As a relatively new digital phenomenon the smart contract is often considered only in the context of its information technology characteristics. However, the true significance for its development lies in the correct definition of its legal nature, which determines the choice of an appropriate legal regime. The author has made a conceptual attempt to situate the smart contract within the current legal landscape and the traditional typology of civil law matters.
Cybersecurity has emerged as a paramount concern in today’s digital age, especially when considering the vast range of digital assets now in circulation, among which non-fungible tokens (NFTs) hold significant prominence. This chapter delves deeply into the intricate landscape of cybersecurity as it pertains to NFTs. By meticulously analyzing the multifaceted technical challenges and potential vulnerabilities inherent to NFTs from a cybersecurity perspective, this chapter seeks to provide an overview of the landscape as of this writing. Furthermore, this chapter explores how existing laws, policies, and societal norms have addressed these issues thus far, and speculates on how they might evolve in the future to more effectively bridge the governance gaps and safeguard these unique digital assets.
Focusing on smart contracts, this chapter provides technical insights into their functionality and application within the travel industry. It discusses the regulatory and legal considerations necessary for deploying smart contracts in tourism, alongside the security challenges that must be addressed. This section highlights the potential of smart contracts to automate various travel-related processes, thereby increasing efficiency and reducing costs. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of ensuring legal and regulatory compliance to maximize the benefits of smart contracts in the tourism sector. By exploring these aspects, the chapter prepares readers to understand how smart contracts can revolutionize the travel industry by streamlining operations and enhancing overall efficiency.
The advent of blockchain technology has given rise to a new form of digital agreement known as smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement written directly into code. This paper explores the legal landscape surrounding smart contracts and their unique characteristics in the context of traditional contract law. With the proliferation of blockchain technology, the legal implications of smart contracts have become a topic of increasing interest to legal practitioners, businesses, and policymakers. The paper addresses key aspects such as enforceability, validity, and potential liabilities. The paper addresses the challenges and opportunities presented by smart contracts, aiming to provide clarity and guidance to stakeholders working in this rapidly evolving field. By analyzing case law, regulatory frameworks, and industry practices, this paper seeks to shed light on the legal complexities associated with smart contracts programmed using blockchain technology. A key focus of this research is the enforceability of smart contracts under existing legal frameworks. This includes examining contractual intent, offer and acceptance, consideration, and capacity, and how these traditional contract law principles translate into the world of smart contracts. Furthermore, the paper delves into the potential legal liabilities and dispute resolution mechanisms associated with smart contracts, and provides insights into the evolving landscape of contractual relationships facilitated by blockchain technology. The findings of this research have significant implications for legal practitioners and businesses operating in industries where smart contracts are used. The paper makes recommendations for legislative clarity, standardization of smart contract protocols, risk assessment, regulatory compliance, dispute resolution mechanisms, education and awareness, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the need for ongoing monitoring and adaptation. These recommendations aim to contribute to the ongoing discourse and proactive adaptation of the legal nature of smart contracts, and to foster an environment that balances innovation, legal certainty, and protection.
가상화폐는 익명성과 탈중앙화 특성으로 인해 범죄에 악용될 가능성이 높으며, 이에 따라 효과적인 추적 기법의 개발이 요 구된다. 공개출처정보는 공공 데이터, 소셜 미디어, 온라인 포럼 등 다양한 오픈 소스 데이터를 분석하여 범죄자의 신원 파악 과 가상화폐 자금 흐름 추적에 유용한 정보를 제공할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 공개출처정보의 활용 방안을 종합적으로 제시하 고자 한다. 이를 위해 우선 가상화폐의 현황과 추세 및 관련 범죄 현황에 대해 살펴보고, 공개출처정보의 개념 및 방법에 대해 알아본다. 이후 가상화폐 관련 범죄의 추적 및 분석을 위한 공개출처정보의 5가지 방법과 7가지 프레임워크를 중점 분석하고, 공개출처정보 방법과 프레임워크를 적용하는 통합 기법을 제시한다.
The world has seen enormous disruption by new age technologies in every domain of today's economy including the arena of art, music and entertainment. Furthermore, the impact of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology particularly the Non Fungible Tokens (NFTs) has overwhelmed scholars about their understanding of laws related to intellectual property. Advances in technology are expanding the scope of intellectual property beyond traditional patents, trademarks, designs, trade secrets, plant breeders' rights, and more. Various issues related to intellectual property have taken centre stage in the world of NFTs and Blockchains. Intellectual property disputes over virtual goods and NFTs are on the rise, and countries across the world are endeavoring to address the issues related to the protection of virtual goods. This article analyses the nature and scope of protection granted to virtual goods and NFTs in major jurisdictions viz the US and China. Further, the article analyses if the provisions of Indian IP Laws particularly the Trademarks and Designs Acts are sufficient to grant protection to the virtual goods.
