How do the emerging Web 3.0 technologies affect the survival of non-state armed groups (NSAGs) in their violent struggles vis-Ă -vis state entities? While techno-optimists argue that Web 3.0 can democratize the internet and curb monopolistic practices, its decentralized features, such as enhanced privacy, data ownership, and personalization, also present significant security challenges. These technologies can be weaponized by NSAGs to promote their efficiency and resilience. Borrowing insights from social movement theory, we construct a theoretical framework to explain how Web 3.0 applications affect the dynamics of NSAGs by impacting their organizational modes and strategies. It is argued that blockchain-based platforms, metaverse projects, and other Web 3.0 technologies promote the efficiency of the recruitment, training, financing, purchasing, and communication processes of NSAGs, increasing their capacities as social organizations, and thereby render these groups more resilient to collapse. We illustrate and corroborate our theoretical claims by examining the cases of how NSAGs such as the Islamic State utilize decentralized crypto exchanges and the Dark Web in their operations.
Open access
Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
This thematic issue examines how artificial intelligence, metaverse imaginaries, and decentralized Web3 systems have become arenas for states to build infrastructures, set technical standards, and project geopolitical power. It reconceptualizes technology not merely as an object of regulation but as a medium of statecraft through which sovereignty, security, and leadership are contested and remade in a multipolar digital order. This issue analyzes three interconnected dimensions: (a) the impact of global AI competition on state-making processes, enhancing coercive, extractive, delivery, and informational capacities similar to earlier state formation phases; (b) the nature of technological leadership as a relational and dynamic process influenced by interactions between leading and following states; and (c) the role of security logics in transforming external rivalry and internal governance through securitization. Through comparative analysis of the US, China, the EU, and emerging economies, this issue explores how diverse political systems encode openness, sovereignty, and accountability into their technological regimes, demonstrating that technological governance is inseparable from state-making. The contributions map competing logicsâsovereign, liberal, entrepreneurialâshowing that digital governance emerges not as convergence toward a singular model but as recursive entanglements of imagination and infrastructure.
Ejiro U, Osiobe, Waleed A., Hammood, Safia, Malallah, Nyore E., Osiobe ¡ 6 authors
Quantum mechanics principles underpin quantum computing, signaling a major shift in how we process information. While it offers immense processing power and potential advantages, it also presents significant challenges for the cryptocurrency industry. This sector has grown rapidly, supporting decentralized finance and empowering users worldwide, but it also attracts malicious actors looking to exploit its vulnerabilities. Traditional cryptography remains strong, yet increasingly sophisticated computational attacks threaten security. As the cryptocurrency market expands, quantum computing offers both opportunities, such as improved transaction security, and risks, like easier decryption for hackers. Understanding quantum technologyâs benefits and challenges is crucial as it develops. Currently, data is protected by traditional cryptography, but future, more powerful quantum computers could weaken this security. This article explores potential uses of quantum computing in daily life and business, explains its functions simply, and discusses societal impacts. Its goal is to help students and general readers understand how quantum technology might transform our world through clear language and real-life examples. Topics include the basics of quantum computing, its present and future applications across industries, and its societal effects. We provide a thorough analysis of how quantum computing could reshape society through mathematical insights, practical examples, and future perspectives.
A systemic "evidentiary deficit" now characterizes automated global civicsystems, undermining regulatory oversight, institutional accountability, and public trust in high-stakes domains. The increasing opacity of high-speed, algorithmically-driven decisions in finance, public health, and environmental governance creates un-auditable risks. This report posits Ternary Logic (TL) as a neutral, non-ideological infrastructure framework designed to remediate this deficit. TL extends traditional binary logic by introducing a formal, third logical state: 0 (Epistemic Hold), distinct from 1 (Proceed) and -1 (Halt). This 0 state functions as a mandatory, auditable "computational hesitation" triggered by predefined uncertainty or risk thresholds. By instrumenting this pause, TL transforms deliberation and uncertainty from an operational failure into a cryptographically verifiable evidentiary asset. This report details the TL architecture through its Eight Pillars, which provide an integrated "accountability stack" mapping institutional policy to cryptographic proof. It describes the tri-cameral governance modelâTechnical Council, Stewardship Custodians, and Smart Contract Safeguardâarchitected for long-term resilience and prevention of institutional capture. Furthermore, it details the technical architecture, including a dual-lane, low-latency (<300ms) design, a hybrid-shield (public/private) ledger system, and a novel cryptographic stack (combining Ephemeral Key Rotation, Zero-Knowledge Proofs, and Cryptographic Erasure) that simultaneously satisfies regulatory demands for auditability, legal requirements for privacy (e.g., GDPR), and commercial protection of trade secrets. This framework provides a sovereign-grade blueprint for establishing provable accountability in systems governed by institutions such as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and World Health Organization (WHO).
