Blockchain Papers

Authors unavailable

No abstract is available for this record.

T.S. Hudima, Vladyslav Kamyshanskyi

This article examines the structural tension between territorially organised sanctions regimes and decentralised crypto and tokenised assets. It argues that the principal challenge lies not in the formal applicability of sanctions, but in an enforcement gap: traditional coercive models are designed around identifiable persons and legally ownable property, while distributed ledger systems operate beyond territorial seizure and technical shutdown. The study advances lex digitalis rei sitae as a functional connecting factor linking proprietary and sanctions-related effects to the jurisdiction exercising effective regulatory control over access and liquidity. It further demonstrates that sanctions enforcement increasingly relies on address-based designations, compliance obligations imposed on regulated infrastructure, and programmable compliance embedded in smart contracts and oracle systems. The article concludes that effective digital sanctions require modernised conflict-of-laws rules, explicit recognition of digital identifiers as sanctionable control points, and compliance mechanisms consistent with rule-of-law safeguards.

Orfeas Anastasios Koidis, Francesco Giumelli, Oskar Josef Gstrein

Purpose There is a growing debate about the use of cryptocurrencies to evade sanctions. This paper aims to systematically collect and organize the available literature on cryptocurrencies and sanctions evasion. The aim is to map the debate, identify gaps and clarify the implications for global governance and the international order. Design/methodology/approach This research conducted a systematic literature review using a keyword-string search method across relevant databases. Due to limited peer-reviewed literature, additional “grey” literature was included to broaden the evidence base. Findings The mapping reveals a fragmented debate over a strong link between cryptocurrencies and sanctions evasion grounded in cryptocurrencies’ design features. It identifies three main gaps concerning the scale of this form of evasion, the mechanisms through which it operates, and whether it represents a novel challenge or a reconfiguration of established practices under new technical infrastructure. Further research on these issues would contribute to an enhanced understanding of sovereignty, global governance and power. Originality/value While much of the literature on cryptocurrencies and illicit finance has centred on money laundering, their role in sanctions evasion remains underexplored. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper provides the first systematic consolidation of the dispersed academic and policy literature on the topic. It brings together peer-reviewed research and verified grey literature into a consolidated evidence base that can serve as a stepping stone for future debates and research on cryptocurrency-enabled sanctions evasion.

Tigran Mkrtchyan

The enforcement of extraterritorial financial sanctions has historically relied on the structural centralization of correspondent banking networks, primarily utilizing U.S. dollar clearing mechanisms as a territorial nexus for prescriptive jurisdiction. This paper examines how the advent of wholesale Central Bank Digital Currencies (wCBDCs) and distributed ledger technology (DLT) structurally dismantles this transit-layer vulnerability. By facilitating atomic, peer-to-peer settlement in tokenized sovereign assets, DLT-based platforms eliminate the intermediary clearing layer, thereby extinguishing the objective territoriality required for traditional primary sanctions enforcement under statutes such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Recognizing this technological bypass, the paper argues that sanctioning authorities are executing a strategic regulatory pivot from automated transit chokepoints toward localized endpoint coercion. This shift relies on secondary sanctions deployed against domestic interfaces, leveraging an institution's macroeconomic reliance on the broader U.S. dollar ecosystem. Furthermore, the paper contextualizes this transition within the collapse of multilateral dispute resolution at the World Trade Organization, positing that institutional paralysis has accelerated a technological flight to sovereign ledgers. Ultimately, the transition to decentralized digital currency blocs redefines international economic law, transforming extraterritorial coercion into a localized conflict of defensive statutes and symmetric economic statecraft.

Mohammed Al Ghafari, Badar Al Alawi, Idris Aal Jumaa, Salah Al Awaidy

Background/Objectives: Oman Vision 2040, the national blueprint for socio-economic transformation, aims to elevate the Sultanate to developed nation status, with the “Health” priority committed to building a “Leading Healthcare System with International Standards” via a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. This paper critically reviews Oman’s strategic health directions and implementation frameworks under Vision 2040, assessing their alignment with global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and serving as a case model for health system transformation. Methods: This study employs a critical narrative synthesis based on a comprehensive literature search that included academic, official government reports, and international organization sources. The analysis is guided by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Systems Framework, providing a structured interpretation of progress across its six building blocks. Results: Key interventions implemented include integrated governance (e.g., Committee for Managing and Regulating Healthcare), diversified health financing (e.g., public private partnership (PPPs), Health Endowment Foundation), and strategic digital transformation (e.g., Al-Shifa system, AI diagnostics). Performance metrics show progress, with a rise in the Legatum Prosperity Index ranking and an increase in the Community Satisfaction Rate. However, critical challenges persist, including resistance to change during governance restructuring, cybersecurity risks from digital adoption, and system fragmentation that complicates a unified Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) response. Conclusions: Oman’s integrated approach, emphasizing decentralization, quality improvement, and investment in preventive health and human capital, positions it for sustained progress. The transformation offers generalizable insights. Successfully realizing Vision 2040 demands rigorous, evidence-informed policymaking to effectively address equity implications and optimize resource allocation.