Open access
Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security
Razvoj kriptovaluta donio je niz izazova poreznopravnim sustavima diljem svijeta, gdje se regulacija i oporezivanje digitalne imovine i dalje prilagođava novim tehnologijama. Rad započinje pojašnjavanjem osnovnih pojmova koji su ključni za razumijevanje kriptovaluta, poput pojma digitalna valuta, blockchain tehnologija, rudarenje i sl. Nadalje, kroz prizmu europskih regulatornih inicijativa, posebna pozornost posvećena je DAC8 direktivi koja osigurava poreznu transparentnost kroz razmjenu informacija o kriptotransakcijama te MiCA Uredbe koja regulira tržište kriptoimovine i ima za cilj zaštititi potrošače i osigurati stabilnost tržišta. Praktična primjena odnosno stavovi izabranih država prema oporezivanju kriptovaluta analizirani su u nastavku rada na primjerima Finske, Austrije i Švicarske koje su razvile specifične strategije za regulaciju i oporezivanje kriptovaluta. Konačno, rad završava detaljnim pregledom trenutnog poreznopravnog tretmana kriptovaluta u Republici Hrvatskoj. Republika Hrvatska aktivno radi na usklađivanju nacionalnog zakonodavstva s europskim zakonodavstvom, posebno kroz implementaciju MiCA uredbe, koja će zasigurno pridonijeti većoj transparentnosti i sigurnosti na tržištu kriptovaluta. Naposlijetku se ističe potreba detaljnijeg razjašnjavanja pojmova vezanih za kriptovalute, što bi pomoglo svim sudionicima na tržištu, kao i povećanje poticaja odnosno olakšica za "startup" kompanije kako bi se tržište kriptovaluta moglo uspješno razvijati u pozitivnom smjeru. kriptovalute, kriptoimovina, DAC8, MiCA Uredba, blockchain tehnologija, rudarenje, porez na dohodak
The article considers legal problems that arise in connection with the introduction of smart contracts in various spheres of activity. The authors highlight such aspects as standardisation of smart-contract terms, the emergence of such a characteristic of the transaction as format, the need to develop the concept of “digital document” as the basis for the formation of legal regulation of smart-contracts.
To achieve sustainable development of social systems, it is necessary to modernize the legal system, which is the foundation of any society, to increase the efficiency of resources and simultaneously optimize the performance of the environment and society. The immutable and timestamped features of blockchain offer a robust solution for tracking and authenticating digital copyright evidence, thereby enhancing the integrity and transparency of judicial systems. This ensures that the integration of blockchain into legal systems not only advances technological efficiency but also promotes environmental consciousness. Through comprehensive analyses that integrate questionnaires, interviews, case studies and legislative assessments, this research reveals that there are still problems in the application of blockchain evidence in China’s judicial practice, such as insufficient and stable credibility, inadequate database storage, deficient original rights mechanisms, and the imperfect application of rules of evidence. These problems can be solved by enhancing correspondence legal systems, such as establishing an officially trusted copyright certificate blockchain, creating a blockchain copyright certificate technology supervision system and formulating specific laws and regulations on the application and identification of blockchain evidence. As such, our study contributes to aligning blockchain with judicial records, supporting the sustainable development goals of social systems, fostering institutional justice and social progress.
<p>The purpose of this study is to find legal protection for Non-Fungible Token (NFT) copyrighted works in digital business. In today's digital business, the NFT (Non-Fungible Token) phenomenon is no longer foreign to millennials. NFT is a digital token used to represent ownership or rights to a digital work in the <em>blockchain chain</em>. In the context of copyright protection, NFT can be used to provide proof of ownership and authentication of unique digital works in digital business. NFT covers several aspects and broad applications, namely in the fields of art, music, games, virtual property, etc. This study is limited to NFT in the field of digital art. This shows that the field of digital art in the NFT application has become an idol for millennials to get economic value in addition to its legal protection. This research is a legal research normative with approach qualitative, concept, legislation. Method data collection through secondary data by taking previous research related to NFT protection. The analysis method is carried out qualitatively. The results of the study indicate that the legal protection of NFT copyrighted works in digital businesses has not been specifically regulated in Article 40 of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright, so that further regulations are needed to protect copyrighted works applied in NFT to anticipate digital businesses that do not detrimental to the parties.</p>
Hassen Louati, Ali Louati, Abdulla Almekhlafi, Maha ElSaka · 7 authors
As blockchain technology increasingly underpins digital transactions, smart contracts have emerged as a pivotal tool for automating these transactions. While smart contracts offer efficiency and security, their automation introduces significant legal challenges. Detecting and preventing fraud is a primary concern. This paper proposes a novel application of artificial intelligence (AI) to address these challenges. We will develop a machine learning model, specifically a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), to effectively detect and mitigate fraudulent activities within smart contracts. The AI model will analyze both textual and transactional data from smart contracts to identify patterns indicative of fraud. This approach not only enhances the security of digital transactions on blockchain platforms but also informs the development of legal standards and regulatory frameworks necessary for governing these technologies. By training on a dataset of authentic and fraudulent contract examples, the proposed AI model is expected to offer high predictive accuracy, thereby supporting legal practitioners and regulators in real-time monitoring and enforcement. The ultimate goal of this project is to contribute to legal scholarship by providing a robust technological tool that aids in preventing cybercrimes associated with smart contracts, thereby laying a foundation for future legal research and development at the intersection of law, technology, and security.
