The rapid digital tech growth has led to Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Metaverse rise. NFTs are blockchain-based certificates for virtual ownership. Metaverse offers 3D virtual reality for shared experiences, shaping new social and interactive norms. Business, like investing and ownership, thrives within it. However, Indonesia lacks comprehensive regulations for its legal aspects, potentially affecting user rights and copyright. The purpose of this research is to conduct an analysis, especially regarding metaversion regulations, especially in relation to intellectual property so that it becomes reference material for the public and policy makers. Research method using qualitative methods. Research results related to copyright protect the creator, transfer of ownership with purchase. Due to the limited regulation of NFTs, legal protection, especially of intellectual property rights, is very important. Registering each NFT artwork under IP rights ensures legal protection for all created works. Research also shows that there is a gap where the existing law only relates to Intellectual Property but does not yet address the metaverse world which in fact is a virtual world, so this study is very important to support the sustainability of intellectual property in the current metaverse world.
This research is concerned with documenting and chronicling the art of NFTs art in the Saudi artistic cultural scene, the importance of which stems from the lack of scientific sources that document this field until the preparation of this research and aims to trace historically the emergence of the field of NFTs art in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the arts sector through the experiences of Saudi artists. The most prominent events for the culture, arts and technology sector, and other Saudi sectors. The research dealt with the history of the emergence of the field of NFTs art, which extends from the history of digital arts, and reviewed the most famous works of NFTs art.As a result of the technical revolution and the artistic movement that the world is witnessing in the direction of investing in digital arts, this movement has moved to the Saudi artistic cultural scene through the experiences of Saudi artists and emerged from the artist Rashid Al-Shashaâi, and after him the era of Al-Amoudi. As for the major Saudi sectors, the role of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and the Ministry of Culture, represented by the Visual Arts Authority, emerged for organizing conferences that paved the way for the emergence of this field in the Kingdom, followed by initiatives for the activities of some sectors to benefit from the technical capabilities of the field of NFTs art.
The paper deals with the phenomenon of non-fungible tokens (NFT), and its particular focus is on the so-called âArt NFTsâ, and on the legal demystification of the superior attributes assigned to these tokens. The paper addresses a number of issues. Firstly, it examines the legal and technical possibility to actually create a âdigitally uniqueâ piece of authorâs work. Secondly, it explores the acquisition of ownership and copyright in the work of art, to which the NFT referres to, during the process of creation and transfer of that NFT. Finally, the paper scrutinizes the topics of copyright violations, which may occur while minting the tokens and of the destruction of the physical original of the tokenized work. The paper also deals with two relevant cases from practice (Miramax, LLC v. Tarantino and Free Comb With Pagoda, J.M. Basquiat), which illustrate how the so-called âArt NFTsâ collide with copyright principles.
In early 2023 a United States (US) court ruled that a crypto art collection named âMetabirkinsâ, depictingthe famous âBirkinâ bag of Hermès, infringedtrademark rights. This ruling conferred Hermès the power to ban the commercial exploitation of Metabirkins by their designer, through a permanent injunction order. By the time that order was issued, however, several Metabirkins had already been sold to third parties. Taking this case as a point of reference, thispaper examinescrypto art transactions from the perspective of EU intellectual property (IP) and consumer protection law. First, it clarifies the conditions under which the purchasers and licensees of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) fall under the consumer concept. Then, it examines whether the critical facts would constitute a trademark infringement in the EU, and what would have been the impact of such an infringement on the rightful use of the NFTs by their right-holders. Finally, the paper discussesDirective 2019/770 in protectingconsumersand itsapplicability in the blockchain ecosystem.
The paper examines the concept of ownership and its potential application to digital assets, particularly Non-Fungible Tokens (âNFTsâ). Technological advancements which allow the creation, storage, and sale of unique digital assets in a purely digital manner have raised many questions about the concept of âdigital ownershipâ. However, the legal frameworks regulating the ownership, sale, and legal classification of digital assets have not evolved at the same paceas technology. This leads to legal uncertainty in the digital landscape, and weakened protection for the users of this technology, particularly in the European Union (âEUâ). Although the concept of digital property has been discussed theoretically, practical recommendations for the implementation of this concept are still scarce. This paper discusses the concept of digital property after providing a contextual understanding of NFTs and the technology behind them. Finally, the author offersrecommendations for a harmonised EU-level framework for the legal classification of NFTs, and for the concept of digital property.
The digital revolution has launched myriad new technologies in the field of art and cultural heritage law, including digital art, NFTs (non-fungible tokens), artificial intelligence (AI)-generated art, virtual reality and reality augmentation, online viewing rooms and auctions, holograms, immersive experiences, and more. As a $67.8 billion industry, the art market is a global driver of innovation, international collaboration, and national economies, given its cross-border transactions. However, given the extremely rapid development of these new technologies, regulators have struggled to keep pace and implement legal measures that are fit for purpose in this field. Limited oversight has resulted in several claims that have the potential to change the legal landscape. For instance, claims over the theft/misappropriation of NFTs and the related fraud and money laundering that may ensue, as well as a recent class action copyright infringement suit against the creators of a popular AI algorithm and infringement claims over immersive installation and light technologies, demonstrate how new ways of thinking are required to assess cases involving digital property (distinguished from other types of non-tangible property). Moreover, the US Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on fair use within the copyright context, which will be relied upon in the future to determine whether (and to what extent) the appropriation of existing copyrighted material is permitted. This includes both the digital use of physical artworks and the use of born-digital works. Although jurisprudential decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, factual patterns involving online media, digital art, and related technologies could serve as guidance for legislators and other decision-makers when considering what limits should be imposed on Web 3.0. This article will focus on recent US-based claims and regulations and dovetail with existing art market regulations in this jurisdiction (e.g., anti-money-laundering statutes) to determine their impact on new technologies, whether directly or indirectly. Finally, the article highlights ongoing trends and preoccupations to provide an overview of the shifting legal landscape.
