Search

This survey talks about the problem of security and privacy in the blockchain ecosystem which is currently a hot issue in the blockchain community. The survey intended to study this problem by considering different types of attacks in the blockchain network with respect to algorithms presented. After a preliminary literature review it seems that some focus has been given to study the first use case while, to the best of my knowledge, the second use case requires more attention when blockchain is applied to study it. The research is also interested in exploring the link between these two use cases to study the overall data ownership preserving accountable system which will be a novel contribution of this work. However, due to the subsequent government mandated secrecy around the implementation of data encryption standard (DES), and the distrust of the academic community because of this, a movement was spawned that put a premium on individual privacy and decentralized control. This movement brought together the top minds in encryption and spawned the technology we know of as blockchain today. This survey explores the genesis of encryption, its early adoption, and the government meddling which eventually spawned a movement which gave birth to the ideas behind blockchain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the popular imagination and in academic literature, scams are usually seen as dyadic, involving a con artist and a mark. This article retheorizes scams as networked, collective activity. Scams, like all commerce, are shaped by and in turn shape communication channels. The "network scam" is therefore offered as a lens for understanding scams in the digital economy more broadly. As a case study, this article documents the 2017 Initial Coin Offering (ICO) Bubble. ICOs were supposed to be a new, radically disruptive way of crowdfunding to finance the development of a new, radically disruptive blockchain technological ecosystem. All told, ICOs raised an estimated $5 billion in 2017 alone. But by all analyses—both from observers and participants, both during the bubble and after—the vast majority of ICO turned out to be scams. This article uses these scams to theorize the "network scam" as a collaborative effort to bring about a shared future, but one that is fundamentally characterized by arbitrage on uneven belief among participants in that future ever coming to pass. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sentiment analysis of Twitter data is quite valuable for determining the market opinion. Twitter sentiment analysis is more challenging than generic sentiment analysis owing to slang and misspellings. The techniques utilized for evaluating the sentiment of tweets that have the greatest importance for the success of an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) are machine learning approaches. In this study, we examined market sentiment and used Expert Ratings to predict the success of ICOs in the Australian and Singapore markets. Based on 68,281 tweets from 57 ICOs across four industries: business services, cryptocurrency, entertainment, and platform. Several classification methods were investigated, including Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Naïve Bayes (NB). The outcomes indicated that sentiment analysis of tweets and expert ratings may be used to forecast the success of an initial coin offering. The results indicate that the suggested model is capable of accurately assessing the tweets of the ICO Successful with a maximum accuracy of about 94.7 % when implementing the Support Vector Machines (SVMs) classifier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With transformative evolution involving crypto-assets, machine learning applications and data-driven finance models, complex regulatory and policy issues are emerging. Inadequate frameworks in FinTech markets create regulatory friction and regulatory fragmentation. These limitations continue to feature when piecemeal regulatory transition occurs. The danger of EU Member States being left behind in the FinTech innovation race if the regulatory landscape is cumbersome or incomplete for new business models is real. Regulatory lag and regulatory friction also act as a 'disenabler' for ease of cross-border FinTech trade in the EU. This article critically engages with the manner in which the regulatory sandbox has rapidly gained critical mass in Member States as a valuable adaptive measure supporting a route to market for FinTech entrepreneurs. Against the backdrop of the European Commission's Digital Finance Strategy, the article further advances scholarship on FinTech in the EU by probing the EU's resulting regulatory dilemma, undertaking a systematic evaluation of the continuum of complex policy options available to the European Union in response to the spreading regulatory sandbox phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognising the economic value of London hosting 17 of the world's top 50 FinTech firms, HM Treasury's strategy is determined 'to ensure Britain remains the best place in the world to set up and grow a FinTech business.' The Financial Conduct Authority's 'Sandbox' regime has attracted FinTech start-ups from around the world to test their technology and business with supervision and regulatory protections, providing an opportunity to grow into major businesses. The success of the intuitive Sandbox has however led to it being replicated in jurisdictions worldwide, eager to benefit from the growth of FinTech. Competition for high-calibre start-ups means the UK's post-Brexit Sandbox may need to go further than its existing FinTech Sector Strategy to continuing attracting and developing firms helping the City of London to remain the global centre of finance as perceived in the UK's Industrial Strategy. The article examines existing regulations and analyses how the UK can develop an enhanced structure to both further attract and accommodate legitimate high-calibre FinTech entrepreneurs, whilst offering strong client and investor protections to ensure financial stability. It proposes unprecedented legal and policy reforms for the Sandbox structure, including a permissible model to capitalise on funding from amateur private investors worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Initial coin offerings are a new way for blockchain startups to finance project development by issuing coins or tokens in exchange for fiat money or Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. In this article, we start from the current distinction between different types of tokens and argue that it can create confusion and should be at least partially abandoned. We believe that the conceptual difference between a currency token and a tradable utility token is just the dimension of the crypto environment in which the token is spent. More specifically, 'utility tokens' combine the customer payment mechanism with the utility component and, when tradable on a secondary market, the investment one. We argue that they blur the traditional distinctions between currencies, financial assets and consumption goods. Moreover, we stress the increasing importance of online crypto exchanges. Recently some exchanges have also taken up the role of trusted intermediaries and staked their reputation on token offerings, which are termed initial exchange offerings and have gained in popularity. We therefore argue that the crypto market increasingly looks like a segment of the capital market and behaves as such. Given that tokens have a clear investment component, we show that they are tradable securities under the Prospectus Regulation. We compare the European securities regulation with its US counterpart and focus on prospectus exemptions, highlighting the great differences between Europe and the US which make Europe less amicable to blockchain startups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is generally agreed that gaps in sustainable and social finance should be met by increased marketization. However, there are significant challenges in galvanising the investment community used to conventional securities and other investment market instruments. Our article proposes using technological innovations in fund-raising, observed in the initial coin offerings (ICOs) market, to transform the asset class of sustainable and social finance in order to achieve greater marketization, creating an integrated form of social-commercial value for a variety of different investors, from conventional to crowdsourced marketplaces. Key to our proposal is the innovation of tokenisation introduced in ICOs. We argue that tokenisation holds transformative potential for restructuring investment opportunities, as assets need not be tied to the expectations and obligations of conventional financial value creation. Tokens can offer different classes of financial and non-financial rights and rewards. We propose that sustainable and social finance can be raised by corporate structures dedicated to sustainable or social purposes, as dual-class offerings. One class of tokens allows holders to commit to the sustainable or social ends and exercise governance rights as part of their investment. Such token-holders are also expected to be long-term investors and subject to lock-in periods, in order to support the ultimate fulfilment of the sustainable or social project. The other class of tokens would carry no governance rights but be immediately tradeable. This class of tokens likely attracts more transient investors but would provide an important source of finance for sustainable and social projects. The success of ICOs reflects the importance of market conditions and liquidity for this class of investors and we make some proposals as to how such markets can be made more robust by appropriate regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Financial regulators face the persistent issue of being challenged by financial innovations and regulatory arbitrage. This article argues that a functional approach of 'same activity, same risks, same rules' is potentially vague and insufficient, and does not provide clear guidance for regulators. By critically discussing the US Securities Exchange Commission's and UK Financial Conduct Authority's approaches to cryptoasset offers, the paper argues that whether and how regulators respond to financial innovation crucially depends on regulators' institutional structures. These structural limitations provide empowering as well as constraining aspects in relation to regulatory objectives and mandates, shaping financial regulators' responsiveness in different ways. The paper argues that an institutional account of regulatory responsiveness more accurately explains policy responses. The benefits and drawbacks of such policy responsiveness are also crucially shaped by these institutional structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]