Sogolsadat Mansouri, Habib Mohammed, Nodirbek Korchiev, Kemafor Anyanwu
Decentralized applications (DApps) rely heavily on user-programmed transaction protocols called “smart contracts” as fundamental building blocks for implementation. Such user-programmed transactions become necessary due to the limited out-of-the-box transaction types typically offered natively by blockchain platforms. While smart contracts offer significant flexibility and customizability in implementing transaction be-havior, they also come with significant usability and performance limitations that may impede the adoption of blockchains in specific application contexts. Motivated by the success enjoyed by database systems due to the systemization of a reasonable set of system-supported primitives, we consider the possibility of a similar approach for blockchains. Specifically, we utilize a combination of manual and automatic methods to analyze 93GB of transaction data from the Ethereumblockchain to understand whether there are transaction patterns that emerge and can be considered candidates for such automation within blockchains. We provide an overview of the implementation strategy for such transactions. The results of our analysis provide strong indicators in support of this approach.
I Gede Adi Artawan, Ida Ayu Sadnyini, I Nyoman Budiana, I Gede Agus Kurniawan
International Journal of Law, Justice and Jurisprudence is a Peer Reviewed Journal. Prime Focus of the Journal to publish articles related to the current trends of research. This Journal provides the platform established with the aim of motivating the students and such personnel in the International Journal of Law, Justice and Jurisprudence and Related Subjects.
This research analyzes intellectual property law in relation to the transfer of economic rights from the author of the intellectual creation represented into the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) to the NFT buyer by a smart contract. The purpose of this research is to examine and comprehend the transfer of economic rights from the author of the intellectual creation represented into the NFT to the NFT buyer by a smart contract. This research approaches the topic from legal perspective, using the normative juridical method. This research will closely examine several relevant the provisions of laws and regulations to identify and analyze the legal issues involved in the transfer of economic rights from the author of the intellectual creation represented into the NFT to the NFT buyer by a smart contract. Research has shown that Article 16 Paragraph (2) of the Copyright Law can be applied to the transfer of economic rights of intellectual creation represented into the NFT by a smart contract, using the argumentum per analogiam method. This means that NFT buyer can enjoy the economic rights listed in Article 9 Paragraph (1) the Copyright Law.
The domain of Digital Forensics for the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and the proposed use of a Distributed Digital Ledger (DDL), has for the most part been theoretical in nature within the current literature. The work in this paper explores the practical feasibility of using DDL technology for Digital Forensics in the IIOT context. We detail a new methodology for testing the performance of writing to and reading from a DDL in an IIOT environment, and present findings on the overhead associated with storing and retrieving IIoT transactions in a DDL. We conclude that while it is possible to build and use a DDL for storing IIoT transactions, there are limitations to the number of sensors that can be supported by a single implementation and the time it takes to retrieve transactions may be too high to be practical for Digital Forensics.
This chapter introduces two new concepts: ‘Decentralized Creative Networks’ and ‘Performative Transactions’. Decentralized Creative Networks are envisioned as blockchain-based post-human social networks, in which artists and AI agents develop and transact composable artistic processes, transparently building upon each other’s interoperable contributions. These processes are shared in Decentralized Creative Networks like social media posts. Artists can use them to shape their artistic work, by making it dependent on the execution of processes created by other artists and AI agents (for instance to compose music, to execute live performances of an artistic work, or to generate non-fungible tokens). Performative Transaction is a kind of transaction specific to these networks. It is executed by a smart contract, the code of which specifies both the artistic process and the terms of referencing it by other processes. To ensure interoperability, artistic processes in the system are composed as recursive patterns of transformations in a framework inspired by the Transformational Theory of David Lewin and Machine Learning’s feature engineering. When interlinked Performative Transactions are executed, smart contracts carry out all referenced musical transformations contributing to the musical result. They also automatically distribute any financial receivables to the creators of all referenced artistic processes. Furthermore, the integration of Artificial Intelligence within Decentralized Creative Networks is discussed, suggesting a collaborative framework where human and AI agents interact, actively shaping the artistic network. These interactions are further elucidated on the examples of music composition, performance, analysis, and sound synthesis, demonstrating the versatility of Performative Transactions for musical use cases. While recognizing the potential of Decentralized Creative Networks, the chapter acknowledges current challenges for their development. Overcoming these challenges could significantly impact how art is created, shared, and experienced in the digital era.
This paper provides a critical examination of Music Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) within the context of the digital transformation of the music industry, focusing on the implications for equitable artist compensation. As digitalization reshapes consumption and revenue models, the advent of Music NFTs, predicated on blockchain technology, presents a nuanced paradigm for artist-fan interactions and compensation structures. Through an interdisciplinary methodology that integrates literature review and expert interviews, this study scrutinizes the operational mechanisms of Music NFTs, their potential to reconfigure the economics of music production, and the attendant legal and technical challenges. While Music NFTs proffer an innovative approach to direct artist revenue and engagement, this inquiry reveals a complex landscape fraught with legal ambiguities, technological hurdles, and market volatility. The findings underscore the dialectical relationship between the potential benefits of Music NFTs for artists and the prevailing challenges that circumscribe their efficacy.