Anastasia Pavlova, Petros Lois, Spyros Repousis

This study examines the role of cryptocurrency in Russia as a response to increasing international sanctions. As sanctions restrict access to global financial markets and advanced technologies, Russian businesses and individuals are increasingly leveraging digital currencies as a means to circumvent economic restrictions. The study also explores Russia’s regulatory adaptations, aiming to strike a balance between fostering innovation in digital finance and addressing national and international security concerns.This research employs a comprehensive review of regulatory policies, financial impacts, and trends in cryptocurrency adoption in Russia following the imposition of sanctions. It analyzes key government policy frameworks, such as the “On Digital Financial Assets” law, and draws insights from surveys and interviews with Russian businesses, financial institutions, and investors to assess cryptocurrency’s influence on economies affected by sanctions.The findings indicate that medium-sized enterprises and younger investors in Russia have increasingly adopted cryptocurrency as a financial alternative under sanctions, driven by its decentralized nature and its capacity to facilitate cross-border transactions. However, large corporations show reluctance due to concerns over security, regulatory uncertainties, and perceived volatility. The Russian government has adopted a cautious regulatory approach, seeking to harness cryptocurrency’s financial potential while addressing the risks of illicit use. This highlights a complex balancing act between fostering financial resilience and adhering to international standards.This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the unique role of cryptocurrency in a major economy facing sanctions, contributing to the literature on financial resilience through digital currencies. It offers valuable insights into how geopolitical factors influence cryptocurrency adoption and explores the regulatory challenges faced by nations under sanctions. The findings are particularly relevant for policymakers, financial institutions, and scholars interested in the intersection of cryptocurrency, economic sanctions, and regulatory control.

