Lorenzo Ceragioli, Pierpaolo Degano, Letterio Galletta, Luca Viganò
People increasingly use digital platforms to exchange resources in accordance with some policies stating what resources users offer and what they require in return. In this paper, we propose a formal model of these environments, focussing on how users' policies are defined and enforced, so ensuring that malicious users cannot take advantage of honest ones. To that end, we introduce the declarative policy language MuAC and equip it with a formal semantics. To determine if a resource exchange is fair, i.e., if it respects the MuAC policies in force, we introduce the non-standard logic MuACL that combines non-linear, linear and contractual aspects, and prove it decidable. Notably, the operator for contractual implication of MuACL is not expressible in linear logic. We define a semantics preserving compilation of MuAC policies into MuACL, thus establishing that exchange fairness is reduced to finding a proof in MuACL. Finally, we show how this approach can be put to work on a blockchain to exchange non-fungible tokens.
This paper explores the Indian government’s stance and evolving regulatory landscape regarding various financial instruments, such as centralized finance (CeFi), decentralized finance (DeFi), cryptocurrencies, share market, mutual funds, gold, and fixed deposits. It examines the current frameworks and regulations, and how government policies are shaping each financial avenue. By analyzing the different approaches toward traditional and modern financial systems, this paper highlights the challenges and opportunities faced by the Indian financial ecosystem, particularly in the context of cryptocurrencies and DeFi.
Noor Fatini Izzati Fadzil, Saheed Abdullahi Busari
Non-fungible tokens (NFT) are considered unique digital assets recorded on the blockchain whose ownership and authenticity cannot be duplicated, exchanged, or divided but can be transferred by the owner, allowing the selling and trading of NFT through the blockchain. This study addresses the issues relating to the extent of NFT compliance with Islamic law. It sheds light on the concept of symbols that are not replaceable and presents the opinions of contemporary jurists in dealings with NFT based on a juristic adaptation of these transactions.The study is qualitatively based and using an inductive approach to collect library information and analytical approach to clarify the issue and present the opinions of the jurists. The study found that investing in non-fungible tokens is legally permissible, but the principles of Shariah must be adhered to when dealing with them because they are among the things that were not prevented except by legal evidence. NFTs should be items of legal value that benefit people, and are free from illegal activities such as usury, fraud, and gambling. The study recommends an urgent need for Shariah scholars and technology experts to create an NFT platform that is compatible with Islamic Shariah, and allowing Muslims to participate in it.
The paper offers a generalized author’s view on the new phenomenon of the digital world, backed tokenized assets, as a tool for asset accounting in digital accounting systems. This view is new and currently unpopular in the literature since the main aspect of tokenized asset presentation is related to speculation on financial markets, widespread creation of unbacked assets around objects of human life, graphics, etc. The aim of the paper is to determine the essence, generic features and technological basis of the use of tokenized assets for their implementation in the digital and platform-based economy. In accordance with this aim, the author logically presents the material from the general to the specific, analyzing the essential features of 7 main related concepts: distributed ledger, distributed ledger technologies, blockchain technology, tokens and consensus algorithm, tokenized asset, decentralized information platform and blockchain-based ecosystem of services. The author persists in the opinion that a tokenized asset is a type of virtual asset. It is a tool for certifying sufficient and confirmed legal rights: rights of access to products and services, rights to a certain product or service, rights to receive a fixed income or percentage of profits, management rights, rights to purchase a certain asset at a certain price in the future, etc. The paper offers the original definition of a tokenized asset: tokenized asset is a type of virtual asset that exists in a digital data accounting system based on the distributed ledger technology in the form of a record with an identifier of information derived from the original asset. A tokenized asset can be used as a tool for implementing a method of recording, accounting and managing property rights to assets. Moreover, a tokenized asset can be used as a tool for certifying any rights; providing services; recording events; generating, processing and submitting statistical and analytical information; ensuring logistics, etc. Depending on the purpose of creating a specific tokenized asset and, as a result, certain inherent properties envisaged by the creator, this tokenized asset can be classified as a separate type.
The decentralized anonymous cryptocurrency is a new kind of technology that can be used for many purposes such as transferring money and investing. However, they do not have a legal entity that is in charge monitoring its uses. Its extraordinary rise raises critical questions such as, should we regulate it or ban it? Since its purposes have been converted from an anonymous payment system to a tool that is used in illegal actions and undermining financial standards. This paper seeks CC regulation options. Plus, it attempts to lay out the various risks they pose and benefits they bring with the technology they use (blockchain). The objective is to investigate which approach will be more reasonable for the country’s conditions. The regulators will try to convince CC service providers to obey rules and operate under official standards, while banners restrict the new instrument’s integration with the financial system. The study relied on the descriptive approach to achieve its objectives. The recent literature and publications of the most important related bodies around the world were reviewed. Findings reveal that it is too early for CCs to be considered legal tender. Moreover, both approaches could be adopted according to the country’s conditions. Plus, alternatives may have their say. Some suggestions are made for local agencies and investors.
