Entangled in Cryptoassets’ Legal Nature and Governance: Searching for Clear Boundaries or Working for their Removal? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Regulation of the Crypto-Economy: Managing Risks, Challenges, and Regulatory Uncertainty
Journal of Risk and Financial Management
Distributed ledger technology, also known as the blockchain, is gaining traction globally. Blockchain offers a secure validation mechanism and decentralized mass collaboration. Cryptocurrencies make use of this technology as a new asset class for investors worldwide. Cryptocurrencies are being used by companies to raise capital via initial coin offerings (ICOs). The substantial inflow of unregulated capital into a transactional and transnational industry has aroused interest from not just investors, but also national securities and monetary regulatory agencies. In this paper, we review the Security and Exchange Commission’s initial statements and subsequent pronouncements on ICO’s to illustrate the potential problems with applying an older legal framework to an ever-evolving ecosystem. Recognizing the inability of enforcement within existing regulatory frameworks, we discuss the importance of regulation of the crypto asset class and internal collaboration between government agencies...
European Company and Financial Law Review, 2018
Cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin and ethereum, have not only risen to public attention as novel means of payments. Rather, the current hype is fueled by financial applications built on top of these currencies that stand to potentially upend consumer and investment markets. The most remarkable and economically relevant of these applications are tokens sold via initial coin offerings (ICOs, also called token sales). In 2017 alone, the equivalent of more than $ 3 billion have been raised through ICOs. In these entirely online-mediated offerings, startup entrepreneurs sell tokens registered on a blockchain in exchange for cryptocoins traded on that blockchain (typically bitcoins or ethers). Investors receive tokens that can be understood as cryptographically-secured coupons which embody a bundle of rights and obligations. In July 2017, the SEC released an investigative report that highlighted that such tokens can be subject to the full scope of US securities regulation. As a result, issuers increasingly structure ICOs such as to prevent US citizens and residents from obtaining tokens in order to exclude the reach of US securities regulation. However, for the time being, EU citizens and residents are free to invest in tokens. This raises the question to what extent EU securities regulation is applicable to ICOs and, particularly, whether issuers have to publish and register a prospectus in order to avoid criminal and civil prospectus liability in the EU. In conceptual terms, this depends on whether tokens are considered “securities” under the EU prospectus regulation regime. The question is of great practical relevance since, despite the high stakes involving more than $100 million in some ICOs, to our knowledge, up to now not a single token issuer has published or registered any such prospectus. Against this background, this paper develops a nuanced approach that distinguishes between three archetypes of tokens: currency, investment, and utility tokens. It analyzes the differential implications of each of these types, and their hybrid forms, for EU securities regulation. While the variety of tokens offered necessitates a case-by-case analysis, the discussion reveals that at least some types and hybrid forms of tokens are subject to EU securities regulation. By and large, pure investment tokens typically must be considered securities, while pure currency and utility tokens are exempted from securities regulation in the EU. In identifying these archetypes, regulation and market oversight will have to put substance over form. Finally, we spell out criteria for the application of EU securities regulation to hybrid token types. The paper closes by offering two policy proposals to mitigate legal uncertainty concerning token sales. First, we suggest tailoring disclosure requirements to the code-driven nature of token sales. Such an ICO-specific safe harbor would offer a clear and less burdensome path to EU law compliance for token sellers who suspect that their tokens may qualify as securities. This only requires the Commission to amend its delegated 2004 Commission Prospectus Regulation. Second, we propose that, on an international level, governments form a compact to bestow certainty about the application of their respective securities regulation regimes to token sales. This is, first, to avoid regulatory overkill on the one and regulatory lacunae on the other hand in online-mediated, global token sales. Second, overlapping, and partially contradicting, securities regulation regimes can even undermine each other. In the end, only a joint international regulatory regime can efficiently balance investor protection and investor access in the face of the novel generation of decentralized blockchain applications.