Ingrid Vasiliu-Feltes, Michael Mylrea, PhD, Christina Yan Zhang, Tyler Cohen Wood ¡ 5 authors
The convergence of Digital Twin technologies with precision health, the pharmaceutical industry, and life sciences has garnered substantial recent attention. As we advance toward personalized medicine and precision health, the fusion of Digital Twin and blockchain technologies is poised to enhance healthcare outcomes fundamentally. This conference discussion highlighted pivotal drivers accelerating the adoption of Digital Twin-enabled blockchain solutions, encompassing the shift to a decentralized World Wide Web (Web 3.0), the establishment of a global interconnected health ecosystem, and the distinct advantages offered by converging frontier technologies in optimizing healthcare, pharmaceutical industry, and life sciences. Yet, the effective deployment of blockchain-powered Digital Twins in precision health necessitates robust cyber safety measures, proactive ethical frameworks, data validation, provenance assurance, streamlined supply chain management, and heightened interoperability. These proceedings underscored blockchain-powered Digital Twins' pivotal role in reshaping health data management, security, sharing, ownership, and monetization and in revolutionizing pharmaceutical supply chain management and novel drugs and therapeutics development within the precision health domain.
Off-chain disputes regarding transactions executed on-chain are unavoidable. However, a prerequisite to effectively settling such disputes is the identification of the applicable law as well as of the competent jurisdiction. While some transactions merely operationalise off-chain relations between parties knowing each other, many result from interactions between pseudonymous individuals at unknown locations. The present contribution investigates the concrete consequences of pseudonymity on European Private International Law, especially principles to determine the applicable law. In this respect, it clarifies the numerous factors affecting the extent of pseudonymity, ranging from the type of distributed ledger on which the transaction occurred to the possible centralized intermediaries involved therein. The issue ought to be analysed having these factors in mind, as some effectively wither the veil of pseudonymity. Based on the preceding clarification, the contribution analyses the concrete extent to which pseudonymity renders some principles of European Private International Law ill-fit and as a result, difficult to apply in practice.
Switzerland figures among one of the first jurisdictions to include distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) in its legal framework through the recently adopted federal act commonly referred to as the DLT Act. In order to address the complex issue of determining the law applicable to tokens stored on a DLT, the DLT Act amended on 1 February 2021 the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), which now provides for conflict-of-laws rules that notably applies to tokens that embed a claim. This article aims to explain the context in which this amendment took place by providing an overview of the notion of tokens and presenting the main purposes of the DLT Act. It then presents and discusses the solutions chosen by the Swiss lawmaker, which follow the general principles that also generally prevail for other types of rights. As a result, the issuer of a token benefits from considerable freedom to determine the governing law of a tokenised claim. Absent a choice of law, the PILA sets forth subsidiary solutions based on the seat and the habitual residence of the issuer.
Crypto assets can be defined broadly as âcryptographically secured digital representations of value which can be transferred, stored or traded electronicallyâ by the use of distributed ledger technology or a similar technology. They introduce new challenges to Private International Law due to their novel, complex, fast-evolving and cross-border nature. The purpose of this chapter is to critically examine some of the key applicable law questions regarding crypto assets. The chapter first gives an overview of crypto assets, highlighting their key features. It next addresses challenges around characterisation of crypto assets as money or legal tender, and property, and reflects on the legal implications of this characterisation. The chapter then discusses freedom of choice and its operation and limitations; explores considerations around suitable objective connecting factors; and, aims to shed light on the possible ways forward in terms of policy choices in determining the law applicable to crypto assets.
The law governing rights with third party effect (proprietary rights, rights in rem) in digital assets has been a point of controversy for some time, in particular with regard to crypto assets. Crypto assets exist on distributed ledgers and therefore cannot be âlocatedâ in the way tangible assets can, but they cannot readily be qualified as ârightsâ either. This has led legislators and organisations worldwide to develop a broad range of different solutions with regard to the determination of the applicable law. Broadly speaking, proposed solutions can be divided into two groups: the first group of solutions (âparty-orientedâ solutions) takes the location of the current holder, transferor or security provider as the connecting factor, or the location of an intermediary holding the assets in custody for the holder, transferor or security provider, or the law governing the agreement with the intermediary. Advantages of these solutions include their simplicity and the legal certainty they provide for bulk transactions where the identity and location of the parties is known. Disadvantages include complications in the context of chains of assignments, joint holders, and changing locations, and of course generally unknown identity and/or location of the relevant party. The second group of solutions (âasset-oriented solutionsâ) seeks to achieve uniformity of results within one and the same class of assets, trying to âlocateâ a particular crypto asset in accordance with a choice of law made with regard to the whole class of assets or the whole ledger (elective situs) or some other objective criterion characterising the whole class of assets (such as the seat of the issuer). Any solution will normally end up with a waterfall of connecting factors, so the pivotal point is what should be at the top and at the bottom of the waterfall.
