Search

The purpose of this study is to contribute to our understanding of the relationship of environmental and social attitudes of investors and their investment into crypto-assets compared to traditional assets. Given the controversies over the environmental footprint of some crypto-asset classes, primarily due to energy-intensive mining, they present an intriguing subject for investigation. Leveraging a unique household finance survey representative of the Austrian population, we examine whether environmental and social attitudes can elucidate the variance in individual portfolio exposure to crypto-assets. Results indicate a robust link between investors' environmental and social attitudes and their exposure to crypto-investments, yet no significant association was found with traditional asset benchmarks like bonds and shares. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crypto-finance is becoming increasingly popular, but the area is still unregulated in many ways. Its innovations promise to bring benefits by decreasing costs and increasing choices for intermediaries and customers. At the same time, and among other things, the breakdown of important exchanges and lawsuits against prominent figures illustrate potential challenges for investors, financial stability, and monetary sovereignty. How does the EU navigate the crypto verse? In this article, we analyse three regulations of the EU's Digital Finance Package through the lenses of discursive and historical institutionalism to understand when and where concerns about digital sovereignty motivate action. We argue that EU actors aim to regulate digital finance and retain sovereignty by employing different narratives that justify their policy choices. EU regulators upgrade existing regulations to cover digital finance areas that resemble traditional financial services and justify it by existing rationales on investor protection and financial stability. Digital finance poses security challenges that are new to financial regulation. EU actors employ a narrative of security threats to increase control in areas traditionally dealt with in cybersecurity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Onderneming en Financiering is the property of Boom uitgevers Den Haag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of this research paper is to compare and analyse how crypto-assets are regulated in the UK and Germany. The aim is to understand and highlight the approaches taken by these two countries in terms of regulating crypto-assets and to explore the potential impact that their regulatory frameworks could have on the market for these crypto-assets. The research employs a doctrinal research design to examine the crypto-asset regulatory regimes in the UK and Germany. A comprehensive review of existing literature, official regulatory documents and relevant legal frameworks is conducted to understand the core components of each country's crypto-asset regulations. The findings of this study reveal divergences in the regulatory approaches of the UK and Germany towards crypto-assets. While the UK has embraced a principles-based regulatory framework, fostering innovation and industry growth, Germany has adopted a more prescriptive and cautious approach, focusing on investor protection and market stability. The research identifies that the UK's flexible approach has attracted a flourishing crypto-asset ecosystem, while Germany's conservative stance has offered greater investor confidence. However, certain regulatory gaps and challenges persist in both jurisdictions, such as ambiguities in classification and tax treatment, requiring further attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crypto-assets are defined as digital representations of value or of rights, applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT), including blockchain technology. DLT means an information repository that keeps records of transactions and that repository is shared across, and synchronised between, a set of DLT network nodes. Representations of value regarding crypto asset include a value attributed to a crypto-asset by the parties concerned or by market participants. That means the value is based on the interest of the purchaser of the cryptoasset only. Digital assets that cannot be transferred to other holders do not fall within the definition of crypto-assets. Therefore, digital assets that are technically impossible to transfer directly to other holders should be excluded from the scope of the European Regulation [Regulation (EU) 2023/1114]. Some crypto-assets qualify as financial instruments as defined in Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council1 (MiFID II) and fall within the scope of existing Union legislative acts on financial services. Therefore, a set of rules already applies to issuers of such crypto-assets and to firms conducting activities related to such crypto-assets. But other crypto-assets fall outside of the scope of Union legislative acts on financial services. European legislator chooses to regulate crypto assets that not fall within the regulation of financial instruments outside of this regulation. The new regulation [Regulation (EU) 2023/1114]2 intended to legislate in the field of crypto-assets, not interfering with financial instruments. Somehow similar to financial instruments market architecture the new regulation defines crypto assets types (e-money tokens, ‘asset-referenced tokens’ and third type outside the two defined types), admission to trading of crypto-assets and offer to the public of crypto assets, crypto-asset services and application for authorization as a crypto-asset service provider or operation of a trading platform for crypto-assets, prevention and prohibition of market abuse involving crypto-assets. Similar to capital market domain, Member States shall designate the competent authorities responsible for carrying out the functions and duties provided for in the regulation on crypto assets market. Member States shall notify those competent authorities to EBA (European Banking Authority) and ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority).