работа посвящена анализу правового режима (правовой природы) криптовалюты, в том числе поиску ответа на общий вопрос о наличии либо отсутствии у криптовалюты признаков объекта гражданского права (объектоспособности). Автор анализирует основные взгляды на феномен криптовалюты с точки зрения права, в том числе приводит критический анализ позиции законодателя. По результатам работы автор, анализируя такие признаки криптовалюты, как выполнение ею функции денежного суррогата, отсутствие в отношении криптовалюты обязанного лица, а также существование криптовалюты в форме информации, приходит к выводу о том, что крипиптовалюта не является объектом гражданского права. В то же время автор не исключает целесообразность применения к отношениям, связанным с использованием криптовалюты, норм о неосновательном обогащении. the paper is devoted to the analysis of the legal regime (legal nature) of the cryptocurrency, including the search for an answer to the general question about the presence or absence of signs of the object of civil law (objectability) in the cryptocurrency. The author analyzes the main views on the cryptocurrency phenomenon from the point of view of law, including a critical analysis of the position of the legislator. According to the results of the work, the author, analyzing such signs of cryptocurrency as its fulfillment of the function of a monetary surrogate, the absence of an obligated person in relation to crypto currency, as well as the existence of cryptocurrency in the form of information, comes to the conclusion that crypto currency is not an object of civil law. At the same time, the author does not exclude the expediency of applying rules on non-innovative enrichment to relations related to the use of cryptocurrencies.
The article discusses the problems of classifying cryptocurrencies as property subject to confiscation in accordance with Chapter 15.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Despite the controversial nature of the possibility of foreclosure on cryptocurrencies, the amendments made to Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code by Federal Law No. 214-FZ of June 13th, 2023, expand the cases of confiscation in cases of crimes in the field of computer information (Chapter 28 of the Criminal Code), which, as a rule, involve the use of cryptocurrencies. The highest court in the new version of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 14, 2018 No. 17 “On some issues related to the use of confiscation of property in criminal proceedings” dated 12.12.2023 provides a number of provisions that allow us to judge the expansion of the possibility of using the confiscation of cryptocurrencies. The emerging heterogeneous judicial practice allows for various options for the confiscation of cryptocurrencies, depending on the specifics of the electronic medium and various features of storing cryptocurrencies. The lack of both regulatory and technical support for the execution of the confiscation of cryptocurrencies makes it difficult to effectively confiscate cryptocurrencies and achieve the goals of criminal proceedings, which requires amendments to the current legislation of the criminal cycle.
Dirk Andreas Zetzsche, Julia Sinnig, Areti Nikolakopoulou
This article discusses the EU’s approach to regulating crypto custody services under the Market in Crypto-assets (MiCA) Regulation against the background of asset diversions and misappropriations observed throughout the Crypto Winter. It seeks to identify whether MiCA meets its legislative objectives and whether it provides a sufficiently solid foundation for the future of the emerging crypto industry. We find that MiCA’s focus is on what we have called herein ‘institutional resilience’, ensuring that the custodian is soundly organized and governed and must not reuse clients’ assets on their own accounts. At the same time, MiCA lacks strength on ‘asset resilience’ (ie providing safeguards for cases where the custodian, third parties, the token-issuer or DeFi application, as the case may be, encounter difficulties). This article discusses the EU’s approach to regulating crypto custody under the Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA)1 Regulation. To ensure financial stability, an adequate degree of investor protection, market fairness and integrity in places where gaps in the traditional EU financial regulation have been identified,2 MiCA subjects crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to both licensing and financial supervision if they provide certain crypto-asset services specified in Article 3(1)(16) MiCA. The provision of custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients is one such crypto-asset service.3 Custody is one means of providing safekeeping and is the main function of investment fund depositaries.4 Under established investment fund regulation, custody requires registration ‘in a financial instruments account opened in the depositary’s books’ or physical delivery to the depositary.5 The AIFMD6 limits the holding in custody to financial instruments, whereas for other assets, ownership verification and record-keeping is required.7 The widespread insecurity about the qualification of crypto-assets as financial instruments or not8—prior to MiCA—also impacted on what custody and safekeeping of crypto-assets was deemed to entail; this, in turn, may have contributed to token-holders’ losses in a period known as the Crypto Winter,9 with billions of Euros in asset value lost in less than two years.10 These losses have undermined the token-holders’ trust in crypto, threatening to halt the growth of crypto and investments in distributed ledger technology (DLT) at large,11 not even two years after enthusiastic predictions of a golden crypto future.12 Even today, when Bitcoin as most prominent digital asset experiences an upturn in the Spring of 2024, most large-volume crypto-assets (such as Ether, Tether, USCD) trade below their record highs of 2023. In this article, we seek to identify where MiCA furthers legal certainty in this regard, as well as the robustness of the crypto custody system at large, and whether MiCA provides a sufficiently solid foundation for the future of the emerging crypto industry. First, we discuss the context of crypto custody against the background of the Crypto Winter, the current market needs and the international proposals to regulate crypto in Section 2. We then highlight the scope of MiCA’s custody rules, as well as the general requirements applicable to all CASPs, and those affecting