Artificial Intelligence and Smart Contracts are two cutting-edge technological achievements of the so-called 4th Industrial Revolution era. Both have already had a significant impact on various aspects of modern life, including transactions, and each one has already been under scientific investigation. Instead, their interaction has not become the subject of a debate, although it can further (positively) affect the transactions. This interconnection takes place through specific mechanisms, called Oracles, which can be, among others, highly sophisticated Artificial Intelligence systems (autonomous systems). The present article aims to present the role of the Artificial Intelligence Oracles throughout the âsmart contractual procedureâ, as well as to shed light on the potential (new) legal issues this interconnection may raise. The main result of this article is to indicate the appropriate legal directions in case of Artificial Intelligence Oraclesâ failures, based on the most prevalent current approaches to AI's (the user's) contractual and/or non-contractual liability. The major research's conclusion is that the Artificial Intelligence Oracle's failures may result in one of the following situations: (a) breach of a (smart) contract, (b) unjust enrichment, (c) conclusion of a (voidable) smart contract that should not have been concluded, or (d) non-conclusion of a smart contract that should have been concluded. The responsibility of each person participating in the âsmart contractual procedureâ, i.e. the contractual parties, the blockchain platform and the Artificial Intelligence user/owner (or even the Artificial Intelligence system itself), as well as the AI provider or designer, is examined in each of the afore-mentioned situations separately. Given that legislative initiatives have already begun, the present article aspires to contribute to the consistent address of the newly raised legal issues.
<p><strong><a href="https://sites.google.com/99cryptowallet.com/boredapeyachtclubnft/">Bored Ape Yacht Club</a></strong> (BAYC) is the collection of 10,000 NFTs (non-fungible tokens) on the Ethereum (ETH) blockchain. These non-fungible tokens are graphical portrayals of cartoon-like apes that are unique by the metadata, which includes the clothes, backgrounds, earrings, eyes, and fur of the character. Metadata for NFTs is data about an illustration of the token that an NFT creator supplies. Introduced in 2021, the is similar to the artwork sold physically. But these artworks exist only virtually and are one of a kind as they remain on the blockchain.</p>
Blockchain is an innovative technology that allows for a more efficient life for people, through a variety of actions, including enabling trustworthy transactions and reducing operating costs. In relation to Blockchain, Smart Contracts have emerged, revolutionizing the field of contracts. There are great expectations surrounding these technological advances for various sectors such as finance or registration. However, despite the obvious benefits, some obstacles are being identified regarding compliance with regulations on personal data protection in the service of smart contracts, specifically in relation to privacy/confidentiality controls and the right to be forgotten due to the governing principles of Blockchain. Throughout the course of this paper, we will analyze the different facets that arise within the presented issue, as well as explore various global scenarios and the regulations, doctrine, and jurisprudence, both from Argentina and internationally, in order to envision potential solutions to the identified problems. It is our duty as legal professionals to delve into the revolutionary and disruptive technologies that are currently emerging, so that they can be used as allies both in the daily lives of citizens and in more complex scenarios. Furthermore, we must anticipate potential problems that may arise regarding their use in order to effectively address them.
Kriptovalute su, kao neovisan sustav, postale vaĹžan element globalnog financijskog sustava. Sve se viĹĄe koriste kao alat za obavljanje meÄunarodnih plaÄanja i alat za ulaganje. SloĹženi sustav njihova djelovanja i nedostatak regulative uzrokuju da ulaganja u kriptovalute karakterizira puno veÄi rizik u usporedbi s drugom imovinom. Cilj ovog rada je usporediti trĹžiĹĄte kriptovaluta s trĹžiĹĄtima kapitala. Ulaganja u kriptovalute u prosjeku donose najviĹĄe dnevne stope prinosa, ali su s druge strane karakterizirane najveÄim rizikom. Na takav rezultat mogli su znatno utjecati raĹĄirena postojanost ultraniskih kamatnih stopa i pad atraktivnosti duĹžniÄkih vrijednosnih papira. Najbolji rezultati postiĹže se za ulaganja u bitcoin i ethereum, koji imaju najveÄi udio u trĹžiĹĄnoj kapitalizaciji kriptovaluta
Digital forensics, a crucial subset of cybersecurity, encompasses sophisticated tools and methodologies for the interpretation, analysis, and investigation of digital evidence, facilitating the identification and mitigation of cybercrimes and security breaches. With the advent of cryptocurrencies, an array of unique challenges has emerged in the domain of digital forensic investigations. This review elucidates the prevailing state of digital forensic practices vis-Ă -vis cryptocurrencies, emphasizing the obstacles and limitations inherent in probing decentralized and intricate technologies. Notable deficiencies in extant investigative practices were observed. Solutions proffered encompass the formulation of novel software applications tailored for cryptocurrency analyses, the integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence capabilities, and the employment of advanced analytics to discern patterns and irregularities within blockchain transactions. Furthermore, a pioneering methodology, merging traditional digital forensic strategies with blockchain-specific techniques, is posited for efficacious cryptocurrency inquiries. The analysis underscores the imperative for a renewed paradigm in digital forensic examinations to surmount the challenges integral to cryptocurrency probes. By forging novel methodologies and standardizing investigative procedures, support for legal enforcement endeavors can be enhanced, facilitating the efficacious detection and prosecution of cryptocurrency-associated misdemeanors.