The work provides a method for classifying blockchains and crypto-assets, facilitating their comparison for business and regulatory purposes. Blockchains - and more generally systems based on Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) - adopt different technologic configurations, each distinguished by the activities performed, technical characteristics, and governance structures. Particular noteworthy is the difference between some DLTs, which integrate automated organizational procedures with traditional decision-making processes, and others that adopt entirely algorithmic governance. Equally complex is the task of identifying types of crypto-assets, also known as digital tokens, generated and transferred through this technology. The work outlines the primary characteristics of DLTs and crypto-assets, utilizing ‘switching circuits’ to visually represent or express them in a simple formula. The proposed methodology, applicable both in the EU and in the US, untangles a given DLT/crypto ecosystem and reassembles it through logic maps, facilitating the identification of the technologic, economic, and legal features and overcoming the risk of a rigid and easily outdated taxonomy. The ultimate purpose of the paper is to propose a working method capable of accommodating every possible configuration of DLT and digital token and their potential evolutions. Practical examples of regulatory application and two case studies (Ethereum and Polkadot) are provided.

Academic and practitioner interest in crypto-assets is gaining momentum. Different values and agendas influence regulatory policy. Competing ideologies and social norms about the efficacy of regulatory regimes, the influence of innovation philosophies, and the need to foster ethical principles and practices underpin debates on crypto-assets. Semi-structured interviews were carried out in the USA and UK with regulators, tech firms, institutional and retail investors, and crypto social media influencers. Stakeholder groups were classified as interventionists, innovators, influencers, and investors. The research builds a data structure from extant literature and empirical research. Aggregate dimensions of inchoate technology, regulatory intervention, and innovation social norms reflect complex and competing stakeholder positions on crypto assets. Findings show crypto-assets are not homogenous, but highly differentiated with potential effects and outcomes determined by algorithmic code. However, competing stakeholder agendas obfuscate policy development for decentralized finance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Selcuk Law Review / Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Selcuk Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The objective of the present paper is to put a milestone on the roadmap toward a global economic system of professional sport, at least as regards its financial dimension, i.e., its model of finance, its ownership, and some new trends in global sport finance. Professional sport went through a radical change during the 1990s when switching from gate receipts to TV rights revenues as its major source of finance and from local/domestic to internationalised/globalised sources of revenue. This change was more marked in European soccer (football) before spreading throughout other professional sport disciplines. In fact, the whole distribution of sport financing was restructured as shown in this paper. Starting from this evidence of the first stage of sport finance globalisation, it appears that new transformations have been at work in sport finance more recently. In particular, soccer moved from globalisation of flows (revenues, finance) to asset globalisation in terms of club ownership. At last, this paper discusses the emergence of new trends in global sport finance such as treating professional (soccer) players as financial assets and crypto-assets penetrating the sports business. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

157 This article discusses the regulatory definition of collective investment undertakings (CIUs) as provided for by Article 4 (1) (a) AIFMD and Article 1 (1) UCITSD in the context of traditional family offices, holding companies, and joint ventures, and distinguishes them from more recently observed digital asset pools such as digitally managed accounts, crypto lending, crypto staking, and decentralized autonomous organizations.Testing the legal definition of CIUs in the context of traditional and digital pooled investments allows not only for the delineation of the scope of AIFMD (and to a lesser extent, UCITSD), but also provides insights on the desirable content of Level 2 regulation under MiCA. While ESMA guidance based on many years of supervisory experience sets the limits on traditional use cases, the digital boundaries of collective investment schemes are largely untested and to some extent uncertain, resulting in high costs for legal advice, as demonstrated by our brief look into MiCA set out in this article. To address these matters, we argue in favor of broad default rules on pooled finance, paired with exemptive powers from individual or all rules where a disparity exists between the purpose of regulation and the regulated activities. If paired with carve-outs for applications below EUR 5 million (where retail investors are present) and EUR 100 million (sophisticated clients only), these default rules would assist supervisory authorities in setting adequate boundaries for investment fund regulation of innovative financial products. After the introduction (Pt. I), Pt. II outlines the legal definition(s) of CIUs; Pt. III discusses the regulatory limits in the context of traditional use cases; Pt. IV analyzes the limits for digitally managed accounts, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and decentralized finance as a whole (referred to collectively as "digital limits"); Pt. V presents our policy considerations; and Pt. VI concludes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract We propose a high-frequency rebalancing algorithm (HFRA) and compare its performance with periodic rebalancing (PR) and threshold rebalancing (TR) strategies. PR refers to the process of adjusting the relative weight of assets within portfolios at regular time intervals, whereas TR is a process of setting allocation limits for portfolios and rebalancing when portfolios exceed a specific percentage of deviation from the target allocation. The HFRA is constructed as an integration of pairs trading and a threshold-based rebalancing strategy, and the profitability of the HFRA is examined to determine the optimal portfolio size. The HFRA is applied to a dataset of real price series from cryptocurrency exchange markets across various trends and volatility regimes. Using cointegrated price data, it is shown that increasing the number of assets in a portfolio supports the profitability of the HFRA in an up-trend and reduces the potential loss of the HFRA in a down-trend in a high-volatility environment. For low-volatility regimes, although increasing portfolio size marginally enhances the HFRA’s profitability, the profits of portfolios of varied sizes do not significantly differ. It is demonstrated that when volatility is relatively high and the trend is upward, the HFRA can yield a substantial return via portfolios of large sizes. Moreover, the profitability of the HFRA is compared with that of the PR and TR strategies for long-term application. The HFRA is more profitable than the PR and TR strategies. This achievement of the HFRA is also validated statistically using the Fisher–Pitman permutation test.

