate the role and importance of smart contracts and expand the scope of their application outside of civil turnover.
Although the term “digital rights” and their kinds are now stipulated in the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws, the concept of a smart contract and its legal issues arising with its use are not reflected in the current legislation. In our view, it is a drawback since digital rights are transferred from the one to another person in an information system with the use of a smart contract. Smart contract is deemed to be a contract which is concluded and performed in a special information system being decentralized and distributed (like blockchain) and enabling making transactions of digital rights. The peculiarities of a smart contract enhance stability of civil turnover and promote due performance of obligations. It is argued to be possible to transit digital rights in virtue of law on such lawful grounds as a court decision, hereditary succession in case of presenting a certificate of inheritance, where an operator of an information system makes an appropriate record in accordance with the rules of such information system. The lack of legal regulation of a smart contract restrains the broader use of digital rights as well as implementation of accrual of digital rights on the basis of decisions of law enforcement bodies.
The crypto industry has exploded in recent years, and authorities in different countries have been reacting in very different ways. Some have banned cryptocurrencies, while others are embracing them to varying degrees. Some are working hard to align their anti-money laundering regulations with FATF standards, while others are turning a blind eye. A few countries have confiscated huge quantities of crypto assets linked to crime and money laundering. Others are at square one in terms of enforcement, risking becoming a hub for crypto crime and money laundering and posing a serious vulnerability in the world’s financial system.
 This Working Paper draws on a detailed analysis of how selected countries are addressing legal, regulatory and enforcement issues around cryptocurrencies and other virtual assets. The analysis is focused on Asia, but set in the context of global trends in crypto law, regulation and enforcement. It explores critical questions that will shape policies around virtual assets at the corporate, national and international levels:
 
 What is working in terms of crypto regulation and enforcement?
 What are the implications of different policy choices on crypto assets – for the industry, for the countries themselves and for global financial integrity as a whole?
 What would the crypto wave possibly bring next?
 
 The Paper also highlights broader developments needed to bring light and clarity to laws, policies and practices around the crypto industry, such as collaboration between both market players and governments.
 Jurisdictions touched upon in this Working Paper alphabetically include Bhutan, Central African Republic, El Salvador, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, the Philippines, the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, Ukraine and Vietnam.
 A list of key terms and abbreviations have been prepared in the Annex to this Working Paper for the readers’ easy reference.
 About this Working Paper
 This Working Paper is a collaboration between Dorothy Siron, Co-Managing Partner, Zhong Lun Law Firm LLP and Federico Paesano, Senior Financial Investigation Specialist, Basel Institute on Governance.
 Dorothy Siron provided the bulk of the analysis and discussion, while Federico Paesano provided a selection of case studies and was co-author of the seven recommendations contained in section 4. The collaboration was facilitated by the International Academy of Financial Crime Litigators, an independent, non-partisan global centre that shapes and advances financial crime litigation practices for the future.
The proliferation of cryptocurrency transactions and the increase in their value raises the question of the need for a final solution to the problem of legal regulation of their circulation. The urgency of this task is exacerbated by the fact that leaving cryptoassets out of the legal field promotes their use in illegal activities and deprives the state of significant revenues from their proper taxation. The purpose of this article is to study the approaches to the legal regulation of the circulation of cryptoassets, which are recently formed in the world, to determine the positive experience and opportunities to borrow successful legislative decisions. The article analyzes approaches to the regulation of relations arising from cryptocurrencies in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Estonia, China, Singapore and Australia. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the European unified approach to the regulation of cryptocurrencies for all European countries, as well as cryptocurrency services. According to the results of the study, it is concluded that today the attitude to cryptocurrencies differs depending on the level of development of the country. However, recently there has been a tendency to focus efforts on the implementation of cryptoassets in the legal field and ensure legal regulation of their circulation. In general, 2020, the year of the pandemic and the transfer of life to the online format, was marked by special attention to the development of legal regulation of cryptocurrency circulation. Of particular concern to the authorities are features of cryptocurrencies such as decentralization and anonymity, which allow these assets to be used to launder criminal proceeds and finance terrorism. It is in this direction that government regulation of cryptocurrency circulation has been moving recently. Most countries in the world of cryptocurrency regulation focus on licensing cryptocurrency exchanges, identifying their users, taxing, and countering money laundering and terrorist financing. These principles are the basis of the unified approach to the regulation of cryptocurrency activities for all European countries proposed by the European Commission. It is noteworthy that both in the European unified approach to the regulation of cryptoassets and in their legal regulation in some European countries and the United States, it is proposed to classify cryptocurrencies and divide them into several categories depending on the functions they perform. These approaches to the classification of cryptoassets should be considered when determining the legal framework for regulating the circulation of cryptoassets (virtual assets) in Ukraine.