Magnus Strand

The cases reported concern the assignment of claims to third-party litigators, limitation periods, and the consequences of the competition law concept of a ‘single economic unit’ with regard to the jurisdiction of national courts under the Brussels I bis Regulation. For example, in ASG 2, the Court of Justice was asked whether EU law requires that collective redress, in some form, be available in the Member States, but allowed the Member States a rather wide margin of discretion on the matter. Another example was Heureka, in which the Court of Justice ruled that EU law precludes national rules on the limitation of follow-on damages actions if they do not provide for the limitation period to be suspended, at the very least, until one year after the date on which the public enforcement decision finding an infringement has become final. As the case law develops, we gain legal foreseeability in private enforcement of competition law that will, in turn, further increase incentives to seek compensation for harm caused by infringements. This survey reports developments in private enforcement of EU competition law in the years 2024 and 2025, up until 31 May of the latter year. As there have been no news in EU regulation during this period, the report focuses on case law developments. Private enforcement of competition law takes the form of civil litigation. As a consequence, it falls under the jurisdictions of national courts and will only find its way to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) through references for a preliminary ruling. For the purposes of this report, this also means there have been many cases before national courts that will be interesting but cannot be covered here. To offer just two examples, the infamous trucks cartel1 and the Booking.com infringement2 have both given rise to an array of damages claims across European jurisdictions.3 The CJEU case law to be reported mainly concerns three core aspects that will each be covered in one of the sections below. First, whether national law can preclude or restrict the possibility for victims of an infringement of competition law to assign their damages claim to a provider of legal services (a ‘third-party litigator’). This is an issue of fundamental importance to the business model of certain providers active in the private enforcement of competition law. Second, several cases referred to the Court of Justice have concerned limitation periods that apply to damages claims, whether or not the rule on limitation periods in the 2014 Competition Damages Directive4 is temporally applicable in the proceedings. A new case on this issue is reported below. Third, issues related to jurisdiction and other procedural the is an that both and and to the victims of the and core issues that have been further I will a for a preliminary which is before the Court of the of on damages the a and will be The and of for a of victims of an infringement of competition law is a business in the The business model on the of victims to assign their to claim damages to a will the claims and a of the damages if The case reported ASG concerned whether a national limitation of this was with EU law. As in in this it is that damages claims for an infringement of competition law and some form of collective and have that victims of the infringement have to The for will be for to with for each be a rather of actions by providers of legal services in for the collective of victims can to the of for and to This preliminary by a the in the of a for damages for harm caused by an infringement of The infringement in a of for by a of during the period to The victims of the in and The was The victims their to damages in of the infringement of competition law to a third-party ASG which in the proceedings. its to the national the the of a it was under law to assign to damages in a of for the purposes of a for this not been for harm caused by an infringement of competition law. the under the by the victims to the be the was also concerned whether an of law was with EU law. The referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary was in whether EU law precludes national law victims of an infringement of competition law to assign their to damages to a provider of legal The Court of Justice that EU law the possibility of actions for the of compensation but not for Member States to a for The Court of Justice to the referred under the EU law of the national its in to that As I will this is a to ASG with some this for the the issues in the case whether law collective that an to a for whether the for an it or to the to The Court that the of claims the and economic in actions for in the Court not in that it was to the of if victims to their claims the Court of Justice ruled that EU law an of national which the of victims of an infringement of competition law their to compensation to a provider of legal that a only if national law not provide for other possibility of the claims of victims that the of to and the of an for damages was or The Court of Justice not been asked whether EU law requires that collective redress, in some form, be available in the Member ASG is an The Court a to the the Member States a rather wide margin of The of only claims to the there no in national law that claims for certain in the that a for the to with First, the Court of Justice very that the national not it to other of EU law the of the Court the to also the to in of the in its it not the of the national the of in its it is that it have been the Court of Justice to that actions for the of damages rather and under and that it they be available in follow-on the of the actions on EU law not be actions under national law. the Court of Justice has actions with a and the be in it rather that the of will for actions for the of damages to be available in actions if they available in follow-on actions for damages by of an infringement of competition law. The of also to the if actions for the of damages available for other actions under that the actions have a and the of the 2014 Competition Damages there have been several cases in which the Court of Justice has been to the of national limitation periods with the rules of the with or and of EU law. several the core issue has been at in the rules in the temporally in other to the EU law before the 2014 Competition Damages to EU law under that This has been an issue in to of the which its rules on limitation of damages issues in the case law have been the a that on which date the applicable national limitation period can to and under limitation periods be or A new to this of the case law. This one of many cases of its in the of is also a by in the of in of The Court of Justice has not its in the latter this the legal issues will be covered in of the cases on limitation periods in competition damages actions is in which the Court of Justice ruled that and the of preclude a limitation period to if the was of the of the not possibility of or that period during before the national competition As we will the and in Heureka, the that its by its services to the of services This by the of to to The before the of the 2014 Competition Damages on and after the of the for the of the rules of the national law on that claim was under the applicable limitation rules of the at with regard to the period to The limitation period was three and to the the or have of the harm and the of the to of the a limitation period of The the asked the Court of Justice whether EU and in of the and the of preclude a national limitation period applicable to actions for damages for an infringement of competition which to the or be to have that it harm and the of the to compensation for the and which is not during public enforcement it was not whether the 2014 Competition Damages be applicable in the the Court of Justice the a issue a of the of and that the Court that the of the to compensation for harm caused by an infringement of competition law be or if the limitation periods applicable to actions to before the infringement to an and the not or not have been to the for its for The Court an two to the by the national The of the was that a limitation period not to before the infringement