The present paper discusses the issue of regulation of the crypto-assets market. This area is still struggling with a lack of legislation, and there are only some initiatives to regulate the market. The aim of the article is to analyse the state of legal regulation of the crypto-assets market while simultaneously pointing out problematic issues with de lege ferenda proposals. For this purpose, we established two hypotheses: the crypto-assets market needs to be regulated by legal acts of a European nature (H1), and the adopted EU legal acts regulating the crypto-assets market are adequate and sufficient (H2). Several types of scientific papers, such as analysis, synthesis, and the historical method, were used in the preparation of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crypto-assets are rapidly becoming a mainstream phenomenon in the global financial system. This is owing to developments in technology, an increase in token issuances and the existence of tens of thousands of old and emerging crypto-asset projects around the world. There is consensus that the financial sector stands to gain from crypto-assets, for example in terms of cost reductions, increased effectiveness and openness. The rapid expansion of cryptocurrencies' ecosystem has intensified the attention of regulatory communities. Regulators are increasingly being challenged to respond fast and appropriately to protect customers, investors and populations from crypto-related risks, address the risks themselves and still promote technological advancement in this area. Currently, there are notable crypto regulatory loopholes in many jurisdictions of the world, not the least of which are those in the European Union. These gaps have helped to add to legislative ambiguity and weak protection of investor and property rights as regards to cryptocurrencies. Several European countries have made proactive attempts to develop domestic regulatory frameworks for crypto-assets. Many national, regional and international supervisory and regulatory institutions have participated in the crypto discourse which is demonstrated by issuance of various reports, analyses and policy statements highlighting risks and providing regulatory proposals. Following thorough consultation and review of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, the European Commission has recently asserted its authority over these very dynamic virtual assets and launched a framework for a regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets to address the risks germane to the crypto-asset markets within the context of the European Union. This research paper evaluates the European Union's present regulatory approach to cryptocurrencies. Particularly, the paper focuses on the issues, challenges and consideration of these approaches. The paper synthesizes extant research findings, expert opinions and institutional reports of the major regulatory, supervisory, oversight and advisory bodies, as well as those of relevant national and international agencies within the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2023 8(2), 665-687 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. Regulating innovation in the digitalised age. – II.1. Impact of regulation on innovation. – II.2. Crypto-assets as innovation: a moving target. – III. The regulation of crypto-assets in the EU. – III.1. The MiCA framework, its objectives and challenges. – III.2. Activity-and risk-based approach to regulating crypto-assets. – IV. Future-proofing the EU regulation of crypto-assets. – IV.1. The challenge of future-proofing a regulatory intervention in innovative markets. – IV.2. Activity-based regulation of crypto-assets: future-proofing the regulatory perimeter. – IV.3. Risk-based approach to regulating markets in crypto-assets. - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) The 2023 EU regulation of markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) is a timely and ambitious response to the regulatory challenges of a fast-developing and technology-intensive field. The new regulation expands the regulatory perimeter, thus enabling EU-wide supervision of crypto-asset service providers and issuers of the so-called “stablecoins”. As such, the MiCA is in line with the key objectives of the 2020 EU Digital Finance Strategy: it updates the existing EU regulatory framework to facilitate digital innovation while protecting European consumers. “Same activity, same risk, same rule” approach is at the core of the MiCA regime. The new regulatory intervention, however, is to be put to test by the incessant technological and business model innovation within the crypto industry. Is this new regulation future-proof? This paper identifies and explores the two main points of vulnerability that often undermine the future-proof nature and, ultimately, the effectiveness of regulatory interventions in innovative sectors. First, it analyses the structures that define the scope of the new framework, and their capacity to adjust to and incorporate innovation falling outside of the regulatory perimeter. Second, the paper explores the mechanisms that ensure the regulatory and supervisory framework under the MiCA remains relevant and able to address the changes in the amplitude and sources of risks. Against this background, the paper discusses two features indispensable for a future-proof regulation: the openness of the regulatory perimeter, and the regulatory capacity for risk anticipation.