As an important part of the reform process of state-owned enterprises in recent years, government decentralization has a profound impact on the business activities of state-owned enterprises. The cash holding level of state-owned enterprises is not only related to the liquidity of state-owned enterprises, but also affects the effective value of state-owned enterprises in the product market competition. Taking the A-share state-owned listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges from 2001 to 2019 as samples, the OLS model is used to empirically test the impact of the government's willingness to delegate power on the cash holding level of state-owned enterprises. The research finds that the government decentralization has a significant negative relationship with the cash holding level of state-owned enterprises. Secondly, with the help of the intermediary effect model, the study finds that the government decentralization is to relieve the financing constraints of enterprises, reduce the policy burden of state-owned enterprises, and then reduce the cash holdings of enterprises. The research conclusion not only expands the relevant literature research on the impact of government decentralization on the cash holding level of state-owned enterprises, but also provides some reference for state-owned enterprises on how to improve their governance structure and capital management system.
Industry 4.0 is the current and developing environment which has led to the evergrowing use of disruptive technology in all areas of life, including finance and investment.Cryptocurrency appeared on the surface of capital markets in 2008, as one of the greatest innovations of our century.The study shows that cryptocurrencies have their own niche in payment systems; they are highly competitive and dependable financial instruments.The growth dynamics of cryptocurrency market capitalization in the world makes Bitcoin the most successful example of the use of virtual currency in the information economy.Our country's economy should follow the path of innovation in finding solutions to a number of technical, economic and legal issues concerning the development of the cryptocurrency market in India through involving the experience of the leading countries.The study also assesses how the financial industry uses Cryptocurrency to enhance the efficiency and wealth of investors as the alternative for the traditional investment avenues.Cryptocurrency has an enormous propensity to improve an investor's risk-yield profile.The paper substantiates opportunities and perspectives for the development of the future of Indian cryptocurrency market.
Recent converging events have created a potential turning point as to both the future of ESG investing and the mitigation of harm from cryptocurrencies. Key investing demographics have shown an increasing interest in ESG investments. Legislators have demonstrated an interest in regulations for both cryptocurrencies and ESG funds, which has sparked a powerful lobbying effort from cryptocurrency advocates. States such as Florida, Louisiana, and West Virginia have divested from all ESG funds. Newly-elected legislators have vowed to investigate ESG funds, attacking them as “a cancer within the U.S. economy.” We are at a potential point of no return regarding environmental action, of which cryptocurrencies pose a great threat. Finally, the legitimacy of ESG investing criteria has been called into question by recent, seemingly inconsistent decisions such as excluding Tesla and allowing Exxon Mobile. Among this backdrop, this first-of-its-kind Article provides a much-needed assessment of the harms and benefits of cryptocurrencies. Societal harms include the environment; facilitation of illegal transactions; the diversion away from traditional stocks and bonds, which produce positive externalities; and the harm from providing an alternative to those who hold the U.S. dollar internationally. And properly understood, the alleged societal benefits of cryptocurrencies are highly exaggerated. These include protections from oppressive regimes, investment portfolio diversification, currency conversion fee avoidance, and ability to scale for consumer transactions. An honest weighing of these factors points conclusively to the harms far outweighing the benefits. Therefore, this Article concludes that ESG funds should exclude cryptocurrency-exposed companies. Inaction on this matter would be inconsistent with the stated goal of ESG investment funds. Fortunately, this standard would be relatively simple to implement, and relatively easy for businesses to comply with, therefore maximizing positive change. The novel framework provided in this Article is applicable to a broad range of applications regarding ESG determinations specifically and ethical considerations more broadly. Consequently, this Article will likely serve as a valuable catalyst for future scholarship into this and related areas.