Marilyne Ordekian, Ingolf Becker, Tyler Moore, Marie Vasek
Centralized cryptocurrency exchanges have quickly become internal components of the digital finance ecosystem, mirroring traditional institutions by offering custody, investments, and transactional services. Despite their increasing prominence, the regulatory oversight has historically been fragmented and inadequate, leaving them largely relying on self-regulation. The resulting environment has been marked by exchange collapses, connections to criminal activities, cyber attacks, and poor operational security. High-profile failures, such as Mt. Gox and FTX, highlight the systemic risks and failure of internal governance models to properly mitigate or protect user funds from cascading risks or security breaches. In response, the European Union introduced the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation and the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), intending to standardize regulatory oversight and enhance user protection. This paper presents the first comprehensive interdisciplinary analysis of centralized exchanges under the MiCA and DORA frameworks. Drawing on methods from both law and computer science, we systematically translate regulatory requirements into measurable compliance standards, and develop a novel doctrinal and empirical methodology to evaluate current self-regulatory practices of 75 centralized exchanges operating in Europe. Through a detailed analysis of 143 exchange legal documents, we identify major compliance gaps and regulatory uncertainties. Our findings indicate significant shortcomings in exchange practices relating to asset custody, cybersecurity, and liability. This suggests that serious efforts are needed to change these practices and ensure their alignment with regulatory requirements. Our framework enables a systemic comparison between regulation and practice, and establishes a baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory measures. This approach can be replicated to study other self-regulating emerging sectors. ⢠We conduct a doctrinal analysis on recent EU regulations, the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). We identify requirements for centralized cryptocurrency exchanges and systematically extract them and create a standard framework comprising 53 criteria. ⢠We conduct the first comprehensive empirical study of self-regulation practices among all 75 fiat-dealing exchanges in Europe, analyzing 143 documents, including terms and conditions (T&Cs) and security policies. We compile a dataset of 371 hand-coded variables across 14 themes describing exchange practices. ⢠We use the extracted legal standards to evaluate exchange practices, assessing their compliance posture with recent regulations. This study provides a baseline to gauge the effectiveness of MiCA/DORA in the long term and track changes compared to the pre-regulation era. Additionally, it provides a tool to understand the areas currently lacking or that need more attention in industry practices. ⢠We show that many exchanges face challenges in effectively self-regulating, fulfill their custodial duties, maintaining robust security measures, and (may) use T&Cs to shift liability. By documenting these practices and shortcomings, we provide regulators and the industry actionable and tailored recommendations for improvements. We also provide a replicable methodology to investigate the self-regulation and governance of service providers in other emerging self-regulating technologies. ⢠An earlier draft of this research was communicated with the EUâs European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and European Banking Authority (EBA) in a closed meeting. We were recommended to expand the scope of the study to include DORA provisions in addition to MiCa. It was also suggested that this study could act as the ground truth baseline for pre-MiCA industry practices. A final version has been requested by said authorities. Additionally, findings from this paper have been submitted as evidence for consultation calls in the, UK. For intance, the FCA and HM Treasury. One of the authors recently presented the high-level implications of this study in an invited and closed conference organized by the FCA.
Abdullah Mubarak Al Dhaheri, Mohammad Amin Alkrisheh, Tayil Mahmoud Shiyab, Ibrahim Al Nuaimi
This research addresses the issue of the illicit use of digital cryptocurrencies, considering it one of the most pressing contemporary legal challenges facing legislative systems, particularly given the unique technical features of these currencies-such as encryption, decentralisation, and anonymity. The significance of the study lies in examining the legal impact of cryptocurrencies on cybersecurity and analysing the adequacy of the legal framework in the United Arab Emirates in confronting crimes arising from their use. The study's core problem lies in the absence of a comprehensive legislative framework that regulates the use of cryptocurrencies and limits their exploitation in cross-border crimes, such as money laundering and terrorist financing. It also lies in the technical difficulties of tracking digital transactions and the lack of well-established legal concepts regarding the possession of cryptocurrencies and the liability of those dealing with them. The research adopts an analytical methodology through the study of relevant legal texts, in particular, Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2018 on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism and Illegal Organisations; Federal Law No. 34 of 2021 on Combating Rumours and Cybercrimes; and Law No.4 of 2022 on the Regulation of Virtual Assets in the Emirate of Dubai. The study concludes that the current legislative structure is advanced at the regional level but requires further specialisation and technical flexibility. The study recommends issuing a federal law addressing digital assets, enhancing international cooperation in information exchange, adopting technical solutions such as artificial intelligence to track digital crimes, and equipping the competent authorities with advanced legal tools to regulate transactions in this field.