The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCa) Regulation of the European Union is the first comprehensive piece of legislation that seeks to protect the interests of investors in the crypto-assets sector. Although the market value of crypto-assets is significant at world level, there is a lack of clear regulatory guidelines regarding the recognition, measurement, and presentation of crypto-assets in the financial statements of investors. Considering that not all digital assets are the same, retail holders need to take into account the characteristics, rights, and obligations associated with the crypto-assets they purchase to determine the appropriate accounting method. Therefore, the research question of the present article is: Which are the main types of crypto-assets and how should they be recognized and measured in the financial statements of investors and holders? We perform a review of the accounting policies and options, relying on relevant regulations, standards, regulatory drafts, legal and academic papers, recommendations of market regulators, crypto-asset white papers, industry opinions, and media articles. There are different accounting treatments that can be applied, depending on the legal and technological aspects of each class of crypto-assets. Based on a critical discussion of accounting policies and options, our research has implications for accounting professionals, but also for standard setters, who are urged to provide clear guidelines. Identifying the key economic characteristics of each asset and determining the most appropriate way to recognize these characteristics in the financial statements are crucial for the development of a functional and trustworthy market in crypto-assets.

Digital assets play an increasingly important role in people's lives and are ever more often becoming the basis for launching business. The prospects that digital assets open for identifying new sources of profit are stimulating the intensive development of technologyoriented startups. However, despite the active spread of relations arising from digital assets, legal regulation in this area is only at the initial stage of development. The concept and legal nature of digital assets remain unclear at the legislative level in most countries of the world. In the legal doctrine, there are active discussions on the legal nature of digital assets, but it still has neither a clear definition of its essence nor a clear delineation of the objects covered by this concept. Such legal uncertainty makes it much more difficult to run a business based on the use of digital assets. Therefore, the aim of this study is, first, to define the concept and fields of emergence of technology-oriented startups and the types of digital assets used in their activities. Secondly, the article looks into the legal nature of digital assets and considers the possibility to recognize digital assets as a type of property. The recognition of digital assets as a special type of property allows applying to them provisions on the right to ownership, which guarantee the highest degree of protection and best ensure the interests of their owners.

The article examines the current state of implementation of one of the largest regulatory projects in to examine the role of international cross-border payment regulation in the context of global financial architecture and to see how a modernized national payment infrastructure could be optimally embedded in the global payment infrastructure. To achieve this purpose, this article systematizes the standard setting documents and analyzes doctrinal sources. Special attention is paid to BIS Innovation Hub projects. The study analyses area E of the G20 Roadmap, which covers the development of new means of payment, including CBDCs and stablecoins. In particular, the paper provides an overview of analytics and specific projects pertaining to the introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDC). The article also analyzes how the issuance of CBDCs relates to the international framework being created for regulating crypto assets. The authors conclude that global financial regulation is becoming more payment-centric since the issue of regulating cross-border payments lies at the intersection of several important policies and international legal regimes. In particular, this involves international policies pertaining to the regulation of financial services, macroprudential regulation, regulation of the global monetary system, regulation of crypto assets, countering illicit financial flows in the global economy, and ESG regulation. The article systematizes the features and risks of the payment-centric model for global financial regulation. It concludes that international cooperation and coordination are necessary if cross-border projects related to payments are to be successfully implemented.