This article explores the recent collapses of prominent crypto trading and lending firms Voyager and Celsius, investigates the prevailing business models of crypto firms and identifies potential causes of their failure. The insolvencies of Voyager and Celsius reveal complex legal problems, particularly concerning the determination and allocation of customer rights in deposited crypto-assets. The EU Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCAR) seeks to protect investors by requiring the safekeeping and segregation of crypto-assets held in custody. Yet it does not necessarily protect those investors who âlendâ their crypto-assets to crypto-lending platforms with the expectation of earning rewards. MiCAR lacks a dedicated legal framework for crypto-lending, which suffers from many classic financial sector vulnerabilities. To address this gap, we propose the adoption of a new instrument, MiCAR II. Drawing inspiration from existing regulations for financial intermediaries like banks, MiCAR II may incorporate five elements: (i) a large exposures regime, (ii) robust disclosure requirements, (iii) structural and organizational separation of custody and trading/investment activities, (iv) deposit-like guarantees and (v) a dedicated recovery and resolution regime for significant crypto firms. In 2022, the cryptocurrency market experienced a significant downturn (âcrypto winterâ), which coincided with the downfall of several major market players. On 5 July 2022, the crypto trading and lending firm Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc. (Voyager) filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.1 Shortly thereafter, on 13 July 2022, Celsius Network LLC, a leading crypto-lending platform, and its affiliated entities filed for bankruptcy in the same court.2 Both Voyager and Celsius acted as lenders to one of the worldâs largest crypto hedge funds, Three Arrows Capital Ltd. (3AC), which since June 2022 is itself subject to the liquidation proceeding in the British Virgin Islands. In November 2022, the cryptocurrency market turmoil reached a critical point when one of the largest crypto exchanges, FTX, and its affiliated crypto trader, Alameda, collapsed. Given the complexities and ongoing investigations surrounding the cases of FTX and Alameda, we will not address them separately here.3 This article analyses the collapses of Voyager and Celsius, examines the likely causes of their demise and explores some of the typical legal issues accompanying crypto failures. It also questions whether the Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCAR), a recently introduced law aimed at harmonizing the regulation of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) and crypto-asset services within the European Union (EU), can prevent or at least reduce the damaging effects of crypto failures and ensure sufficient protection of crypto investors. The article is structured as follows. Section 2 starts with a summary of the key features characterizing crypto failures. It continues with a discussion of a prominent issue observed in most crypto insolvencies, namely the attribution of rights in deposited crypto-assets in insolvency of a CASP. Section 3 introduces MiCAR and its provisions on the safekeeping and segregation of reserve and customer crypto-assets. Section 4 shifts the focus to Voyager and Celsius, examining their business models and addressing the legal challenges associated with crypto-lending more broadly. Section 5 consists of several parts. First, it considers the provisions of MiCAR that directly and indirectly impact the operations of crypto lenders. Second, it draws attention to the differences and similarities between crypto finance and traditional finance. Third, it puts forward several suggestions for future regulation, referred to as MiCAR II. Section 6 concludes. Instances of crypto failures are not unprecedented, with one of the most well-known examples being the infamous collapse of the Japanese crypto exchange Mt.Gox in 2014. Other notable cases include the failures of the Italian crypto exchange Bitgrail in 2019 and the New Zealand crypto exchange Cryptopia in 2020. The recent wave of crypto insolvencies raises some familiar questions, including: Are crypto-assets objects of property rights?4 Do crypto-assets transferred to a crypto exchange or another CASP become part of the insolvency or are property of between in and is the at which the of crypto-assets crypto-assets as The to questions on property and insolvency as as and by crypto firms. the crypto insolvencies of 2022 several First, the failures of crypto firms market crypto crypto hedge funds, crypto are and the in crypto-assets can The impact of a market downfall or the of a as a can to their and This not itself in the at least not to the same as Second, since the of in crypto-assets experienced or new as crypto-lending and of crypto firms to and the more recent collapses of Voyager and Celsius can at least to their and business business models crypto lenders to large exposures and and by finance and In some key the ongoing within crypto to the turmoil the financial of when issues as of and a significant impact on the Third, significant in the regulation of crypto services and crypto firms the The bankruptcy of Mt.Gox in financial and insolvency law issues which to for the in several The EU also to and crypto-asset This in which will from with the of the concerning which will on June as a for as it a of and This on the of that a crypto CASP. In this we of from protection to protection In the a crypto a the and is to or crypto-assets deposited with the This can to a and its to the a the of protection that the not the customer who not and may or in the of a customer to a crypto-asset may on First, whether this crypto-asset can from crypto-assets by and the Second, whether the crypto-asset is in or of the The of many crypto-assets as with of and and the of for the of deposited crypto-assets. In many large as crypto exchanges, their cryptocurrency or to the and that custody customer crypto-assets are are in crypto-assets are transferred to address by is a that will in the same by will a of crypto-assets held for the of this does not that are the same as those on the and of on a the can a a not since the the The is to the Yet is one rights are not with to are as of a of crypto-assets cryptocurrency or and their rights are in to the This the reached in the New Zealand of Cryptopia The the crypto exchange It that to the of and a the crypto-assets. The that their held in by them the of the In the that and with The that transferred by to Cryptopia held in that not part of the insolvency the that for of for the of the who deposited those of crypto-assets. their property rights with the crypto The of a crypto firm not in rights in transferred crypto-assets and in In this the of to the as to with the in the the transferred crypto-assets become part of the insolvency This in the insolvencies of Mt.Gox and In the the Japanese held that being not and a of the exchange not the deposited Japanese law at the of the property rights with to law cryptocurrency is not it not subject to property not prevent the adoption of the that to for in in in In the 2019 concerning the crypto exchange the in the Japanese in the Mt.Gox that to Italian cryptocurrency the of property as of Yet the that