The global cyberspace faces many cybersecurity challenges, including illegal changes to contract terms and loopholes in the smart contract framework itself. This study adopts the automatic execution and intelligence of digital contracts, uses public key infrastructure technology digital certificates to establish trust relationships, encrypts data, and improves network security; the distributed ledger adopts the Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm to prevent data from being tampered with, solving the problems of low efficiency and low security of traditional cyberspace manual governance. The study shows that after 28 companies applied digital contracts in 2023, the average authenticity of the data was 50.95% higher than the average authenticity of the data in 2022, the average integrity of the data was 36.44% higher than the average integrity of the data in 2022, and the average security of the data was 110.22% higher than the average security of the data in 2022. The findings highlight the critical role of digital contract implementation in enhancing the security and operational efficiency of global cyberspace governance, offering an effective solution to address the complex challenges inherent in managing todayâs interconnected digital environment.
In the current digital landscape, the demand for robust and layered security frameworks has intensified due to the increasing frequency and complexity of cyber threats. Cryptography and cybersecurity, though different in focus, are closely aligned and collectively form the core of modern digital defense strategies. Cryptography provides essential toolsâsuch as encryption, hashing, and digital signaturesâthat safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of information. Cybersecurity builds on these techniques to implement policies and systems that protect against unauthorized access, data breaches, and malicious attacks. This paper examines the evolving connection between cryptography and cybersecurity, focusing on the development of cryptographic methods and their application in securing digital protocols like SSL/TLS, blockchain technologies, and public key infrastructures. Real-world use cases from healthcare, finance, and government are explored, highlighting the role of cryptographic integration in meeting regulatory standards like GDPR, HIPAA, and FISMA. The study also explores current challenges such as key management, scalability, and the threat posed by quantum computing. It further reviews emerging technologies including post-quantum cryptography, zero-knowledge proofs, and the integration of AI and machine learning for proactive, intelligent cybersecurity solutions.
In recent years, Web3 somehow became a buzzword vaguely used by both disruptors and incumbents to describe their innovations.âaâ This confusion can lead to misguided financial, political, and research-scientific choices. When wrongly approached, Web3âs misinterpretation could result in actions that are unethical or even illegal. Therefore, it is critical to develop a reviewed and comprehensive concept of Web3 to guide its development and implementation with coherence.<br/>This chapter attempts to provide that framework. While it does not claim to offer the only valid interpretation of Web3, it aims to shed new light on the concept and explore its broader implications through an interdisciplinary lens. The approach is informed by the authorâs extensive background, which spans over two decades of academic research and industry practice in fields such as Information Theory, Communication Science, Anthropology and Sociology, Digital Economy and Finance, Blockchain Technologies and Foundational Knowledge, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Quantum Computing.<br/>The chapter begins by reviewing current concepts and frameworks related to Web3, highlighting inconsistencies and gaps in the literature. Following this, it expands on the history of the Internet, tracing its origins back to the mid-20th century through the lens of Information Theory and Political Economy. This historical context allows for a clearer understanding of Web3âs place within the broader Internet evolution. By considering Web3 through the lens of Information Theory, the chapter argues that Web3 represents a decentralized infrastructure that enables direct P2P communication of information, which further encourages decentralized governance and the creation and ownership of digital assets. This decentralized infrastructure is what distinguishes Web3 from previous iterations of the Internet.<br/>Furthermore, this chapter incorporates the political economy of communication to examine how the ownership of Web3âs decentralized infrastructure could redistribute power in the digital economy. Historically, control over the Internetâs infrastructure has rested with either the state or corporate entities. Web3, however, shifts control to individual users, offering the potential for a more inclusive and democratic digital economy. This is also a nod to its human-centric focus in the age of AI. Taking into account new emerging technologies, such as AI and quantum computing, this chapter presents them as part of the Web3 Tech Stack and contrasts the decentralized Web3 technologies with the centralized Internet architecture for clarity. Importantly, the presented technologies are seen only as tools supporting the overall objectives of Web3.<br/>This chapter concludes by situating Web3 as a new means of production for the digital ageâenabling direct P2P value creation and exchange, with the potential to foster a more equitable and sustainable stakeholder-driven capitalism. In doing so, Web3 offers an advanced form of direct democracy. As AI continues to evolve, Web3âs decentralized infrastructure may also represent humanityâs best hope for safeguarding personal autonomy and preventing the monopolization of powerful technologies.