We design a novel calibration procedure that is designed to handle the specific characteristics of options on cryptocurrency markets, namely large bid-ask spreads and the possibility of missing or incoherent prices in the considered data sets. We show that this calibration procedure is significantly more robust and accurate than the ordinary one based on trade and mid-prices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the diversification benefits of adding alternative crypto‐assets in a traditional portfolio, from the perspective of an investor who seeks to achieve multiple objectives. Our analysis is based on daily and weekly return data for eight different assets including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, for the crypto‐assets and NASDAQ, S&P500, Dow‐Jones, Crude‐Oil, and Gold, for traditional assets. We use both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample estimation procedures to analyze these data sets. We apply the weighted sum of deviations goal programming method to solve a bi‐objective optimization problem where investors optimize simultaneously portfolio risk and return. For a variety of investor characteristics, ranging from risk‐seeking to risk‐averse, we show that augmenting portfolios with alternative crypto‐currencies improves portfolio performance and the efficiency frontier, compared to standard portfolios. This improvement is even more observable for risk‐seeking investors, for both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample estimation procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Detecting pump-and-dump schemes involving cryptoassets with high-frequency data is challenging due to imbalanced datasets and the early occurrence of unusual trading volumes. To address these issues, we propose constructing synthetic balanced datasets using resampling methods and flagging a pump-and-dump from the moment of public announcement up to 60 min beforehand. We validated our proposals using data from Pumpolymp and the CryptoCurrency eXchange Trading Library to identify 351 pump signals relative to the Binance crypto exchange in 2021 and 2022. We found that the most effective approach was using the original imbalanced dataset with pump-and-dumps flagged 60 min in advance, together with a random forest model with data segmented into 30-s chunks and regressors computed with a moving window of 1 h. Our analysis revealed that a better balance between sensitivity and specificity could be achieved by simply selecting an appropriate probability threshold, such as setting the threshold close to the observed prevalence in the original dataset. Resampling methods were useful in some cases, but threshold-independent measures were not affected. Moreover, detecting pump-and-dumps in real-time involves high-dimensional data, and the use of resampling methods to build synthetic datasets can be time-consuming, making them less practical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCa) Regulation of the European Union is the first comprehensive piece of legislation that seeks to protect the interests of investors in the crypto-assets sector. Although the market value of crypto-assets is significant at world level, there is a lack of clear regulatory guidelines regarding the recognition, measurement, and presentation of crypto-assets in the financial statements of investors. Considering that not all digital assets are the same, retail holders need to take into account the characteristics, rights, and obligations associated with the crypto-assets they purchase to determine the appropriate accounting method. Therefore, the research question of the present article is: Which are the main types of crypto-assets and how should they be recognized and measured in the financial statements of investors and holders? We perform a review of the accounting policies and options, relying on relevant regulations, standards, regulatory drafts, legal and academic papers, recommendations of market regulators, crypto-asset white papers, industry opinions, and media articles. There are different accounting treatments that can be applied, depending on the legal and technological aspects of each class of crypto-assets. Based on a critical discussion of accounting policies and options, our research has implications for accounting professionals, but also for standard setters, who are urged to provide clear guidelines. Identifying the key economic characteristics of each asset and determining the most appropriate way to recognize these characteristics in the financial statements are crucial for the development of a functional and trustworthy market in crypto-assets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue du Financier is the property of Societe Cybel and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A component of digital finance that has been developed with an aim to decrease the usage of cash payments and improve financial inclusion is the crypto-asset. Concerns have been raised about the preservation of financial stability, which stands in for one of the primary objectives of central banks - along with price stability - as a result of the significant growth of the market capitalization of crypto-assets, as well as the rise in the variety of crypto-assets instruments and the volatility of their prices. Operating outside of national borders, crypto-asset trading platforms could lead to a concentration of risk and a lack of business transparency. The market for crypto-assets is growing more quickly, which highlights the need for strict regulation of that sector of the market, data collection to effectively monitor transactions, as well as providing protection for consumers and investors. The safety of all partipicants, the efficient operation of the financial system, and the maintenance of financial stability should all be guaranteed by the regulation of the crypto-asset market.

Technologically enabled innovations in finance are necessarily accompanied by legal innovations. The continuous growth and development of the market in crypto-assets have stimulated the activity of regulatory authorities in various jurisdictions, with the aim of finding acceptable regulatory solutions, capable of responding to the challenges of the digital age. The activities of regulatory authorities, primarily motivated by the market participants protection, financial stability and market integrity safeguarding, as well as encouraging the development of innovations, resulted in innovative regulatory models and tools. The paper analyzes comparative legal approaches to digital assets as a form of fintech innovation, regulatory innovations stimulated by new global activity, as well as the regulatory activity of international organizations and the establishment of regulation at the supranational level. The paper will provide an overview of different comparative legal regulatory solutions, including their features, advantages and disadvantages.