the deposited crypto-assets part of insolvency and not to the of the crypto to the of Italian the between the crypto exchange and its as the crypto-assets transferred to a address by the the property of the is likely to reached for a to a who is to its a of the of crypto-assets in and the of of investors may to their rights in deposited of crypto-assets in insolvency and of protection of crypto-assets in insolvency and of protection discussion the of the rights of crypto investors in the of as it directly the of investors in to the of This determination may on the organizational and for crypto-assets by a CASP the of a may on the the of property law and whether the legal the of property law EU it to of protection within the To address this the EU to regulations like the Markets in and concerning to crypto-assets in more recent insolvencies of Voyager and from the and in the the resolution of may also by the provisions in the between and their when with a crypto or its are to of to the of a and of Celsius Network LLC, services those which and on cryptocurrency transferred to Celsius, and cryptocurrency as and and cryptocurrency The Celsius of between and The on 2022, to the bankruptcy in to It the crypto-assets in custody a Celsius of 2022, held crypto-assets the in the of 4 of the by Celsius those for of the The of that the to held in custody at with and not to It that crypto-assets to the and not In 2022, the US bankruptcy the of crypto-assets held in to the of the In by the the âlendâ crypto-assets to Celsius in of a in the of crypto-assets the same crypto-asset as transferred to Celsius or the of are by Celsius in and for The with the the is on the Celsius of the that crypto-assets deposited in the property and part of the insolvency This that the of the are as the petition Celsius in the with crypto-assets at as of July Three First, the that the of of the in the is a law It the between Celsius and its that the of the Second, the the that the of the or the of to It that it is law that a of or property to another a Third, the that the their rights with to on the of This in to the of that crypto-assets in the The Voyager is On the one it to crypto-assets deposited with Voyager as On the it that a Voyager the to cryptocurrency held in in and to or or of cryptocurrency with rights of a like of The is a that to of the services by the of crypto-assets in the in the Voyager to the In the that by it is to of the subject to the Voyager to or the deposited crypto-assets. the of Celsius and Voyager that the of crypto-assets is and that it is crypto-assets will with in of insolvency and rights will to In the a filed with the US and by the crypto exchange held crypto may to the property of a bankruptcy in the of a the crypto we in custody on of subject to bankruptcy and as This In to to and a of that the exchange not at of that the in the a to the of the it as it the its with US and the to to a as is referred to as a and the is a the of this to the or its by can in the of crypto are the a and its may to property that is held by a for another as a financial does not to a as to the for a to with to a financial in that financial are held by the for the are not property of the and are not subject to of of the This financial are and In the of property is with to a issue of or financial The is to the one in the insolvency of Cryptopia This is not that is on law on the and crypto-assets as and their can that not in the insolvency To the legal between a customer and a crypto firm may by the organizational and of and and also by the custody between The examines MiCAR to address the On the European the Digital to and in the financial sector and to the EU a The Digital a of the for a Regulation on Markets in MiCAR is as it to a dedicated and framework for in crypto-assets in the It the largest of crypto-assets that seeks to them the financial or a finance to the accompanying the MiCAR (i) legal (ii) (iii) of and protection and market and (iv) ensure financial of the of MiCAR is to ensure of and protection within the cryptocurrency To the regulation provisions crypto-asset service CASP is as legal or or business is the of one or more crypto-asset services to on a The of crypto-asset services a of activities, custody and of crypto-assets on of of a trading for exchange of crypto-assets for and of for of crypto-assets and crypto-asset of MiCAR and for are by the provisions that address the safekeeping of as as the custody and of crypto-assets on of segregation is a aimed at the rights of are held by on and legal segregation can who and in this protect from the are their on segregation can in EU that a of financial and MiCAR the provisions the segregation and custody of customer and the concerning the segregation and custody of reserve of the of a the of a the of and significant are to and a reserve of reserve are to to the of a and protect who a of at the of as and in US and In one of the largest lending by and the of the to by cryptocurrency It is that as of July the largest and of the market of to the reserve of by a from the and from the reserve that in the of the to the reserve of The reserve of from the and to a firm or on the of crypto-assets deposited with CASP or a and held in the of It is that the of a of in the of the of as as it is to the as to reserve of This is likely to are for to The of and for the custody of reserve is a in the it is to that some may as associated with rights and the is a recent the of the deposited of its in at the of some of its and a by the of and on The On the same its and at To prevent on 13 the that of to their funds, leading to recovery of its This the from the on a of can impact the of a in the of or those In to the provisions with the custody of reserve MiCAR the the safekeeping and custody of customer by It that crypto-asset service providers that crypto-assets to to the rights of in the of the crypto-asset service The is to the of crypto-assets held in custody and to ensure that the to does not to a To this MiCAR several of customer to this that crypto-assets to their ensure that those crypto-assets are not or for their MiCAR that a of in the of to rights to the MiCAR that on the crypto-assets held separately from This can are to customer and crypto-assets. crypto-assets from the of a The of this segregation is that in of a CASP to crypto-assets held in custody. the of segregation and is the of FTX, the largest to the recent of who as the bankruptcy the of the the FTX customer and funds, and them with The that the customer and and the of as as for and to their and regulation can protection and of deposited in like the provisions on the segregation of reserve in the the on the custody of customer and the protection of rights and MiCAR does not necessarily those of crypto who crypto-assets for custody. This a significant of and The examines the business models of Voyager and Celsius and explores potential that to their Voyager is a crypto-lending and trading business a cryptocurrency that to and crypto-assets with also rewards. To to Voyager to in the of crypto-assets. The from to the to the In 2022, Voyager a with a hedge this Voyager and to This a In June 2022, the collapse of and in of the financial of Voyager of the This not and liquidation in the British Virgin Islands. To the on June 2022, Voyager a with Ltd. also in in the of in and as as customer