The rapid advancement and adoption of blockchain technology have fundamentally transformed various aspects of digital interaction, leading to the emergence of novel governance frameworks that challenge traditional centralized models. At the forefront of this transformation are decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and an array of other governance structures applied in both permissionless and permissioned blockchain environments. Unlike conventional organizations that rely on hierarchical authority, DAOs within permissionless systems strive to operate through decentralized networks where decision-making power is distributed among all members, facilitated by smart contracts and governance tokens. In parallel, permissioned blockchain applications, often employed by consortia or enterprises, experiment with more structured membership and delegated authority, blending decentralized principles with selective participation to maintain compliance, accountability, and operational efficiency. These governance mechanisms, whether in DAOs or permissioned networks, are envisioned to enhance transparency, inclusivity, and autonomy. Yet, despite their idealistic promises, practical implementations have revealed significant challenges. Within DAOs, governance tokens intended to promote equitable decision-making often lead to power concentration and stakeholder inequality. Moreover, vulnerabilities in smart contract design and the absence of robust accountability frameworks have produced notable failures. In permissioned contexts, while governance structures can mitigate some of these issues through established roles and clearer recourse mechanisms, complexities arise in balancing decentralized ideals with enterprise-grade stability and oversight. This thesis critically examines the foundational principles of blockchain-based governanceâspanning from permissionless DAOs to permissioned consortiaâ alongside their operational realities and limitations. It explores the effectiveness of governance tokens and the vulnerabilities undermining participatory ideals. It further examines whether emerging innovations, such as quadratic voting, market-based, and NFT-based voting mechanisms, mitigate any of the identified issues.
Nik Zulkarnaen Khidzir, Shekh Abdullah-Al-Musa Ahmed
Artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies are widely used in the Internet of Things (IoT). IoT for collecting and presenting data, blockchain to provide the infrastructure to define operational rules and AI optimization processes and rules are all possible connections between these technologies. AI involves analyzing and interpreting data, making informed decisions and predicting outcomes. In contrast, blockchain technology revolves around a decentralized ledger that securely stores and verifies data. Hence this chapter focuses on how, in blockchains or distributed ledger technologies (DLT), the data is structured into blocks and each block contains a transaction or bundle of transactions. Each new block connects to all the blocks before it in a cryptographic chain in such a way that itâs nearly impossible to tamper with.
Highlights of the IssueKris Carlson, Publisher and Editor-in-ChiefOur second issue surveys state of the art of large language models (LLMs) with an emphasis on safety and value alignment. Superintelligence StrategyDan Hendrycks, Eric Schmidt, Alexandr WangSeeking Stability in the Competition for AI Advantage: Commentary on Superintelligence StrategyIskander Rehman, Karl P. Mueller, Michael J. Mazarr (RAND Corp.) I recommend the RAND Corp critique by knowledgeable military policy analysts over the Hendrycks et al. article. The RAND article is illuminative, incisive, covers Superintelligence Strategyâs key points, and suggests critical reasoning flaws in their mutually-assured-AI-malfunction (MAIM} policy. Although it is valuable to compare the nuclear and AI revolutions in search of instructive parallels and insights, the differences between the technologies and their respective ecosystems have deep strategic implications. Taking these into account, we have concerns regarding both the practical viability of the MAIM concept as an approach to overcoming instability risks in the AI race and the potential escalatory dangers that could follow from its core prescriptions.â Rehman et al. pg. 1 Surely weâd like to avoid repeating the mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) policy. The MAD policy alone could trigger AGI taking over for their and our security. But we must realize that strategies like MAD and MAIM are considered in the US, its allies, and adversaries. And we must try to understand them in order to avoid them. Highlights of the critique: First, the report refers loosely to an array of actions that states might take to cripple a rival's architecture for developing advanced AI.... [which] assumes that adversary AI programs will have speciďŹc facilities that can be readily located and disrupted. However, distributed cloud computing, decentralized training, and algorithmic development increasingly may not require centralized physical locations, making AI systems more resilient to limited attacksâŚ. The following