Crypto-Securities Regulation: ICOs, Token Sales and Cryptocurrencies under EU Financial Law
Cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin and ethereum, have not only risen to public attention as novel means of payments. Rather, the current hype is fueled by financial applications built on top of these currencies that stand to potentially upend consumer and investment markets. The most remarkable and economically relevant of these applications are tokens sold via initial coin offerings (ICOs, also called token sales). In 2017 alone, the equivalent of more than $ 3 billion have been raised through ICOs. In these entirely online-mediated offerings, startup entrepreneurs sell tokens registered on a blockchain in exchange for cryptocoins traded on that blockchain (typically bitcoins or ethers). Investors receive tokens that can be understood as cryptographically-secured coupons which embody a bundle of rights and obligations. In July 2017, the SEC released an investigative report that highlighted that such tokens can be subject to the full scope of US securities regulation. As a result, issuers increasingly structure ICOs such as to prevent US citizens and residents from obtaining tokens in order to exclude the reach of US securities regulation. However, for the time being, EU citizens and residents are free to invest in tokens. This raises the question to what extent EU securities regulation is applicable to ICOs and, particularly, whether issuers have to publish and register a prospectus in order to avoid criminal and civil prospectus liability in the EU. In conceptual terms, this depends on whether tokens are considered “securities” under the EU prospectus regulation regime. The question is of great practical relevance since, despite the high stakes involving more than $100 million in some ICOs, to our knowledge, up to now not a single token issuer has published or registered any such prospectus. Against this background, this paper develops a nuanced approach that distinguishes between three archetypes of tokens: currency, investment, and utility tokens. It analyzes the differential implications of each of these types, and their hybrid forms, for EU securities regulation. While the variety of tokens offered necessitates a case-by-case analysis, the discussion reveals that at least some types and hybrid forms of tokens are subject to EU securities regulation. By and large, pure investment tokens typically must be considered securities, while pure currency and utility tokens are exempted from securities regulation in the EU. In identifying these archetypes, regulation and market oversight will have to put substance over form. Finally, we spell out criteria for the application of EU securities regulation to hybrid token types. The paper closes by offering two policy proposals to mitigate legal uncertainty concerning token sales. First, we suggest tailoring disclosure requirements to the code-driven nature of token sales. Such an ICO-specific safe harbor would offer a clear and less burdensome path to EU law compliance for token sellers who suspect that their tokens may qualify as securities. This only requires the Commission to amend its delegated 2004 Commission Prospectus Regulation. Second, we propose that, on an international level, governments form a compact to bestow certainty about the application of their respective securities regulation regimes to token sales. This is, first, to avoid regulatory overkill on the one and regulatory lacunae on the other hand in online-mediated, global token sales. Second, overlapping, and partially contradicting, securities regulation regimes can even undermine each other. In the end, only a joint international regulatory regime can efficiently balance investor protection and investor access in the face of the novel generation of decentralized blockchain applications.
Cryptocurrencies: The Impossible Domestic Law Regime?
American Journal of Comparative Law, 2022
I would like to thank my assistants Can Okandan, Adam Kashin, and Rick Tapia for background research going into this Report. I am indebted to Professor Frank Sullivan, member of the ULC Joint Study Committee on the Uniform Commercial Code and Emerging Technologies, and Andrew Bull, founding partner of Bull Blockchain Law in Philadelphia, for comments on earlier drafts. Similarly, I would like to acknowledge important feedback and editorial suggestions provided by Professor Frank Gevurtz. Any remaining errors or omissions are mine alone. †
The Money of The Future: A Study of The Legal Challenges Facing Cryptocurrencies
BiLD Law Journal , 2022
In this article, the authors aim to clarify the ambiguities surrounding important aspects of cryptocurrencies. The use of cryptocurrencies has been increasingly on the rise. Hence, the importance of writing this article which primarily aims to simplify the tricky and complex terms related to this subject. This article has been approached from a conceptual, technical and legal viewpoint. It has been divided into the following three parts: (1) concept of cryptocurrency and its underlying technologies, including all the relevant definitions and meanings; (2) the related mechanism and how blockchain operates in the cryptocurrency world, which requires simplified and easy-to-understand terms and the process that takes place in the so-called blockchain ledger; (3) the legal challenges facing cryptocurrencies. This part pinpoints the most pressing legal issues concerning this virtual form of money. The legal part also aims to highlight the significant results and recommendations for the readers and policymakers to overcome the legal challenges and achieve the ultimate goal of this technology, taking into consideration the risks associated with this digital asset of exchange. In this connection, researchers in different parts of the world have endeavoured to reach and present their findings along with their suggestions and recommendations to improve the current status of this relatively nascent technology.
Crypto Currency Regulation and Law Enforcement Perspectives
2021
This paper provides an overview of how crypto currency and blockchain engineering interacts with the law enforcement. We point out that a large proportion of crypto users are amateur investors and the dominant and the largest segment in crypto crime are simply investment scams (!). We look at various questions of criminal use and misuse of technology, especially in the areas of money laundering or cashing out the profits originating from illicit activities. The aim of the paper is to raise a set of concerns arising in the criminal justice and policing circles, based on the interviews with law enforcement practitioners, and to see how cryptos could be reconciled with public security and safety. We propose a simplified classification of crimes related to crypto currency. We study the development of blockchains in a broader context of applied cryptography and payment technology. Ransomware is a big threat but we also need protection against corporate misconduct or negligence, with unte...