Abstract This study discusses the European Union’s proposal for a Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets, now subject to formal approval by the European Parliament. The objective is to explore whether it will positively impact the adoption of crypto-assets in the financial sector. The use of crypto-assets is growing. However, some stakeholders in the financial service sector remain skeptical and hesitant to adopt assets that are yet to be defined and have an unclear legal status. This regulatory uncertainty has been identified as the primary reason for the reluctant adoption. The proposed regulation (part of the EU’s Digital Finance Strategy) aims to provide this legal certainty for currently unregulated crypto-assets. This study investigates whether or not the proposed regulation can be expected to have the intended effect by reviewing the proposed regulation itself, the opinions and reactions of the various stakeholders, and secondary literature. Findings reveal that such regulation will most likely not accelerate the adoption of crypto-assets in the EU financial services sector, at least not sufficiently or as intended. Some suggestions are made to improve the proposal.

The article contains the results of the analysis of the investment behaviour of Ukrainian households in the crisis caused by external armed aggression. The financial potential of Ukrainian households in the pre-war period was assessed, and it was concluded that the expenses of most of the population were directed to the consumer rather than investment purposes. It was found that the investment potential of households was directed, first, to the purchase of currency, real estate, and deposits, as well as to risky crypto-currency assets, the active use of which Ukraine is one of the world leaders, instead of public investments in securities and other financial instruments remain extremely limited. The choice of the population of Ukraine in favour of investments in currency, real estate, deposits, and government bonds is currently quite rational since investments in private instruments of the local capital market (both directly and through pension funds and mutual investment institutions) do not provide high profitability and are associated with significant risks. It was revealed that in the conditions of martial law, the investment priorities of the population were most affected by the need to protect savings from depreciation, finance the country’s defence needs, and the corresponding rate of growth of the state debt, as well as high risks of real estate investments and strict restrictions of the National Bank of Ukraine on capital movement. It has been established that at a relatively high level of inflation, Ukrainian citizens do not receive a deposit offer from banks that is adequate to maintain the solvency of their savings. A situation in the banking system that is dangerous for financial stability has been identified, which is associated with the formation of a liquidity “canopy” due to the balances on the current accounts of the population. Emphasis is placed on the need to urgently increase the reserve requirements for demand deposits and current deposits to stimulate the growth of the value of hryvnia assets and change the banks’ liquidity surplus structure. Prospective directions and tools for the placement of household savings are justified, considering the needs of the post-war recovery of Ukraine’s economy and the prospects for European integration.