critique argues for distributed autonomous organizations (DAO) as I advocated in Safe Artificial General Intelligence via Distributed Ledger Technology and Provably Safe Artificial General Intelligence via Interactive Proof Systems. A second practical challenge resides in the expectation that each party can accurately assess secretive AI progress by others and gauge when preventive action would be necessary. Contrary to what is averred in the report, it is unlikely that states will have a clear sense of when the moment has arrived to MAIM their opponentâŚ. Third and finally, even a credible MAIM threat might not deter a rival from pursuing superintelligent AI. Halting one's AI development would entail essentially the same costs as being the victim of a MAIM attack â loss of the program. And hereâs another critique: MAD did not seek to deter the development of weapons but instead their use, which made the threshold for response vastly simpler (though it could still be problematic in cases such as false or ambiguous warnings of attacks). We would like to hear, or be pointed to, policy alternatives to MAIM that incentivize AGI developers to move toward AGI that can be proven to benefit all of humanity. Humanityâs Last Exam (HLE)Long Phan, Alice Gatti, Ziwen Han, and Nathaniel Li are first-listed members of the Organizing Team, and have hundreds of co-author/collaborators. This very large-scale collaborative effort has an ambitious title. The authors note:[LLM] benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty [with LLM capabilities]: LLMs now achieve over 90% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce HUMANITYâS LAST EXAM (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 2,700 questions across dozens of subjects. I do not find any mention of the terms, âtraining set leakage into test set dataâ or âtest set contamination.â But those issues aside, it seems to be the toughest test set yet â at least as of this writing (16 March 2025) before the LLMs learn the answers and can regurgitate them and reasonably close variants, at which point there will need to be a fresh âlast exam.â Kudos to the organizing authors. Itâs interesting that frontier LLMs performed dramatically poorer on HLE than on previous benchmark tests, which is a tribute to the originality of the questions. Pathways to Short Transformational AI TimelinesZershaaneh Qureshi We excerpt here a chapter from the complete text. To understand this chapter note that the article distinguishes between two types of recursive self-improvement (RSI): ⢠Direct recursive improvement: positive feedback loops which are mediated directly by AI systems. ⢠Indirect recursive improvement: positive feedback loops that are not mediated directly by AI, such as economic feedback loops (driven by reinvestment of capital into AI R&D), scientific feedback loops (driven by advancements in scientific tools and methods) and political feedback loops (driven e.g. by competitive pressures/race dynamics) (pp. 15-16). HyperWrite, edited: The complete article outlines a framework for analyzing different scenarios that could lead to Transformative AI (TAI) within the next 10 years. Key parameters considered are: 1. Compute scaling dynamics (whether progress continues or hits bottlenecks)2. Indirect feedback loop dynamics (whether they can overcome scaling bottlenecks)3. Direct recursive improvement (DRI) timeline (before or after 2035)4. DRI strength (cannot sustain, sustains, or accelerates progress) Seven possible scenarios are: 1. "Straight Path" - Compute scaling continues successfully2. "Rising Tide" - Indirect recursive improvement (IRI) overcomes bottlenecks3. "New Spark" - Moderate direct recursive improvement maintains progress4. "New Engine" - Strong DRI accelerates progress5. "Dual Engine" - Combination of compute scaling and DRI6. "LLM Hybrid" - Hybrid AI systems enable TAI7. "Intelligent Network" - Networks of AI systems enable TAI The author argues that this variety of plausible pathways strengthens the case for short TAI timelines, as TAI could emerge through multiple different mechanisms rather than requiring one specific path to succeed. Please send pointers and commentary on AI timelines and recursive self-improvement to editor@s-rsa.com. The Road to Artificial SuperIntelligence: A Comprehensive Survey of SuperalignmentHyunJin Kim, Xiaoyuan Yi, JinYeong Bak, Jing Yao, Jianxun Lian, Muhua Huang, Shitong Duan, Xing Xie SuperIntelligence will publish reviews and survey articles to help newbies to AGI/SI get up to speed and experienced workers stay up to speed efficiently. The latter can scroll to Section 2.3, Overview of Superalignment Methods and Challenges. Brief analysis of DeepSeek R1 and its implications for Generative AISarah Mercer, Samuel Spillard, Daniel P. Martin For quick and incisive insights into DeepSeek, read this analysis and Dario Amodeiâs cool-headed response to all the hype about DeepSeek. Effective Mitigations for Systemic Risks from General-Purpose AIRisto Uuk, Annemieke Brouwer, Tim Schreier, Noemi Dreksler, Valeria Pulignano, Rishi Bommasani A timely article with practical, near-term-implementable AGI risk mitigation suggestions. Examples: ⢠Unlearning techniques: Removing specific harmful capabilities (e.g., pathogen design) from models using unlearning techniques.