not leading to a in To a on June 2022 Voyager from to the and on July 2022, Voyager customer and trading business of to the associated with The to a notable of this is the on the one of the key to the of The to a The of being to a This is is to a as the crypto in Mt.Gox to Voyager and the crypto the of crypto with collapses of and insolvencies of crypto firms. This the not impact on traditional financial and not in by financial the with The of Voyager can to the of namely a to a also referred to as the large exposures The of Voyager with being the largest of Voyager subject to significant The of large exposures is not a new of It is also not to the many introduced regulation that to prevent financial as banks, from large as a of a of a or of a of In the the regulation of large exposures introduced in the Capital Regulation of and by the Regulation This regulation to with the as the or This framework by the on which as the for regulation of to the the of of a to a or to a of not of the at a to another this is to The of is with to the in of its that a of a does not the The large exposures regime by and potential from Voyager the Celsius in and one of the largest finance platforms in the the of of crypto-assets transferred to Celsius and by this to more July 2022, Celsius and with of more and 6 in The and of Celsius the business as their crypto-assets to Celsius and from the to or those or on those at more traditional or cryptocurrency platforms that who the Celsius transferred their crypto-assets to Celsius in exchange for rewards. Celsius crypto-assets or on exchanges, to from its deposit-like Celsius from crypto lenders like and FTX, as as lending as and The crypto-assets deposited by as to in and rewards. Celsius also and Celsius to its business a of and when to that of Voyager business of insolvency to a or a business In to Celsius to and it not in it the to a the to a that to the In the for the in July 2022, Celsius the of its by since 2022, a in the market of and as a of crypto-assets by In the a a complex of problems, and to the the to the of to their significant Celsius on some of its crypto-asset in and the of to crypto-assets to to to the between the Celsius to and the from crypto-assets in the The as as to and the a from to June 2022, Celsius to its of the it This in a In the leading to the bankruptcy Celsius a of crypto market of a significant in from and a in from between June and June 2022, Celsius in a on June 2022, Celsius and on its This not the and not the business On 13 July 2022, Celsius filed for MiCAR does not provisions directly and crypto lenders like Voyager and focus is on custody services and of safekeeping and segregation of customer crypto-assets Section 3 In MiCAR that it not address the lending and of and not it may the business of crypto lenders at to crypto-asset service requirements, as and and of of business and of the MiCAR the of to with or services to as and are the concerning and those who issue The regulation of is by to the potential and of by of the that can for crypto-lending is the the of or by the of and to of to the of of to and crypto-asset service providers not when crypto-asset services to In this is as or to the of which a of The of in to the of by several This to by to reduce the that are as a of and to ensure financial by between traditional and particularly in the of to in the and may become a to of deposited with In as one of the key of the for in the in The on the of to of in in as a and to The with the the of to of to its It is which are by this and and of least of the are to the of is a a of from their or a of a in of and for the of This is the of a as the a crypto-asset for this the likely a impact on crypto-lending First, in most of crypto lenders not crypto-assets in the of Voyager and Celsius, to of and the to crypto-assets. Second, as to the of by the of it is that not on the from like and their in as and are to a of services to the of is a or of a not or are transferred to a CASP. This and their crypto-assets to crypto whether or It is that in law a may another The to the business models of crypto lenders and from and a to or this it with the operations of crypto their on deposited in a or it MiCAR does not the or of or The accompanying MiCAR that the is likely to the In the the of the that some entities from for a and them to and In this is most crypto lenders The European that this to to the of the of as not in lending their It can that when a and to a crypto this directly or the crypto-assets. a on as the European to to include crypto-lending within the of the To legal a of this is In the European in June 2022, the of the European that crypto-lending a MiCAR this and which or models it are questions that the of financial regulation and to crypto-assets. In recent of to cryptocurrency trading as The observed that crypto-assets like and that trading to part of the traditional financial services and of the that to the and a in a and This is a may significant and and turmoil in of the as the crypto lenders with the or their insolvencies may for and investors and the of by failures is not to those from at least for the In of one or at least in the to traditional financial services and to crypto-assets and crypto firms. is the of financial the The is whether the concerning and and its or to the of in the of for The differences in the and when this in it can observed that the business models of crypto lenders some similarities with those of traditional on financial and Voyager and Celsius customer in and them for their lending to In to to who in many cases transferred deposited crypto-assets to crypto firms Section 4 This Voyager and Celsius on a of and ongoing in the of them lending It also crypto lenders to to reserve a as a a of the deposited as and the to This and financial like banks, and in crypto and are not of large This is when crypto lenders in one crypto-asset in another The can insolvency to a between and as The of and the of a to their as as as the may those who and with This is from a custody which the of and their to legal in the of the The crypto-lending some similarities with the traditional to the that from the in one or another and to for banks, crypto lenders in and which them and to as by the cases of Voyager and to the of financial The the of in traditional by the of and and leading to a of of major financial The in the crypto the of their and on as and for The similarities not of the existing models to crypto lenders. Yet in the of to the of financial regulation, as market financial and This is the regulation of financial intermediaries can as a of inspiration for the regulation of crypto lenders in the MiCAR II. are five that regulation may are from the in the on the issues that in the cases of Voyager and are not to a framework for crypto-lending and in and large the of the large exposures regime is to prevent a financial from large to the of or a of This regime to ensure financial in financial and MiCAR does not for large to those to financial in the In of the of crypto-lending services and the potential to large may to prevent the and failures. disclosure insolvencies the of and disclosure to of crypto firms. To address this disclosure and the of deposited crypto-assets and whether the to a crypto the disclosure the rights of in the of the of a and financial of a crypto of deposited