Regulation of Crypto Tokens and Initial Coin Offerings in the EU de lege lata and de lege ferenda
European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance, 2019
Much like initial public offerings produce publicly traded securities, Initial Coin Offerings (icos) produce crypto tokens tradeable on crypto exchanges. Despite an apparent need for investor protection the ico and the tokenisation phenomenon have yet to be addressed by legislative action on the EU level. The paper studies the suitability of the EU regulatory framework to capture tokenised financial instruments and utility tokens based on the views of the EU supervisory and national competent authorities. It is argued that EU regulators shall first ensure legal certainty by defining the scope of to-kenised financial instruments subject to MiFID. Further, authorisation and ongoing requirements shall be adapted to address the risks posed by distributed technology and direct global access of investors to crypto markets. Finally, there is no immediate need for a bespoke EU-wide regime governing utility tokens; fragmentation of the market is a positive development providing a testing field for future supranational initiatives.
Regulating cryptocurrencies legal challenges and risks
Bitcoin and Ethereum have become the centre of public attention in recent years. Both are cryptocurrencies, decentralised digital assets, it means, a set of codes that can be used as a currency. Their value is generated by the public agreement. The attractiveness of crypto assets is the safe and simple transactions between two parties without intermediaries. These digital currencies based on blockchain technology, always containing all transactions. Unfortunately, cryptocurrency is being a target for fraudsters and criminals because of the spread 4 of the transaction. In addition to the technological innovations and financial opportunities by digital currencies raised without considering the ethical dimension, especially the ethics of money, because not everyone gets the same profit they generate. Anonymity of digital currencies can facilitate money laundering, terrorist financing and other illegal transactions. We are not concern about the energy consumption and environmental impact of cryptocurrencies. It is therefore necessary to effectively regulate cryptocurrencies in the fight against fraud and abuse and at the same time to protect participants of this market. The use of cryptocurrencies can make it difficult to identify which parties are involved (anonymity and pseudonyms), which encourages fraud, if it contains money laundering and other illegal activities. The price of cryptocurrencies can fluctuate significantly (volatility), which can also cause significant financial losses to investors. Cyberattacks, hacking incidents and technical errors can ultimately lead to the loss of crypto assets (technological-security risks).
On regulation of cryptocurrency: international experience
Supremacy of Law, 2021
The study is dedicated to various jurisdictions’ approaches to cryptocurrency relations regulation. The digital assets'legal status in the European Union is analyzed both at the central level as well at the level of such EU members as Malta, Romania, Germany. Among the countries that geographically belong to Europe, but are not members of the European Union, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are considered in this aspect. The authors also reviewed the most important issues of cryptocurrency regulation in the largest economy in the world - the United States. The Asian region is represented in the study by the jurisdictions where digital assets are most widespread (China and Japan). The main conclusion is that the Republic of Moldova should develop the balanced approach to legalizing the new sphere of socio-economic relations by taking into consideration both positive and negative experience as well as the best legal practices of other states in this field.
LEGAL REMARKS ON THE OVERARCHING COMPLEXITIES OF CRYPTO ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING REGULATION (2019)
Revista Jurídica Unicuritiba, 2019
Objective: The paper analyzes money laundering through crypto-assets and offers a legal perspective on how this new technology can be used to commit these felonies. The study intends to shed light on the matter, helping to visualize how future anti-money laundering – AML regulation should focus on tackling crypto criminal activity effectively. Methodology: The research adopts an inductive approach, bibliographic and documental research technique, with an exploratory and propositional methodological objective. Results: The paper proposes the following framework of anti-money laundering principles for crypto-focused action: transnational approach for AML action; going beyond basic gatekeeper compliance approach, considering the lack of structural chokepoints in a blockchain protocol; private-sector cooperation and clear AML standards; usage of tracking and reverse-engineering anonymization techniques for the tracing of crypto transaction history; and adoption of a global blacklist for crypto- asset prefixes, preventing money laundering integration. Contributions: The study addresses a topic that is still unfamiliar in the academic world due to its innovation and complexity, as well as elaborates a set of principles to combat money laundering with crypto-assets that could be of great value to companies and financial institutions.