There are new regulations regarding the holding of securities with distributed ledger technology and the recording of securities rights through distributed ledger technology. Securities are issued in dematerialized form and are held in the dematerialized system at the Central Registry Agency under Turkish law. In the event that securities are held with distributed ledger technology, evaluations of securities’ legal nature are discussed in our study. In our study, it is examined whether the securities to be held in the distributed ledger technology can be considered as negotiable instruments in the light of the regulation examples examined in the study. For this purpose, first of all, the features of distributed ledger technology and the ledger-based negotiable instruments regulations in Switzerland, Germany and Liechtenstein are examined; then, it is investigated whether the securities to be held in the distributed ledger technology will be considered as negotiable instruments, together with the problem of whether the securities are negotiable instruments or not today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines key recent developments in payment services regulation in the UK and EU. In addition to proposals to reform traditional payment services legislation, it also considers proposals to regulate crypto-assets when used as a means of payment and proposals to regulate buy-now-paylater agreements, as these are increasingly offered by merchants as a means of payment. Both the UK and EU have proposed broader regulation of crypto-assets, but this article considers only those aspects of the proposals with the greatest relevance to payment services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital assets play an increasingly important role in people's lives and are ever more often becoming the basis for launching business. The prospects that digital assets open for identifying new sources of profit are stimulating the intensive development of technologyoriented startups. However, despite the active spread of relations arising from digital assets, legal regulation in this area is only at the initial stage of development. The concept and legal nature of digital assets remain unclear at the legislative level in most countries of the world. In the legal doctrine, there are active discussions on the legal nature of digital assets, but it still has neither a clear definition of its essence nor a clear delineation of the objects covered by this concept. Such legal uncertainty makes it much more difficult to run a business based on the use of digital assets. Therefore, the aim of this study is, first, to define the concept and fields of emergence of technology-oriented startups and the types of digital assets used in their activities. Secondly, the article looks into the legal nature of digital assets and considers the possibility to recognize digital assets as a type of property. The recognition of digital assets as a special type of property allows applying to them provisions on the right to ownership, which guarantee the highest degree of protection and best ensure the interests of their owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we analyzed a dataset of over 2000 crypto-assets to assess their credit risk by computing their probability of death using the daily range. Unlike conventional low-frequency volatility models that only utilize close-to-close prices, the daily range incorporates all the information provided in traditional daily datasets, including the open-high-low-close (OHLC) prices for each asset. We evaluated the accuracy of the probability of death estimated with the daily range against various forecasting models, including credit scoring models, machine learning models, and time-series-based models. Our study considered different definitions of "dead coins" and various forecasting horizons. Our results indicate that credit scoring models and machine learning methods incorporating lagged trading volumes and online searches were the best models for short-term horizons up to 30 days. Conversely, time-series models using the daily range were more appropriate for longer term forecasts, up to one year. Additionally, our analysis revealed that the models using the daily range signaled, far in advance, the weakened credit position of the crypto derivatives trading platform FTX, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States on 11 November 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept al Afacerilor is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Review of Private Law / Revista Română de Drept Privat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Bankarstvo Magazine is the property of Association of Serbian Banks and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(2), 601-613 | European Forum Insight of 24 September 2022 | (Table of Contents) I. The digital finance package of the European Commission. - II. The Regulation on DLT Market infrastructures: a rule-based pilot regime. - II.1. Types of DLT market infrastructures. - II.2. Financial instruments admitted under the pilot. - II.3. Amendments to the EU legal framework on financial services. - III. Obligations for DLT market infrastructures. - III.1. Obligations for DLT multilateral trading facilities. - III.2. Obligations for DLT SSs. - III.3. Obligations for DLT TSSs. - III.4. Horizontal additional requirements for DLT market infrastructures. - IV. The role of ESMA and national competent authorities. - V. Conclusions. | (Abstract) The decentralized issuance of financial instruments is presently problematic under EU law. This situation will change with the entry into force of the Regulation on a pilot regime for market infrastructures based on distributed ledger technology. The Regulation provides for a regulatory sandbox - the pilot regime - that market operators can use to test distributed ledger technologies in the financial market industry in a way compatible with EU law. While this will improve legal certainty and increase protection for consumers, it will also introduce a completely new paradigm in financial market legislation: the decentralization of financial instruments. Moreover, the Regulation imposes considerable obligations on market operators, while also granting to the European Securities and Markets Authority and national competent authorities a relevant but difficult role in overseeing and monitoring the pilot regime's development. This Insight aims to provide an overview of the novel features introduced by the Regulation and reflect on whether the legislation will favour or frustrate innovation at EU level.

Public offering (IPO) is a key mechanism in the functioning of the financial market. In the CEMAC zone, the related rules are plural and challenged by technological and financial developments such as crypto-assets. The present paper aims to demonstrate that, before the July 2022 reform of the financial market regulation, COSUMAF had a questionable legitimacy to regulate, and therefore to prohibit, fundraising involving crypto-assets. However, after this reform, the new provisions bring to the perimeter of the IPO some correctives that must nevertheless be well adjusted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study discusses the European Union's proposal for a Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets, now subject to formal approval by the European Parliament. The objective is to explore whether it will positively impact the adoption of crypto-assets in the financial sector. The use of crypto-assets is growing. However, some stakeholders in the financial service sector remain skeptical and hesitant to adopt assets that are yet to be defined and have an unclear legal status. This regulatory uncertainty has been identified as the primary reason for the reluctant adoption. The proposed regulation (part of the EU's Digital Finance Strategy) aims to provide this legal certainty for currently unregulated crypto-assets. This study investigates whether or not the proposed regulation can be expected to have the intended effect by reviewing the proposed regulation itself, the opinions and reactions of the various stakeholders, and secondary literature. Findings reveal that such regulation will most likely not accelerate the adoption of crypto-assets in the EU financial services sector, at least not sufficiently or as intended. Some suggestions are made to improve the proposal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]