crypto-assets by a crypto and with the of disclosure it is that disclosure is to ensure protection and market robust disclosure requirements, can investors with the to and in the crypto-lending of custody and trading/investment The cases of Celsius and the associated with custody and or trading activities, as as the that a in one of them can to the of of financial by some the the sector structural of 2019 that services and to and and from and a and by legal is in the with the of the which some on and of which include from in of financial and of crypto-lending and trading from services by crypto-asset service providers the of this will on the of the and the to and The collapses of Voyager and Celsius by which their This is in the referred to as can also subject to of from investors on the the to and leading to the to in a are not by or to traditional lending and guarantees and the to protect and prevent In the guarantees are to to a to investors the services of The of for the crypto-lending sector may The concerning the of and the by them separately to ensure their resolution regime and resolution regime with for can a in addressing the of financial that significant In the for resolution is by the and and the a and a and and MiCAR introduces for significant crypto-asset service significant crypto a to financial or causes significant a legal framework by the recovery and resolution regime, with of This article examines the regime for crypto-assets and crypto-asset service providers in the in of the recent of crypto failures. is the the of regulation and the of and from of and financial insolvency is not a new of the and most well-known cases is the collapse in of which the worldâs largest trading we a wave of crypto failures which in the some legal in many crypto insolvencies, are to a business or a of business the is the determination and allocation of rights deposited crypto-assets. This article that the to the of in and a of may on the organizational and for crypto as as property law and the of a between a crypto firm and its To protect crypto MiCAR and segregation of crypto-assets held in custody and that from the of This is a in the Yet it does not necessarily protect those investors who âlendâ their crypto-assets to with the expectation of earning rewards. The collapses of Voyager and Celsius the of their business models and the of crypto-lending and MiCAR does not to a legal framework for and of business for service In this we that a new instrument, MiCAR is to a of for crypto-asset lending platforms at the EU the of crypto protect investors in the of crypto in crypto-lending, their and and in crypto This the of this new regulation the and of Celsius, to a are not the business models of Celsius and Voyager those of traditional financial the differences between traditional finance and crypto finance the or of financial like to crypto we that inspiration from the existing regulation of financial on the of crypto we five of future (i) a large exposures regime, (ii) robust disclosure requirements, (iii) structural and organizational separation of custody and trading/investment activities, (iv) deposit-like guarantees and (v) a recovery and resolution regime for significant crypto firms. is in of at The to and for and also for by The of this article at the Bankruptcy the in of the the of the of and the and by the for The
Objective: In the ongoing digital era, digital rights are a major concern and demand measures to address challenges that encompass the management of effective law implementation. The following study aims at the contrivance and administration of international law to address digital rights. Method: Legal aspects of digital technology, also known as information technology law, is a practical field of law that has established a strong position among other legal fields in recent years, both in legal firms and educational institutions. Fresh technological advancements like massive data, the Web of Things, quantum computation, distributed ledger technology, and advanced formulas provoke inquiries concerning the governance of these technologies, such as the entitlements and safeguards that individuals possess or ought to possess. The growing utilization of electronic technologies by corporations and governments prompts various inquiries concerning the management of these technologies, specifically concerning the privileges and lawful safeguards individuals have a claim to. Result: The emphasis is primarily on the utilization and possible alteration of current (basic) entitlements. Nevertheless, the argument and lawful exploration in this domain needs a more extensive conversation regarding the novel entitlements that individuals ought to possess in the digital epoch. Occasionally, novel ideas emerge, like the concept of the 'right to erasure'. Conclusion: This piece of writing discusses the inquiry of what fresh, supplementary entitlements could be envisioned in the age of technology if we were to compose them anew, without being restricted to a predetermined collection of essential liberties. To initiate a more extensive lawful discussion on this matter, several novel entitlements for individuals in the electronic sphere are suggested.
<em>The intersection of cryptocurrencies and franchising is generating a wave of innovation and curiosity. While cryptocurrencies offer the potential for streamlined transactions, increased security, and global reach, they also bring a host of legal considerations that must be meticulously addressed in franchising contracts. In this article, we delve into key legal consequences that arise when utilizing cryptocurrencies in franchising agreements.</em>
Large Language Models (LLMs) could be a useful tool for lawyers. However, empirical research on their effectiveness in conducting legal tasks is scant. We study securities cases involving cryptocurrencies as one of numerous contexts where AI could support the legal process, studying GPT-3.5's legal reasoning and ChatGPT's legal drafting capabilities. We examine whether a) GPT-3.5 can accurately determine which laws are potentially being violated from a fact pattern, and b) whether there is a difference in juror decision-making based on complaints written by a lawyer compared to ChatGPT. We feed fact patterns from real-life cases to GPT-3.5 and evaluate its ability to determine correct potential violations from the scenario and exclude spurious violations. Second, we had mock jurors assess complaints written by ChatGPT and lawyers. GPT-3.5's legal reasoning skills proved weak, though we expect improvement in future models, particularly given the violations it suggested tended to be correct (it merely missed additional, correct violations). ChatGPT performed better at legal drafting, and jurors' decisions were not statistically significantly associated with the author of the document upon which they based their decisions. Because GPT-3.5 cannot satisfactorily conduct legal reasoning tasks, it would be unlikely to be able to help lawyers in a meaningful way at this stage. However, ChatGPT's drafting skills (though, perhaps, still inferior to lawyers) could assist lawyers in providing legal services. Our research is the first to systematically study an LLM's legal drafting and reasoning capabilities in litigation, as well as in securities law and cryptocurrency-related misconduct.