⢠Capability restrictions: Restricting risky capabilities of deployed models, such as advanced autonomy (e.g., self-assigning new sub-goals, executing long-horizon tasks) or tool use functionalities (e.g., function calls, web browsing).⢠Input and output filtering Monitoring for dangerous outputs (e.g., code that appears to be malware or viral genome sequences) and inputs that violate acceptable use policies to ensure models do not engage in harmful behaviour.⢠Bug bounty programs Clear and user-friendly bug bounty programs that acknowledge and reward individuals for reporting model vulnerabilities and dangerous capabilities. ⢠Safety drills Regularly practising the implementation of an emergency response plan to stress test the organisationâs ability to respond to reasonably foreseeable, fast-moving emergency scenarios. Simulating Influence Dynamics with LLM AgentsMehwish Nasim , Syed Muslim Gilani, Amin Qasmi, and Usman Naseem Analyzing how AGI/SI may influence human opinion is a critical aspect of risk and safety analysis, as is simulation of AGI risk behavior. The methodology the authors present in this short paper has broad application: This paper introduces a simulator to model influence and counter-influence in a wargame setting. Wargames, originally developed for military strategy, have evolved into powerful tools for decision-making across various domains. Today, they are used to model business strategies, assess cybersecurity threats, and simulate geopolitical conflicts. Governments and corporations employ wargames to anticipate economic shifts, supply chain disruptions, and the impact of emerging technologies. In healthcare, they help model pandemic responses, testing different policy interventions before realworld implementation. AI-driven wargames further enhance scenario analysis, enabling rapid adaptation to complex environments. By fostering strategic thinking and resilience, modern wargaming serves as a critical tool for navigating uncertainty in an increasingly interconnected world. Can a Bayesian Oracle Prevent Harm from an Agent? Yoshua Bengio, Matt McDermott, Michael K. Cohen, Nikolay Malkin, Damiano Fornasiere, Pietro Greiner, Younesse Kaddar SI co-founding Editor Steve Omohundro comments: Turning an oracle into an agent may take just a page of code. OK, but that doesnât mean the methods outlined by Be
The problem of international legal regulation of cryptocurrency circulation in the context of globalization and development of information technologies is considered. The main aspects of the jurisdiction of cryptocurrency exchanges and cryptocurrency storage nodes are analyzed, including legal and technical aspects of their work. Particular attention is paid to the process of seizing cryptocurrencies and international legal cooperation in this area.
Traditional finance and crypto aren't just different systems-they're different paradigms speaking different languages. Traditional banks measure processes in days, compliance in paperwork, and access in restrictions. Cryptocurrency platforms promise instant transactions but often at the cost of compliance frameworks that traditional institutions require. These systemic limitations in both traditional and cryptocurrency systems highlight the critical need for a unified approach. Using STORE's decentralized cloud computing protocol as an example, this paper emphasizes a different future as it demonstrates the feasibility and impact of automated compliance through the transformative CLEAR framework. Our dual-database architecture achieves authenticated regulatory compliance at global scale, with our implementation achieving 55.6 seconds (verified) for complete end-to-end transactions, with KYC verification (18.84s), document processing (14.24s), and payment settlement (6.55s). This transforms what traditional finance considers a weeks-long journey into a seconds-long verification, without compromising the compliance standards that make global finance possible. It's not just faster-it's fundamentally re-imagined.
The integration of blockchain technology with cryptocurrency has significantly improved security, transparency, and decentralization in digital finance. The authors explore the fundamental principles of blockchain and its integral role in the development and operation of various cryptocurrencies. They present a comprehensive analysis of blockchain's core architecture, including consensus mechanisms such as proof of work (PoW) and proof of stake (PoS), and examine their implications for transaction security and efficiency. Through detailed case studies and industry examples, the study illustrates how blockchain technology addresses issues like double-spending and fraud, thereby maintaining trust and reliability in digital financial systems. Furthermore, the chapter discusses the regulatory and scalability challenges associated with blockchain in cryptocurrency and offers insights into future trends and advancements. By addressing the technical and practical aspects of blockchain technology, the chapter highlights how it empowers cryptocurrency.