has to an The Court of Justice that a was in to it for the to its of in to the of an the of and the the the Court and there is an to the of the The Court with in that the that a limitation period not to before the infringement has to an an to their The of the was that limitation periods cannot to before the or be to the for its for The at the Court of Justice of an infringement of competition the of the that harm and that and the of the the Court with the of a decision the infringement at issue in the EU if the decision was under This was a decision has it has not been and can on the decision to their for damages the the Court also it is in some that gain the at an it be for the in the damages to that the the at an in the case that limitation periods in actions for competition damages cannot to until be the of the infringement of competition law and of the for an for damages with the for the a in of the 2014 Competition Damages As a of in Heureka, there is very the and for damages actions by of an infringement of EU competition at damages actions a decision it is that the is not or it is whether it is the Court of Justice is law in a which very the rules in the the Court is the of the rules in the to law This is not but it is The of the is that it and legal the and to be but consequences for the the Court a in not to across the rules and of for rules that by the EU of this the and the case law is also new and very that will apply under the 2014 Competition Damages they have been on a of law. For a rule of on a can be to the of of the that a certain an infringement of competition a decision on the is will have This the Court to the possibility for the to that the at an The case concerns the but in the has been national public enforcement of competition law. in has that the core of the case is at a will have of the which that to an for for the purposes of follow-on the claim the can on a decision that is of legal the of the the a be on the date the national decision has become we that in the decision not to be final. that it the of legal and the of follow-on in the of to for the national decision to be this is to the of the in Heureka, the of the was not whether the decision was but whether it the infringement to the of The legal by the be by rules on the or of limitation periods in damages actions during public enforcement proceedings. This to the legal Heureka, the Court of Justice also whether and the of for the limitation period to be or during this the Court that the or of limitation periods for the of in to to their actions for the Court also it was not to to or limitation periods during an of the the decision by the be by the if it not of the Court provide an example of a to the rule in of the 2014 Competition Damages that the at the one year after the infringement decision has become or is or national infringement under the and the of do not the limitation period to to be until the the decision this I to the of in that national be a for the a As I for the purposes of the I that the by the form a for the national limitation period until the national decision has become final. The of rules in the 2014 Competition Damages on the of its rules or the of its of the not apply that not apply to that have to an before the national rules rules not apply to damages claims which a national was to other the of rules on the infringement has and on the national rules the of other rules on and the Court ruled that a and not be with but also that an for damages which is after the of the national it national law the of if the national limitation period not before the of the for of the The consequences of this further in the Court of Justice the national limitation period by that the national the of rules on limitation periods, that have the the national its of the claim by this and that the infringement not on the Court further that it its that the limitation period not have to on that As a consequence, of the 2014 Competition Damages was in temporally applicable to and to be that the Court that it was for the national to the rule in to the Court of case law on the of rules in the of the limitation period, through the of to the of the rule in I to that it is a in to the and of the in Heureka, which the for on the of this has with the on in and will the The private enforcement of competition law in issues of jurisdiction and that can be the case law of the Court of Justice on and several a of a economic has for to their the in The Court has a in its case but in the cases reported they also some to their in a case the Court has not its preliminary is also The issues at in cases to the concept of the the the of of the Brussels I bis in to the competition law concept of a economic to the rule on jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis in to the concept of a ‘single economic and to to a a economic issues will be covered in For damages claims, of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to courts for the the or a of or a of trucks the the The was the in the that the the been by the trucks with to the decision in the was the The was the Court of and the legal issue in its concerned The on of the Brussels I bis and it and its a economic its be covered by the concept of the the the of harm by that economic only its in other Member States in to have harm and the not to have The claim on a of the economic its the Court of Justice that in it that of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to Member States on the of whether the by an infringement of competition law is in that Member that not consequences can be will be and that consequences of harm the by the Court of Justice that there was no in its case law for the of the economic by the The Court further that the of the was at with the of the Brussels I bis an of the of and of the rules and that victims of an infringement of competition law other the Court that the concept of a economic not be to jurisdiction in the by the The that the Court of Justice have been in its of the economic to private enforcement of competition it is not to will be and the by the in this case was a to the claims a of and this can be in but at the of the the rule is that jurisdiction is at the or of the jurisdiction is under the rules of the Brussels I bis and case but jurisdiction is not it be to that is a of the of the latter an is several of the Brussels I bis jurisdiction to courts for the one of is the claims that it is to and to the of This is in damages claim several and the is a of or a of that form a economic the of competition law. the core issue was whether a national its in an for damages a and its and for an infringement of competition by on the of the and in case law. The in the in and its in the The in was a to on the The competition that its on the but not it that been in the infringement or a the decision by the competition an for damages and before a in the jurisdiction to claims its that and and for harm caused to by the infringement by the competition there was in the to whether the courts jurisdiction in of to whether of the Brussels I bis preclude courts on the a or or of the of the that the competition a a the in to their jurisdiction This issue its way to the the Court of the and was referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. For to be applicable it was the Court to whether there was a of a that it was to the actions in to the of The Court further that the whether the of law and with regard to the claims the and that the not been before it with an to the in on case law its in the Court that the of whether the of law and with regard to the claims the be several in a and infringement of competition law that been by the the by the Court that this also the a economic and of the the of competition law and and for the harm the Court of Justice that it was not in to have jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis for and several to have been in a the whether the in and the for the which was was The was also concerned with the for the of a and that the Court of Justice that the not only in public enforcement but also in private enforcement of competition law and that the concept of an was the in both the Court that