crypto custodians in particular in Section 3. Thereafter, Section 4 issues policy considerations, and Section 5 concludes. Starting in the second half of 2021, a series of operational shortcomings, malfunctions and asset diversions of major crypto projects became apparent, with losses often in the hundred millions of US Dollars.13 Following the Terra-Luna stablecoin algorithms’ collapse in May 2022 that wiped out US$50 billion in just three days,14 the crypto industry experienced a of of prominent crypto such as and in been to as the for the crypto industry. is the of undermined trust in the crypto asset and traditional this crypto Crypto custodians have and to a in crypto Crypto the of that the all of their clients’ in that and to the distributed These to and In this contributed to trust in Crypto custodians to the of to their clients’ Crypto custodians custody to and the and the Crypto custodians custody with of crypto investments and on the same providing custody in to their other crypto-asset services the financial of to the same and In turn, of became widespread throughout the industry and other of undermined the crypto own Crypto custodians clients’ assets with their own assets in a that their clients’ assets their own as This for the case for where clients’ the own Crypto custodians asset and that in on behalf of clients not those in the custodian own and Crypto custodians assets for on their own or a In losses with clients’ today, than one after the Crypto in their and custodians to reuse the assets for their own investment or about crypto at a when of market of the crypto with to market and market integrity of clients to to These and the of crypto The of crypto custodians in the of that when on their custodians the prominent custodians not on their of their clients’ The it that asset and as well as other custody throughout the industry. the emerging crypto and in most to for the in the of whether the the for this of crypto after was ‘in or at In of all the crypto custodians have the of international in policy proposals as on crypto custody MiCA to policy of the the and the crypto the custodians the assets and their clients’ against and in the of and they provide as well as and custody must and their clients’ they the crypto-assets their own assets, and reuse of clients’ assets with the and the safekeeping is they safeguards and and the clients the custodian provide the and the of the reuse of clients’ assets, as well as all other In the custody and of and to a of or even of The and the requirements on the safekeeping and of clients’ on of custodians must have own or in to the clients in the of asset or or of the The the of an the and and In the of crypto its the of and in In to the of of a series of cases and against the crypto most and Even today, when Bitcoin as the most prominent digital asset experiences an upturn in the Spring of to Bitcoin may most large-volume crypto-assets (such as Ether, Tether, USCD) trade below their record highs of in the case of and below in all to in crypto, on an In turn, services crypto stablecoin service on and crypto-asset and custody have The of crypto the for a even The for in MiCA the crypto-asset services in a in Article 3(1)(16) MiCA. of services is the of custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients’ Article this is it not and MiCA not that is the main or MiCA’s custody to it is that the and administration services for crypto-assets on behalf of needs an to may to a crypto-asset or an of an for a an a service investment or investment fund of MiCA provides for general applicable to all CASPs, MiCA for certain the scope of MiCA in the custody below we discuss the most Article MiCA a of the in Article MiCA provides the with to crypto-asset services in to in all of the is MiCA. of in to three the of of the EU financial other than the to MiCA to and MiCA’s of MiCA is a on It not where financial services Article In turn, MiCA’s not where a digital asset as a financial or a to two of In of the MiCA’s scope is to and the scope of MiCA that not as and that MiCA’s of not In turn, for investment the for in financial instruments the for investment and MiCA’s on of the on investment under EU financial the custody of assets on behalf of investment is to particular specified in Article We focus in this article on MiCA’s custody and the with other in in particular it is to identify a to crypto-assets have they not the scope of or of service providers providing services in of such crypto-assets MiCA. that must with MiCA even where and MiCA not We this with to crypto it the as to what in to This means that for and the if a crypto-asset service is the qualification and degree of of the whether to custody providers requires the the to in the as is the of a in Article MiCA that service means legal or other or is the provision of one or crypto-asset services to clients on a This is the that the scope of MiCA the provision of crypto-asset services in a that the on two First, the of a or that we whether the service is a on a MiCA not the general as or one that is to a crypto the second the of whether or not the service is or we that this is not a of for MiCA’s scope (ie MiCA of whether the service is or and that service provision is one of the of the crypto have a to with the regulation if the service is an that is with and with Bitcoin as the that we that an application, it legal or that is the for the of the a out In EU financial if the service is on a and the (ie out for clients of This is crypto custody Article MiCA that the provision of and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients’ means the safekeeping or on behalf of of crypto-assets or of the means of to such where applicable in the of issues this legislative First, MiCA that crypto-assets in a that was to that a crypto-asset is and its on the in the it that custody the safekeeping or of the means of to such where applicable in the of The is that the custody the of the service the holding of crypto-assets to clients or the means of to such in case the of the crypto-assets in the crypto-assets or the means of to to the of the crypto-asset service We what of a crypto-asset means for an asset where the of the crypto-asset on the of the same the is on and the to the of This the to the second in Article of the means of to such In their clients’ means of the crypto-assets to those a or of of a a is The is to a account that it to other the account or the is the of the or the in a that the to and the account a crypto is a digital that MiCA