This chapter looks at key features of Web3 and the metaverse from privacy and security angles. It offers a detailed description of technological-environment and institutional-level factors that can lead to increased privacy violations and security breaches in Web3 and the metaverse. The chapter will discuss how newness, novelty, and complexity of technologies involved and weak architectural security of Web3 and the metaverse are likely to provide a fruitful environment for cybercriminals and other perpetrators. On the regulatory front, it points out that privacy and security laws of the Web2 era are not sufficient to deal with the environments of Web3 and the metaverse. It analyzes the level and nature of the impacts of privacy violations and security breaches on consumers and victims in the Web3 and the metaverse environments. It gives special consideration to the multisensory environment of the metaverse, which can lead to more adverse impacts on users and victims in cases of privacy violations and security breaches. The chapter also demonstrates how security breaches in Web3 and the metaverse are likely to lead to immediate harm to victims. It promotes an understanding of how blockchain, which is the key building block of Web 3 and the metaverse, can be vulnerable under certain conditions. The chapter also delves into cyberattacks and other malicious behaviors targeting crypto-assets such as cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which are key enabling technologies of Web3 and the metaverse economies. It provides guidelines and suggestions for consumers, businesses, industries, and nations to enhance security of Web3 and the metaverse.
Decentralized and distributed systems lead to decentralized governance with transparent on-chain mechanisms. The new technological infrastructures cause fragmentation since intermediaries are no longer needed; therefore, the decentralized organizational models will have a remarkable impact on company law and financial markets regulation. The existing corporate forms do not fully satisfy the needs of decentralized autonomous organizations, and at least some adaptations become necessary to make governance mechanisms more flexible. In the field of financial law, alternative regulatory designs must be developed that more intensively address the offering of services as such rather than â as traditionally â the service providers. This contribution analyzes the normative needs for an appropriate legal framework in an environment of decentralization and considers potentially relevant new legal provisions reflecting the forthcoming business needs and participantsâ protection requirements.
The Internet, initially celebrated as a bastion of freedom and openness, is increasingly becoming a domain of control, surveillance, and regulation by both states and private entities. The rise of state control and regulation of the Internet, along with the private sectorâs expanding control over information, poses significant challenges to the ideals of freedom and openness that once defined the Internet. This article examines the transformation in Internet governance from a state of minimal regulation to a heavily controlled environment by both governments and corporations and explores how the blockchain technology and decentralised architecture underlying Web3 promise to redefine Internet governance and resist censorship. Through a mixed-method approach that synthesises insights from computer science, political science, and legal studies, the paper argues that public blockchains challenge Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbersâ (ICANN) traditional control over DNS and significantly reduce the ability of centralised entities to exert control over content and communication, thereby enhancing freedom of expression and resisting censorship. The ability of Web3 to fully realise this potential is, however, dependent on overcoming complex technical and regulatory challenges.
As blockchain technology reshapes finance, identity, and ownership, the concept of a cryptocurrency wallet becomes central to interacting with this new decentralized world. In traditional banking, an individualâs wealth is secured by trusted institutions. In the blockchain universe, individuals assume direct control and responsibility for their assets. Although this empowerment is revolutionary, it also presents new challenges, particularly the need for impeccable security and technical understanding.