to its jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis a national not a of the or of the but to the for regard to a that in the the Court that the to that a by the its cannot be a in to its The do the Court if the on the of the and an to the to the not or or of the of its or that that be the Court of Justice ruled that of the Brussels I bis not preclude the for the of of a in to its on the that a or or of the of a that has competition it a that that the not of the possibility of that that not or or of the of that or that that be the of this the for jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis by the Court of Justice in is The of its is that if the the of the the of competition and the has jurisdiction to actions at one of the in there also be a possibility for the to the but this requires this the to this is an in private enforcement in which is to the of both and The of the and with regard to the infringement is a in the of this and the in be the and through EU for actions by across EU jurisdictions also be an is several at a certain which only have jurisdiction to actions one of an to the claims the at that one that the in the The through which jurisdiction is for is referred to the in the that it for the before the at two and of the Court of Justice is to further on of the Brussels I bis and in to the a to the with the is no in the cases but has an on the The in the two a of in several that have been of and both follow-on The case a a in and and related and The case a decision by the competition on a in and covered several European jurisdictions and several at economic the of competition law. both cases only one the of that was in the actions was a has competition cannot an for damages of its to on the and several of a economic have the of that and do have the and legal and there is a the economic of that and the of the infringement by the the to of the Brussels I bis the to the that there several they can be in a national jurisdiction for one of that claims that it is to and to the of that regard it not that the in the infringement in and at but it that they in an infringement that been by the and that the was on their in that The in the that the national not have the the no of The that not be and that there was no jurisdiction under that rule if there that the only the for its the that a not be concerns that the be but only if it or or of to the As to whether the was in this the by the that harm the was not through an on EU that the of by a which or or of the of a not apply in damages and that the in one of the not have a it was only a and the the that the Court of Justice has not been given to rule on if under the to compensation for harm caused by an infringement of EU competition law to harm in but not that the in the be or for a of jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis the the the of the by to the of the Court of Justice in the in the and of not to on the in a way to offer and the of a to be of the of the a the it that the was a of the which was for the infringement of competition law. The in turn, in that in to a to the the of the the of a the on whether its was in an economic which a to the of the infringement for which its of the been in the of the by the to the of of the Brussels I bis Regulation. whether the claims the and the the of of the Brussels I bis for the national to have jurisdiction of and whether that have in a infringement of the EU of a the claims and of the with which they each form an that of a the economic of the and the of the infringement by the be but that it not for the to have to the the that the of of the Brussels I bis there that the which they of the of law which have an infringement of the of in EU that it cannot be a that the to the that the of foreseeability not be that be to that they be in the jurisdiction of and not preclude this of the that with the that a in the of the can be an but that an to was to be the Court of Justice will the For it the in of the in it to its on the of by a which or or of the of a not apply in damages it is that the Court will not the of the referred the but rather in to a the not to be with the and the Court of Justice was asked to whether a to be to a economic which an of competition law. The in the two trucks the in The to that the been by the trucks with to the decision in the was the The an for damages with the and that the to was to be to the in The national the in with the but the was with a to the of the in The that this was a in and that the the it and its of a economic the of competition law. The issue of whether the be through its its way to the the Court of and to the Court of its the Court of Justice under its case law and in its in a economic a the of and legal that can be for an if by legal the Court an the of has no legal of its an for damages cannot be the but be a legal the Court of Justice the of and of is a under the to in of the EU of fundamental that the Court find no or in EU law for the that a an for damages one legal an and have the to legal the the the Court of Justice the to a by of the the if it been to have and it not be that legal a economic to on each The Court of Justice the of EU on and on the of The Court that related to the of be by the but that EU certain to the and that can be if the is The Court also that it be to to their a of the if the to the related to in Member the Court of Justice ruled that a cannot be with a to a if the two of the economic The of is that under the case law on a economic under competition to a of their a the of which is or the its this not can the the of for the has been that will have consequences for the of and this cannot be through to the concept of a economic The Court that of competition law by of the and the and it that the and of an of the of which cannot be with to the concept of a economic this case was a and the that there to on the concept of a ‘single economic unit’ the Court will is an of an of damages under the 2014 Competition Damages under the case law of the Court of The on by a of national law and EU which the Court is to in the referred This for a preliminary was by the Court of Justice on and no is The before the of and it is damages in to the trucks in which the compensation for to the The concerns the of in the 2014 Competition Damages and in the of on the damages The also concerns to on which date harm has by of an infringement of competition law. the the has been at a of the date for damages was to the under national the claim The that be the date harm the of the will be to on the date which to on the damages in the proceedings. will be interesting to this there is no EU case law on issues in the of competition damages For the purposes of an for damages a Member the Court of Justice has that on an is the date harm was This was in a competition damages which that the Court it in competition of the 2014 Competition damages be the the harm until the compensation is is this is rather and a through be is very to private enforcement in the EU to case law on actions for private enforcement is by there can be concerns this and whether it be issues under in the and Justice and a report and the for third-party in ASG 2, reported the Court of Justice the of the Member States a rather wide margin of discretion on whether or not to claims for competition damages to be to a third-party I have that the of which was not in the to other on the legal in the Member at will be interesting to the further of EU in to third-party law on the of rules in the 2014 Competition Damages also to The case law has on the of certain rules and on to the of rules also and and of EU law. Heureka, and through we a of limitation which is to be after the rather of the Court in and will also be very interesting to the on we a on that in is also very that we on jurisdiction under of the Brussels I bis in of the concept of an in competition in This case law further to their procedural if the Court of Justice is also it in the reported cases and that not but that for the of both be As we to gain legal foreseeability in private enforcement of competition we will also increase incentives to seek in turn, further case law the Court of very for with an in the