Application of regulatory mechanisms to decentralized financeDecentralized Finance (DeFi) is a rapidly emerging area of finance next to traditional centralized financial institutions with decentralized protocols that are blockchain-based or operate on another distributed ledger technology.DeFi leverages the power of smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts which may have the terms of an agreement between a buyer and a seller directly written in code.This technology enables financial transactions to occur without the need for intermediaries such as banks, allowing for faster, cheaper, and more transparent financial transactions (Bergt, 2020).As DeFi continues to grow, it is important to consider how regulatory mechanisms can be applied to ensure its safety and stability.This chapter will explore the application of regulatory mechanisms to DeFi coming from a centralized finance perspective.The term "smart contract" was coined by Szabo (1994): " A smart contract is a computerized transaction protocol that executes the terms of a contract.The general objectives of smart contract design are to satisfy common contractual conditions (such as payment terms, liens, confidentiality, and even enforcement), minimize exceptions both malicious and accidental, and minimize the need for trusted intermediaries.Related economic goals include lowering fraud loss, arbitration and enforcement costs, and other transaction costs.Some technologies that exist today can be considered as crude smart contracts, for example POS terminals and cards, EDI, and agoric allocation of public network bandwidth." The name smart contract, which refers to a contract, is rather misleading, especially since a smart contract represents a tamper-proof, self-verifying, and self-executing script.While such a script can indeed also represent a contract in a legal context, since contracts can also be concluded verbally or implicitly, not all smart contracts are actually contracts or even smart for that matter (Bergt, 2020).In the words of Buterin ( 2018): "To be clear, at this point I quite regret adopting the term 'smart contracts'.I should have called them something more boring and technical, perhaps something like "persistent scripts."In his manifesto on smart contracts, Szabo (1994) suggests that the considerations for smart contracts go even further back to the so-called agoric computing, which has its origins in the 1970s and 1980s (cp.
Abstract While contemporary technological disruption is increasingly conceptualized in terms of the logic and paradoxes of the digital platform economy, discussions of FinTech have only engaged to a limited extent with these debates—particularly from an economic geographic standpoint. This chapter fills this gap by extending the Global Financial Network (GFN) framework to problematize the organizational and geographic logic of the digital platform economy in finance, and applying it to examine the impact of the digital platform model on asset management. It shows that asset management is being profoundly disrupted by what we dub digital asset management platforms—or DAMPs—which encompass services including index fund and ETF provision, robo-advising, and analytics and trading support. Like other digital platforms, DAMPs do not so much leverage technology to enhance their competitiveness within markets, as to radically restructure the market itself. Also, like other platforms, their rise has produced a winner-take-all paradox of centralization through democratization that defies predictions of technology-enabled industry decentralization. However, the logic and implications of the rise of DAMPs diverges, in other respects, from nonfinancial digital platforms, as finance has long possessed an informational intensity and regulatory and organizational fluidity characteristic of the digital platform economy. Consequently, the digital platform model has mostly developed endogenously in asset management through incremental innovation by major financial firms—in a process that has reinforced the position of leading incumbent asset management centers, and above all New York—rather than being introduced from the outside by upstart technology firms and clusters.
Going ahead, Ethereum Trader appears nicely supported with the aid of using high-quality basics past Ethereum Trader 2.zero. Its platform remains a main participant withinside the improvement and launching of latest decentralised programs (dApps). Ethereum Trader has additionally been connected with the challenge COSMOS, an infrastructure as a way to permit interoperability and the cappotential to carry out transactions among one-of-a-kind blockchain structures through the so-referred to as Gravity Bridge.\n\n\nhttps://www.theethereumtrader.com\nhttps://twitter.com/ethereumtrader_\nhttps://www.instagram.com/ethereumtrader_\nhttps://www.pinterest.co.uk/ethereumtrader\nhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ethereumtrader/\nhttps://www.facebook.com/ethereumtrader.officials\nhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5tBxyrI9LhP6OiHVyA6KdQ
Purpose This paper analyzes global interest in Internet information about decentralized finance (DeFi), embedded finance (EmFi), open finance (OpFi), ocean finance (OcFi) and sustainable finance (SuFi) and the relationship among them. Design/methodology/approach The paper used a comparative methodology based on regression and correlation analyses to assess global interest in Internet information about DeFi, EmFi, OpFi, OcFi and SuFi. Findings The findings reveal that global interest in Internet information about EmFi was more popular in Asian and European countries. Global web search for Internet information about OcFi decreased during the financial crisis while global web search for Internet information about OpFi and EmFi increased during financial crisis years. Global web search for Internet information about DeFi, SuFi and EmFi increased during the pandemic years. There is a significant and positive correlation between interest in DeFi, EmFi, OcFi and SuFi. Also, there is a significant and negative correlation between interest in EmFi and interest in OpFi. The regression coefficient matrix shows that OpFi, EmFi, OcFi, DeFi and SuFi are significantly related. Originality/value To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first paper that analyses the association between interest in DeFi, EmFi, OpFi, OcFi and SuFi. Thus, this study addressed an important knowledge gap in the literature by exploring people’s interest in Internet information about DeFi, EmFi, OpFi, OcFi and SuFi.