The Doctrine of Anchored Decentralization constitutes the first comprehensive constitutional and statutory framework capable of reconciling decentralized digital architectures with the legal, regulatory, and jurisprudential structure of the United States. Developed within the broader scholarly series <i>The Republicâs Conscience</i>, this thesis represents the second installment in that corpusâbuilding directly upon the constitutional and structural principles articulated in the inaugural paper and extending them into the domain of digital-asset governance, administrative delimitation, and federal statutory coherence.This work advances the nationâs first universal, architecture-based commodity-versus-security classification framework designed for deployment across American constitutional, statutory, and judicial systems. By replacing rhetorical claims of decentralization with empirically verifiable and legally cognizable structural tests, the Doctrine furnishes courts, Congress, and administrative agencies with a coherent, adjudicable methodology capable of withstanding scrutiny under established Supreme Court jurisprudence, including <i>Howey</i>, <i>Reves</i>, <i>Forman</i>, <i>Marbury</i>, and the post-<i>Chevron</i> administrative landscape.The Doctrine challenges the prevailing assumption that blockchain-based ecosystems may operate as âstatelessâ economic systems while still participating in markets governed by constitutional law. Through sustained analysis of constitutional text, statutory construction, cryptographic system design, and post-Chevron administrative jurisprudence, the work demonstrates that decentralization cannot acquire legal legitimacy unless it remains anchored to the Chain of Consent â the constitutional requirement that all economic power be traceable to accountable authority.Drawing upon Article I, § 8 (monetary and commercial power), Article I, § 9 (appropriations and fiscal discipline), and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Doctrine establishes that most contemporary decentralized systems operate within a constitutional vacuum: they perform value transfer, economic coordination, and pseudo-monetary behavior without satisfying the representational prerequisites of the American constitutional order. This analysis is further grounded in <i>Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward</i>, <i>Gibbons v. Ogden</i>, <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i>, <i>United States v. Lopez</i>, <i>NFIB v. Sebelius</i>, and the postâ<i>Loper Bright</i> landscape of statutory interpretation, revealing how modern digital governance architectures strain the boundaries of jurisdiction, accountability, and enforceability.At the systems-engineering level, the Doctrine reframes decentralization not as a monetary phenomenon but as a cryptographic lineage derived from Haber and Stornettaâs foundational timestamping architecture. This lineage demonstrates that Bitcoinâs core innovation was not the creation of new money, but the operationalization of a distributed verification engine. The work therefore distinguishes decisively between decentralization as architectural substrate and cryptocurrency as asset behavior, establishing that most digital tokens cannot qualify as commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act absent a constitutionally anchored framework for origin accountability, managerial neutrality, and market integrity.The Doctrine exposes structural defects in modern legislative approaches â including H.R. 3633 â demonstrating how contemporary statutory efforts misapply classical commodity theory, create jurisdictionally unanchored digital entities, and institutionalize anonymity architectures that undermine due process, enforcement capacity, and market legitimacy. In response, this work develops the Anchored Decentralization Test, the first system-level doctrine to allow Congress, courts, and regulators to classify digital assets based on verifiable architectural behavior rather than semantic self-description.The Doctrine further introduces the novel concept of Autonomous Commodity Primitives (ACPs) â a sovereign-grade digital infrastructure class designed not as speculative instruments but as immutable, cryptographic attestations of real-world sovereign reserve assets. ACPs are engineered to function as Treasury-grade verification rails, enabling real-time auditability, ledger-level integrity, and constitutionally compliant Asset-Backed Digital Currency (ABDC) architecture. Unlike cryptocurrencies, ACPs do not manufacture value; they attest to value that already exists within sovereign reserve systems.To harmonize privacy with constitutional accountability, the Doctrine integrates Zero-Knowledge Proofs, privacy-preserving audit layers, and non-custodial verification mechanisms, allowing digital systems to preserve Fourth Amendment-equivalent privacy while maintaining lawful traceability through institutional channels. This design restores the Chain of Consent without creating surveillance architecture.The Doctrine concludes that decentralization without accountability constitutes a structural form of constitutional evasion â an economy operating beyond representation. By restoring constitutional anchoring to distributed architectures, the Doctrine preserves innovation while reaffirming the Republicâs foundational principle: that economic power is legitimate only when traceable to those whom the Constitution recognizes as sovereign.Ultimately, The Doctrine of Anchored Decentralization provides a constitutional roadmap for the next century of digital infrastructure. It is <i>not a rejection</i> of decentralized technology, but a <i>restoration</i> of its lawful purpose: to function as a verifiable architecture of trust, anchored to the constitutional principles that have sustained the United States for more than two centuries.
Digital identity has become one of the most pressing governance challenges of the 21st century. This paper argues that digital identity is not optional but inevitable, driven by four converging forces: privacy leakage, AI synthesis, corporate capture, and geopolitical vulnerability. Drawing on political philosophy (Rousseau, Rawls, Foucault, Habermas), comparative case analysis (Estonia, India, China), and emerging technical frameworks (zero-knowledge proofs, decentralized identity), the paper analyzes the opportunities and perils of digital ID systems. It proposes a Digital Social Contract as the normative and institutional framework for governing them. The paper concludes that the decisive question is not whether digital IDs will exist, but how they will be governed â and that only a robust Digital Social Contract, grounded in democratic legitimacy, institutional accountability, and adaptive governance, can ensure that digital identity serves citizens rather than controls them.