This paper presents a review of the current status and development trends of the non-fungible tokens’ technology (NFT), which are digital rights to unique objects recorded in the blockchain. The object of the study is the non-interchangeable token technology. The subject of the study is the fields of practical application of NFT. The method is an analytical review of scientific publications. The current state and socio-cultural sources of the NFT market related to works of art and media objects are analysed. The technological and legal problems preventing the wide spread of NFT in the business environment are identified. The prospects for the use of non-fungible tokens in the field of protection and commercialization of patent law objects are considered.
The year 2021 was a turning point in the development of digital art. The widespread use of a non-fungible tokens (NFT) in the art industry has revolutionized the modern understanding of intellectual property rights (hereinafter — IPR) and the transfer of IPR. The role of agents as intermediaries between artists and art connoisseurs lost its importance, and so did the role of streaming services. Blockchain technology rewards creators for the sales of works on the secondary market and their subsequent use. Today everyone heard of NFT. Nevertheless, what we know about NFT now is just the tip of the iceberg. The potential market for NFT is enormous: it goes far beyond the visual arts. It will only be a few years before we realize all the possibilities that NFT brings to the table. The importance of an excellent legal framework for NFT is apparent. However, as it may seem, Russian legislation bypasses this aspect. Hence, is it possible to work with NFT in Russia? The answer to this question is significant for many who wish to be part of the international NFT market, such as museums, galleries, artists, musicians, entrepreneurs. The purpose of the work is to substantiate the possibility of working with NFT in Russia in the absence of special legal regulation. The authors, using systematic, deductive and comparative research methods, designate the place of NFT in the system of legislative regulation of digital assets. Using an empirical method, the authors demonstrate the feasibility of overcoming the legal hardships of NFT transactions in Russia on the examples of successful projects of tokenization of masterpieces of the State Hermitage Museum, works of other museums, private collections, and creations by young Russian artists. The result of the work is the justification of the feasibility of working with NFT in Russia in the absence of special legal regulation and the formation of such a model for structuring transactions with NFT, which fully complies with the requirements of Russian legislation. The materials of the research used domestic and foreign experience of tokenization of digital art objects, as well as domestic and foreign literature on legal problems of NFT.
Apr 13, 2022·Aplikacija industrije 4.0 – prilika za novi iskorak u svim industrijskim granama / Application of Industry 4.0 – an opportunity for a new step forward in all industrial branches
The aim of this paper is to elaborate in more detail, through a brief explanation of the basic elements, the essence of the functioning of blockchain technology, which is a prerequisite and basis for the emergence and functioning of smart contracts, as a modern alternative to using conventional contracts. The nature of the connection between these two concepts points out the differences between conventional and smart contracts, defines the advantages that smart contracts have over the conventional ones, and thus contributes to a more complete understanding of the concept of smart contracts. In this paper we will try to explain how to use the benefits of block chain technology in many other areas of human activity, such as creating and exchanging crypto currencies, exchanging securities, things, documents, real estate, gems or other goods, on the example of smart contracts. In general, these advantages relate to the elimination of the need for intermediaries (in this case, lawyers and notaries), the reduction of the possibility of fraud and increasing the level of security in performing various types of legal transactions as well as acquiring full confidence in the accuracy and correctness of various types of records due to inability to change once stored and from a large number of equal partners, verified transactions.
This article describes the main provisions of the rapid law concept the idea of introducing blank norms into legislation, the content of which is possible by accessing special databases designed to consider the threats posed by the free circulation of cryptocurrency assets to the greatest extent. These conclusions are based on the analysis of the dangers of using cryptocurrencies by broad segments of the population, the lack of effective mechanisms for controlling their turnover, including the acquisition and exchange for other financial assets. The concept of fast law can also be used in other areas, such as in the regulation of industrial or transport securities.