not what the This is an when it to providers under the of Article providers services those a or of MiCA’s This is that a of and one of the where clients not have to the crypto-assets or The custodian for the crypto-assets they to in The safekeeping and of the and assets to the the other of the custody where the of the MiCA’s that the service is the of and not provide a crypto-asset service under The and their own to This a with a as where the is the the the and the needs to it the to their and the their assets that custody the in the and the is the cases and to to the in the is This in a of custody as providers with that of the to the the is the to the of where with the in the case of the the three to three for The may the at the that they the in the may when In the of the to its the is not the the to the the trust that the not that The second of where with the to a cases of or These or a of or is to In the and the or the same We a where the or the the or the service to a for to the and of the and the of this is the the third cases of and where the the of or to a on their The or that not for and not have to clients’ or the or for in case the clients of their or We the on the clients that on the custody where clients the that the means of or of or not to the assets, the MiCA In MiCA In turn, we that MiCA to the of custody where all (ie where all the service and not to the second or third on the of the or its is to the In the service a of that to a of assets, MiCA where the is not for the of Article MiCA. that not a under EU financial MiCA a This is of for service providers that to as with to and and and and well as other the to provide crypto-asset services of to their These to the for the specified in Article to the of the service to their To and the that a under EU financial not to that they have as of their licensing if that is they must that this is the case in their that to provide crypto-asset services throughout the the of a or the to provide that provide crypto-asset services on a not to have a physical in the of a MiCA the and clients in of and a to that to investment MiCA general applicable to all The most of requirements for crypto custodians the and and and asset and to in EU financial Article MiCA that and in with the of their clients and This provision a of requirements on and of of the that clients’ the clients have been and have their to in a The on the one a that the of with other in the of MiCA that must not clients’ assets on their own accounts. the other it limits to crypto in value clients to the CASPs, as at the of the Crypto at Article MiCA on is on Article and Article and the The is to ensure the of the requirements and financial supervision even where the on not service services or to third for the of operational all to operational for all of their MiCA. in to ensure that the in the of their the and their their their and the for their the Crypto account for the of such in financial and of the operational of their DeFi and the to These ensure that the robustness of the licensing of The to Article MiCA is when a service on is a third MiCA’s and when that third operational custody as a crypto-asset service is to as a that third must provide of custody the of custody is of the means of of operational the of the in the of lost or or the on a with in to to crypto-assets other than those that the custodian their own often in and to or where services with or the as of the and to in the case of they to regulation as a if the is in the We account for that in the same as we custody in general at the service a of that to a of assets, MiCA Article MiCA requires custody the of a is a that is to an of their under applicable the or of those service the of crypto-asset service providers to out an to their To the needs to with The that crypto not in the the of in clients’ Article provides for on crypto one of the safekeeping of the of Article MiCA and is the general applicable to all not all provide safekeeping in to as they (ie to in cases where custody with to crypto-assets is and MiCA in MiCA crypto custody then as a of safekeeping under Article to Article that custody as a of safekeeping for financial instruments on behalf of investment the scope of Article MiCA then not crypto crypto crypto and and services not the scope of MiCA for their main clients’ assets as an to Article and adequate to the ownership of in the of the and to the of clients’ crypto-assets for their own The on what is to the of crypto-assets under the applicable in the of the DeFi or out of The second to the widespread where crypto clients’ assets as their for to losses crypto investments in other of their crypto investment or to in clients’ assets and then to Article MiCA on custody services requires that must the and an with clients in the The most to the may to in cases of the custody a of the the and to the and the applicable The custody policy must at ensuring the safekeeping or of the means of to the This to the of custodians clients’ to crypto-assets as well as or in in the of the is to on the This provide for of the of clients’ to provide for the of crypto-assets to as well as of the assets the assets on the distributed This for that in the of the the assets Article MiCA a provision to the and other clients’ the clients’ crypto-assets or on the and to the of the at the of the of that or to the they to for on the the may or may not to that a may have in to the or of the the not the or a to the it may the This the focus of the MiCA a in Article the custodian is for their clients’ This in to the and of most crypto custody providers that or to the of to a of their clients’ The is all the is not on or on the of the custodian their that the of is in three First, the is for the of crypto-assets or the means of to assets MiCA not other that the clients may such as the of or is to and under the the is at the market value of the lost crypto-asset at the the Article MiCA may function as a in an a of and to what a on the of the and the to their clients’ if the custodian not to custody to crypto-assets on the ledger to their clients the of whether the clients the custodian to on the asset whether the assets in lost than or The same of is of when the and other of the or other to crypto-assets and the custodian to their as a of the crypto-asset or a a the In this Article and the to in their clients’ provide a in the of and Even to is what an that is to the custodian, that is where the is not is that in the of the that the or may the is what the the custodian to (ie the custodian