Weimin Wang, Martin Enilov, Petar Stankov

This study examines whether cryptocurrency markets offer more resilient safe haven properties than gold for stock markets in the BRICS economies from 28th April 2013 to 27th September 2024. Unlike traditional studies that primarily focus on Bitcoin or top-market cap cryptocurrencies , we introduce a novel Crypto index that includes 9468 active and defunct cryptocurrencies, providing a comprehensive view of daily market fluctuations across all listed crypto assets. We also investigate the impact of the Russia-Ukraine military conflict on the safe haven status of these assets. Using a time-varying robust Granger causality framework, we analyse the dynamic relationships between potential safe haven assets and BRICS stocks. Additionally, we explore the network structure of gold, cryptocurrencies, and BRICS stocks across different quantiles . Our results show limited evidence of time-invariant causality, but strong evidence of time-varying causality, suggesting that neither gold nor cryptocurrencies act as safe havens for BRICS stocks over the entire sample period. We find increased market interconnectedness during extreme conditions, with gold and cryptocurrencies initially acting as net receivers of shocks, but gold shifting to a net transmitter during the conflict, indicating stronger safe haven properties for gold. Portfolios favour gold over crypto, and small-cap cryptocurrencies are cheaper but less efficient hedges compared to large-cap cryptos, with Bitcoin emerging as the optimal investment for returns. These findings offer valuable insights for investors and policymakers, particularly for optimizing portfolio management and supporting financial stability during market turbulence.

Abdulkadir Nacar

No abstract is available for this record.

Dirin Mchirgui, Mohammed Ali Sulyman Digheem, Fawzi Salem Adwela

This paper explores the interconnectedness and spillover relationships among Bitcoin, gold, gold-backed cryptocurrencies, and energy commodities during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine military conflict. Using a quantile connectedness approach, we reveal diverse influence dynamics among digital assets, with Gold, DGX, and PAXG emerging as key contributors to the network’s total connectedness. Notably, the cTCI/TCI ratio underscores substantial direct linkages, emphasizing significant interconnections among digital assets. DGX acts as a principal information transmitter, while gas plays a crucial role as a primary receiver, suggesting its potential as a diversifier. The time-quantile analysis highlights heightened connectedness during significant events, providing valuable insights for investors and risk managers. Results underscore varying roles of assets, with PAXG persistently acting as a net transmitter and Bitcoin and Gold displaying nuanced patterns. Interestingly, Gold demonstrated certain safe haven characteristics only during the Russia-Ukraine war. The time-frequency analysis at the median quantile emphasizes the dominance of short-term dynamics, prompting the need for adaptive risk management strategies. Overall, this study facilitates a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, offering practical insights for different periods.

Riadh Benammar, Anas Elmelki, Nadia Arfaoui, Adel Boubaker

ABSTRACT This paper investigates how the geopolitical risk (GPRD), economic policy uncertainty (EPU) index, and Twitter economic uncertainty (TEU) related to the Russo‐Ukrainian conflict can affect cryptocurrency returns (Bitcoin [BTC], Ethereum [ETH], Ripple [XRP], Dogecoin [DOGE], Litecoin [LTC], Cardano [ADA], BNB, and TRON [TRX]) over the period ranging from January 1, 2020, to April 24, 2023. Using the Spectral Breitung Candelon causality and wavelet coherence methods, interesting findings are reported. This study reports noteworthy findings. First, we observe that during the armed battle, ADA, BNB, DOGE, LTC, TRX, and XRP appear as hedges against GPRD. However, we found a negative impact on BTC and ETH. Second, the results show that EPU and TEU have no effect on cryptocurrency, respectively. These findings provide a comprehensive overview of cryptocurrency fluctuations during the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine. Finally, findings show that only ADA, BNB, DOGE, LTC, TRX, and XRP could be used as hedging tools during times of uncertainty. These results have practical implications for cryptocurrency investors and elements influencing its returns, especially during uncertain times.