Blockchain technology has transcended its origins in cryptocurrency and is now poised to transform various aspects of the legal and business landscape by implementing smart contracts. Smart contracts, which operate on blockchain networks and are self-executing, programmable contracts, have the potential to completely change how agreements are made, carried out, and enforced. In order to shed light on their benefits, drawbacks, and potential future ramifications, this article examines the development of blockchain-based intelligent contracts and their influence on legal and corporate procedures. Traditional methods of managing and carrying out contracts are frequently time consuming, expensive, and prone to disagreements. Blockchain technology's smart contracts provide a decentralized, automated, and impenetrable means of drafting, carrying out, and upholding contracts. This article explains how smart contracts can streamline processes across multiple industries, including finance, real estate, supply chain management, and intellectual property by carefully exploring the technological foundations and real-world use cases of smart contracts. Smart contracts' potential societal and economic effects, such as decreased transaction costs, increased effectiveness, and improved. This article promotes interdisciplinary study and collaboration among legal scholars, technologists, and business professionals to fully realize the promise of blockchain-based intelligent contracts. It ends by imagining a time when smart time when smart contracts are fully incorporated into daily life, revolutionizing the way contracts are established and carried out in the digital age.
Tokens are units digitally represented in a distributed ledger or blockchain. The various uses of this technology have the potential to transform a wide array of economic activities, from traditional commercial transactions to sophisticated financial undertakings. This paper explores the similarities and differences of tokens with traditional legal instruments in commercial law and how tokens could offer superior solutions, provided that proper legal foundations are established for their operation, including aspects of the law of securities and consumer protection law.
Introduction. This scientific article dedicated to certain aspects of such virtual benefits/assets as the NFT token (non-fungible token) and place of them in the obligations relationship. The legal framework and legal practice regarding non- non-fungible token is currently absent, which is a characteristic situation not only for domestic jurisprudence, but also for the world. In view of the above, there is a need to investigate the nature of this phenomenon. Summary. The article analyzes the proposed legislative definition of "virtual asset" in relation to the NFT token. The study of individual features of this phenomenon makes it necessary to turn to its displayed technical characteristics at the current stage. Yes, it is determined that the NFT token performs an authentication function and cannot exist independently without its attachment to another object of civil rights. Without such a combination, exclusively as a code (a set of signs), the token cannot be regarded as an intangible (virtual) benefits, since the token certifies a subjective right to another object of civil rights, and therefore should be considered precisely as an asset (benefits), which has a providing nature. Attention is focused on the fact that one of the main problems of legal uncertainty in this category is the question of what exactly individuals acquire when buying an NFT token, since in fact the token is usually associated with another object, which gives it a real value. The relationship between the non-fungible token and the start-contract was analyzed and the possible legal consequences of their interaction determined. Conclusions. Non-fungible tokens exist in a decentralized system and are closely related to the smart contract already at the stage of their creation, therefore, provided there are no imperative requirements from the law, the latter can be considered as a type of civil law contract, which, in turn, due to constant interaction the connection between them makes it possible to single out certain features of the binding nature of this phenomenon.
The subject of this study is the legal-economic analysis of the non-fungible token phenomenon. Due to the a priori accessibility of many tokenized intellectual products, the ability to monetize them by copyright methods turns out to be hard to implement. The paper puts forward a hypothesis that token owners apply innovative monetization methods, which do not stand on the prohibition and restriction of access to the protected results of intellectual activity. Instead of deactivated copyright restrictions, token buyers receive some new, additional, non-trivial economic utility that researchers have not reflected yet. If this utility exists, we should identify, analyze and include it in the equation of relations regarding NFT. The second hypothesis of the study stems from the first one. It states that the results of creative activity in the post-economic society take the place of a new etalon of value, which replaces the materialistic standard of worth based on rarity. The consensual value contained in tokenized works brings additional motivators for token purchasers and compensates for the lost sources of income. Our goal is to put and verify the scientific hypotheses of tokenized works' additional non-obvious value existence. We suppose that this innovative utility substitutes traditional copyright ban-based monetization abilities. The research's purpose is also to theoretically generalize its results and formulate a legal-economic concept that explains the motivation for the purchasers of non-fungible tokens and sets the regulations for the NFT market. Methodology. The study of the non-fungible token phenomenon and the verification of formulated hypotheses conducts from the standpoint of the law, economics, an interdisci-plinary legal-economic â institutional point of view, as well as with the help of the monistic copyright doctrine of the People's Republic of China. The research methodology also includes an analysis of the relevant body of knowledge and various points of view of the scientists on the subject of research. The study's main result is the novel elaborated concept of the non-fungible token owner's moral right. This concept fills the rising doctrine of utilitarian digital rights with legal-economic essence. We constructed the non-fungible token owner's moral right consisting of two powers: the right to designate one's name as the owner of a token for a specific creative product and to demand such an indication from others; and also, as a duty of NFT platforms to support the function of informing about the name or pseudonym of the token's owner. Analysis of the appropriate accumulated knowledge, development, and verification of formulated hypotheses on tokenized works' consensual value and additional economic utility, allowed us to achieve the goals of this study. We resolve the issue of token purchasers' motivation and legal-economic grounds for their rational behavior by formulating and substantiating the concept of non-fungible tokens' owner moral right.