must organized and what they must on such This may that the custodian for an an a or under Article MiCA an of In this regard, it is that MiCA to that that they not or (ie this this to to than the to this in the of a a for to the to the with the and their own for such and to in the of the for losses to their own such as or of whether they on a or a and provide an of and MiCA’s requirements for crypto the and of the MiCA crypto custody in turn, we out on and asset the of the article, we two for the of MiCA’s crypto custody We the ‘institutional we whether MiCA that the crypto custodians soundly and whether that the is We focus on the operational to crypto The second is called herein ‘asset Under that we the to the or value of the crypto-asset is of regulation in the of and the of the custodian, the the DeFi or third as the case we focus on the of MiCA the legal The ‘institutional resilience’ MiCA’s robustness in of the in the and in the context of the Crypto Winter. this MiCA is as a MiCA that the custodian is a soundly organized and to of and operational their own assets their clients’ assets and the reuse of the for their own The clients’ as well as the of the the same even where the and the may not where service providers have the to or to MiCA’s and We three to MiCA’s and The of MiCA is its what is of the is not We herein that on the of as and may the of MiCA’s custody We in the as that MiCA to the that they as an the of this to as MiCA. may this against the of MiCA its scope that provide crypto-asset services in a or for may have when it to for the application, and to in a international where the of MiCA’s to the of We have out in the as a of that the scope of MiCA’s custody in Article MiCA on a of The same out in the to this when DeFi the scope of and when This is all the a the of MiCA and its to regulate crypto is at to the of crypto-asset such as and out of they not provide crypto-asset services custody or custody with such as MiCA with services is even the to under 5 MiCA to the of clients The provision of services as a of have been a for In the of and the the of crypto-assets custody on behalf of clients as an service to and in to the of crypto-assets to and in the of that the of crypto-assets is a to Article MiCA not MiCA about what it where custody is of the a the to the of clients for than that for under Article MiCA. where reuse on the what limits with to the to to as a for a the legal requirements for a to the The to MiCA the of Article where and must they may to of the that the crypto market is in out of crypto is one of financial have when their crypto is in the as a and observed is to the main the scope of To the that most crypto, and not to the of the crypto market in and crypto, and large, a In this it is that MiCA not a of crypto custodians may under custodians the it is that the losses may to an where the is to clients for To this is a crypto clients and it may the and the crypto In the of that in the of of in To the of we to account the and of of of These to the to ensure and These have been to as for and than the that the under Article MiCA. to EU even crypto of the to the Article provides that the in the for all of their MiCA. The in the of their the and their their their and the for their of the the the the is not to MiCA as as it is not the the EU to of under to all or most of the losses even if it is for its (such as the to and when to crypto service even when MiCA that in the case of issues to the of the safekeeping not sufficiently MiCA. in in cases of of the safekeeping it is established that the assets the assets, the assets, as well as assets to other clients of the third We not find the same to the case in MiCA. This is not the that the needs to certain and all the and provision for the in its MiCA requires of the assets the it lacks on crypto custody to EU investment fund In with to asset the MiCA is as to the First, whether it requires (ie with or whether (ie means of a record-keeping whether the custodian on the of the the in to its own MiCA not safeguards for the not a the that a on the not that the assets in the that the legal in legal and to the the is one of asset we it in that context in the MiCA we less that MiCA provides the with to asset (ie a that the of the assets when on the distributed ledger when the token-issuer or DeFi or when the crypto custodian, or such as the other or to MiCA the and of the token-issuer in the context of and in its and it the or on the distributed ledger for all of crypto-assets in two MiCA provides for the of Article and the to the of the clients’ such in with the and its the to with the case that the custodian, or third find in malfunctions or affecting the clients’ and MiCA provide the to the assets and to a custody in the of the the to for the to clients’ assets the own the of asset reuse for the own and the of the for asset the of asset requires context the on crypto-assets a of the of financial regulation to ensure asset that we on asset after the of MiCA. to the of the of the asset on the and the of other In this the of legal on the and of the that the the crypto-assets in under the applicable MiCA requires crypto custodians to the ownership of their clients in the of the and where it provides for a solid for their it that it for the of and for crypto-assets an of on the means of the to the ownership is undermined when it is not a that the clients have ownership the crypto-assets and whether their is or after all the is and a to legal In turn, have to the widespread legal ownership and in digital it to for clients in the requirements on a In the of a legal and the custodians to provide in their and that the an the provide for To the regulation for and in and MiCA for this with to of and to and and and of to their when is at This asset even where is the and operational of on the of the and the This MiCA on other crypto-assets of other assets MiCA the and of the custodian and their clients in the of the own or provide asset third parties, such as the other and for the of assets in the case of or of the other MiCA the to clients’ assets the own assets (ie on the and (ie means of a record-keeping This the of for and the assets of clients with their own MiCA not on a on the This for the of (ie to clients’ crypto-assets the of crypto clients lacks the of where the of is when the safekeeping is and under In turn, crypto clients not to the of to the of the other clients of the custodian, assets the same that have about other and have means of out or of This to legal the of the token-holders’ in the crypto for the of assets in the case of or of MiCA not provide for the that the and the of the assets in case of of the on as for the of assets in the case of or of the custodian or third such as the Article MiCA the reuse of clients’ assets for the own account and MiCA requires that the clients’ assets the and the of for In of that of asset with the of an function as custodian, or we find that MiCA’s on the legal requirements for asset an of protection, with one of the main safeguards that when the custodian all and to the and their the custodian is not to their clients’ third or of other they have legal to the clients and their in legal third under MiCA. the to clients the legal is with one that the registration on behalf of their clients on the distributed this at with of on the safekeeping and and even where is the in crypto the of legal on behalf of clients MiCA lacks the and of of investment their clients’ and under most legal in as to where against the fund that the financial regulation on investment have for the of investment in a regulation provides a for crypto MiCA to MiCA’s on custody and provide a for to regulate In this regard, MiCA’s focus is on what we have called herein ‘institutional resilience’, ensuring that the custodian is soundly organized and governed and must not reuse clients’ assets on their own accounts. Under MiCA’s rules, all crypto custodians and to of asset and operational The on the the to clients’ At the same time, MiCA lacks strength on ‘asset resilience’ (ie providing safeguards for cases where the custodian, third parties, the or DeFi application, as the case may be, encounter difficulties). This is to the of where the of the asset on the and the of other and to the that MiCA not regulate and the crypto-assets in To the for and for this of other crypto-assets In this regard, in of protection, regulation where a in ensuring asset that for of other service and of clients’ in legal against third
The digital revolution caused the emergence of the new means of the legal relations formalization. In particular, such means emerged in the field of contract law. These include smart contracts as an alternative to traditional contracts. The importance of smart contract research is inseparable from one of the main trajectories of modern civilization’s growth: digital information transfer. This paper addresses the issue of defining smart contracts’ legal status and legislative regulation. The study aims to clarify whether smart contracts can now serve as a full-fledged substitute for traditional contracts and what challenges this paradigm brings to the subject of contract law. The research considers the legal and technical aspects of smart contracts. Herewith, the main part of the study is devoted to the problems and prospects of institutionalizing the legal status of smart contracts at the level of national legal regulation. The paper uses the example of particular countries belonging to different legal systems (including the experience of the European Union, United States of America, and United Arab Emirates). Despite the smart contracts’ exceptional potential, the study indicates that the latter will not replace regular commercial, civil, and other contracts soon. Some issues are associated with the choice of law relevant to transnational smart contracts. There remain a number of issues for modern jurisprudence regarding the legal formalization of the smart contracts status, regulatory aspects, as well as issues of terminological unification. In general, the subject of smart contracts raises a more extensive research question regarding the potential replacement of traditional contract law with artificial intelligence. Contract law economists and attorneys will find this study helpful in their practices.
Smart contracts are the new tool on the block used to govern contractual relationships between parties, both within a nation state and internationally. Smart contracts use blockchain technology that is changing the process of contract formation, governance and implementation. This chapter discusses how the jurisdictions compared are all various stages of regulating and dealing with smart contracts. The chapter also examines how smart contracts can apply to the Convention on the International Sale of Goods 1980 in a limited way. Finally, this chapter builds on Chapter 1 by identifying the issues that are emerging in relation to arbitration of smart contract disputes.
Tuhana Tuhana, Dona Budi Kharisma, Nabilah Khoirunnisa
The purpose of this legal research is to find out the legal problems in protecting the copyrights of creators of works of art on Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT) and to find out the forms of legal protection for creators’ copyrights of works of art on NFT. The type of research is normative legal research. The approaches used are statute approaches, conceptual approaches, and comparative approaches. The legal materials used are all regulations regarding copyright that exist in Indonesia and The United States of America (USA). NFT is a copyright protection solution for creators of works of art in the digital era. Indonesia does not yet have a digital copyright act while the USA has a digital copyright act called the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA) which is able to protect the copyrights of art creators in NFT. In Indonesia, it has not yet been regulated regarding the prohibition of the importation of anti-circumvention devices, which has been handled in Chapter 1201 of the DMCA. Then there is also no regulation regarding the deletion of NFT content, which indicates violations in Indonesia, which has been regulated in USA.
Takayuki Suzuki, Ken Naganuma, K. Fukuchi, Takatoshi Ohara
As transactions of monetary value on the public blockchain become more widespread, there is a growing demand that the transactions be verified as legitimate. As a result, it has become mandatory for crypto asset exchanges to perform identity verification. On the other hand, Bitcoin and other public blockchains are easy to start transactions with, and the anonymity of the transactions is a significant value for users. To achieve these conflicting requirements at a certain level, we developed a method to manage information generated from a user’s biometric information with smart contract and link transactions on the blockchain to real people. This mechanism makes it relatively easy for the user to claim their identity while the operator can control the degree of identity verification.