Nga Phan Thị Hằng

Purpose This paper aims to propose a causal relationship between the imposition of international sanctions and the level of cryptocurrency adoption, drawing on a comprehensive data set of global cryptocurrency metrics. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a data set that includes the global cryptocurrency adoption index, as compiled by Bhimani et al. (2022) and Chinalysis (2020), along with various socioeconomic factors such as democracy, education, the GINI index, GDP per capita, the Human Development Index, the Corruption Perception Index, regulatory quality, control of corruption, the Economic Freedom Index and the Network Readiness Index. In addition, this paper incorporates a global sanctions database developed by Felbermayr et al. (2020). To determine causal relationships, this study constructs an instrumental variable aimed at plausibly isolating the endogenous effects of sanctions on cryptocurrency adoption. Findings Using a robust empirical strategy that includes an instrumental variable approach, this research establishes a causal link between the number of sanctions and the level of cryptocurrency adoption. The findings suggest that sanctions can act as a significant motivator for countries to adopt cryptocurrencies, especially in regions with high levels of economic inequality and generalized trust, such as Africa. In addition, this study found that conflicts occurring between 1500 and 1599 could predict cryptocurrency adoption in Africa. The civil conflicts occurring between 1960 and 2017 also show a relationship with higher levels of cryptocurrency usage across the African continent. Originality/value The analysis further distinguishes the heterogeneity of these relationships across different nations, with a special emphasis on the unique context of African countries and the implications of ongoing civil conflicts.

Hind Alnafisah, Bashar Yaser Almansour, Wajih Elabed, Ahmed Jeribi

No abstract is available for this record.

Muhammad Shahzad Ijaz, Shoaib Ali, Anna Min Du, Mahrukh Khurram

We use event study methodology to examine how the Palestine-Israel Conflict affected equities, metals, energy, fiat, and crypto currencies. The findings highlight the susceptibility of the stock markets in Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait to geopolitical shocks by demonstrating notable negative abnormal returns on the event day. This observation is more evident in areas which have direct economic connections to the belligerent nations. Conversely, the fiat and cryptocurrency markets, along with metals and oil, exhibit insignificant abnormal returns, with the exception of a strong reaction observed in Ethereum and oil prices. These findings highlight the fluctuating levels of sensitivity across diverse asset classes as markets beyond Palestine's trading partners demonstrate resilience to the war. Overall, our work underscores the significance of assessing contagion risk especially in areas affected by geopolitical instability. It also holds implications for policymakers and investors to contemplate the geopolitical situation while evaluating market risks and portfolio diversification strategies amid political tensions.

Suraj Velip, Mrunali Jambotkar

The unprecedented upheaval in an economic and financial system facilitates herding behaviour and flight-to-safety (FTS) episodes from a riskier asset into a safer one. The Russia-Ukraine conflict shows that the financial market assets are still prone to external shock. In line with this, the study explores the inconclusive insights on an FTS from cryptocurrencies to US treasury securities. The paper employs dynamic conditional correlation – generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (DCC-GARCH) to test the FTS episode for a period from February 24, 2022 to February 23, 2023. The findings hold a sizeable negative and significant volatility coefficient, particularly DCCα, which directs to support the notion of short-lived FTS from cryptocurrencies to treasury securities during the invasion period. Nevertheless, some evidence of the positive volatility effect points out the risk diversification benefits. The results also show flight-to-quality from BTC, ETH, USDT, BNB, ADA and MATIC to the US dollar index (USDX), however, for other cryptocurrencies, it acts as a diversifier. We unfolded several implications that could be interesting for a market participant looking for evidence on the behaviour of cryptocurrencies and govt. backed securities during times of market uncertainty in the future.

Nicolin Decker

No abstract is available for this record.

J M de Almeida, Tiago Gonçalves

• Cryptocurrencies serve as alternative safe havens during geopolitical conflicts. • Cryptocurrencies exhibit increased liquidity and interconnectedness during war periods. • Crypto assets gain significance as strategic tools amid global economic sanctions. This study examines the role of cryptocurrencies in modern War, specifically during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Utilizing a Time-Varying Parameter Vector Autoregression (TVP-VAR) model, the research assesses the dynamic financial behaviors of cryptocurrencies, focusing on changes in liquidity, safe haven status, and their use in circumventing economic sanctions. The analysis distinguishes financial behaviors across three distinct phases: Pre-Conflict, Conflict, and financial sanctions periods, highlighting the interaction between cryptocurrencies and traditional financial markets. The findings indicate shifts in the role of cryptocurrencies from net transmitters to net receivers of spillovers in both returns and volatility, particularly during the financial sanctions phase. This study provides insights into the integration of cryptocurrencies with traditional financial assets and their potential impact on local economies during military conflicts. The results document the increased liquidity and interconnectedness of cryptocurrencies during military conflict periods and explore their potential use in evading sanctions and supporting War efforts.

А Д Керимов, Vladislav V. Krasinsky

The article discusses the problem of counteracting the financing of anti-Russian decentralized sabotage and terrorist activities of network structures. The authors analyze the illegal activities of founders, coordinators, sponsors, and beneficiaries of sabotage and terrorist network movements in online platforms and Internet messengers. The work provides the criminal and criminological characteristic of decentralized sabotage and terrorist activities. The article presents changes in terrorist tactics and modern mechanisms for financing sabotage and terrorist activities using cryptocurrencies, taking into account the high-tech present-day terrorism, the introduction of distributed financing mechanisms and resource provision of sabotage and terrorist activities. It also demonstrates the relationship between anti-Russian subversive and terrorist networks and Ukrainian special agencies, as well as the involvement of a number of Ukrainian financial institutions and virtual asset service providers in quasi-legal financial schemes, money laundering, and terrorist financing.

Nidhal Mgadmi, Ameni Abidi, Néjib Hachicha, Wajdi Moussa

No abstract is available for this record.

Ijaz Younis, Anna Min Du, Himani Gupta, Waheed Ullah Shah

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) assets, commodities, and Islamic stock market cointegration are affected by technological innovations, market dynamics, investor behavior, and crises. This study investigates the dynamics of returns and volatility for three DeFi assets, six commodities, and three Islamic stock markets from December 2019, to March, 2023, and identifies higher spillover effects during crises. Links among the Cross-DeFi, commodity, and Islamic markets significantly influence returns and volatility during crises. Notably, the commodities index emerged as a pivotal and substantial transmitter of risk during the Russian-Ukraine war crisis, with Emerging Markets (EM) being a key recipient. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, livestock indices assume the role of prominent risk-return spillover receivers. The findings indicate robust returns and volatility interconnected between DeFi assets and Islamic markets with a moderate level of connectivity among commodity groups. WDI, ACWI, and EM explained 75 % of the variance observed during crisis episodes. This study formulates strategic portfolio management within and between connectedness among return volatilities by highlighting the stability of DeFi assets, the diversification potential in commodities, and a balanced option in Islamic markets. Our study provides a deep and insightful understanding of the stakeholders across markets during crises. • Notable spillovers in DeFi, commodities, and Islamic markets during crises. • Commodities drove risk during the Russian-Ukraine war, affecting Emerging Markets. • DeFi stability, commodity diversification, and Islamic market balance guide crisis management.

Emon Kalyan Chowdhury, Rupam Chowdhury, Bablu Kumar Dhar

ABSTRACT This paper examines the shifts in investor sentiment during the Russia–Ukraine war and its consequent impact on market volatility. By employing a comprehensive dataset that includes the S&P 500 index, historical Bitcoin prices, the Investor Sentiment Index, the Industrial Production Index, and the US Consumer Price Index, this study applies several econometric models such as generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) models, regression analyses, vector error correction models (VECM), and the Granger causality model. The analysis spans from January 2021 to March 2023. The findings indicate that investor sentiment significantly influences returns in both stock and cryptocurrency markets, having a positive effect. These results underscore the importance for investors and policymakers to monitor investor sentiment during periods of conflict to understand its potential impact on financial markets. This research offers valuable insights that can guide investment decisions and inform policy interventions.

Hongjun Zeng, Abdullahi D. Ahmed, Ran Lu

Abstract This paper investigates the volatility connectedness and dynamic time–frequency relationship between Bitcoin (BTC) and 15 major agricultural commodity markets during the COVID‐19 and 2022 Russia–Ukraine war periods. We employ the TVP‐VAR‐based extended joint connectedness method, minimum connectedness investment portfolio, and wavelet coherence (WC) method. The results indicate that the sudden outbreaks of the two crises brought about increased volatility connectedness between BTC and agricultural commodity markets. Throughout the entire sample period, BTC remained a net transmitter of volatility. Moreover, in terms of the total connectedness index (TCI), the overall volatility correlation surged rapidly after the outbreak of COVID‐19 and the 2022 Russia–Ukraine war. The portfolio results demonstrated that BTC exhibited a low correlation with the agricultural commodity markets, suggesting diversification potential. Additionally, only Feeder Cattle served as an effective hedging asset for BTC throughout all periods. The WC analysis confirmed that during the COVID‐19 period and the 2022 Russia–Ukraine war, most of the linkages were primarily concentrated at medium‐ to long‐term frequencies. Our analysis will contribute to a deeper understanding of the interconnection between these markets, enabling market participants to consider risk mitigation measures and support portfolio diversification when formulating policies and regulations involving relevant markets in the future.

Yun Chen, Cong Yu

This paper analyses the connectedness between three traditional financial assets and cryptocurrencies from June 2019 to December 2022. We find that cryptocurrencies have the highest within-market connectedness, suggesting they are less influenced by other asset categories. The dynamic overall market connectedness undergoes four structural changes during the sample period, with two significant increases aligning with the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukraine conflict. When comparing the two stages before and after these increases, we observed an increase in spillover effects from cryptocurrencies to the other three asset categories.

Xunfa Lu, Nan Huang, Jianlei Mo

No abstract is available for this record.