REGARDING THE NEED TO APPLY THE THEORY OF LEGAL FICTION WHEN DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF “CRYPTOCURRENCY”

IF 0.7 Q4 ECONOMICS
O. Podtserkovnyi, L. Mogyl
{"title":"REGARDING THE NEED TO APPLY THE THEORY OF LEGAL FICTION WHEN DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF “CRYPTOCURRENCY”","authors":"O. Podtserkovnyi, L. Mogyl","doi":"10.15407/econlaw.2023.01.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the legal analysis of the concept of cryptocurrency in the context of the need to harmonize its legal and economic characteristics. The economic content of cryptocurrencies has been studied, taking into account the fact that they were created specifically to perform economic functions — decentralized storage and circulation of value. It is substantiated that the presence of decentralized principles of cryptocurrency emission through mining and the existence of blockchain technologies and cryptographic algorithms do not allow the state to establish legal features of cryptocurrency through traditional legal forms of defining a certain subject as a means of payment. It was concluded that cryptocurrency couldn’t be defined as an intangible good, regulated by the Civil Code of Ukraine, because of the economic purpose of cryptocurrency as a means of circulation and preservation of value. It is proposed a legal approach to cryptocurrency, which would allow incorporating cryptocurrency into the national legal system and circulation operations, prevent shadow operations and the legalization of “dirty funds”. In this context, it is proposed to approach cryptocurrency as ejusdem generis, bringing the understanding of cryptocurrencies closer to other things. The possibility of recognizing of cryptocurrency as the right of claim characteristic of non-cash money is denied. Unlike electronic money, cryptocurrencies do not mediate the payment obligation and the right to demand. It was concluded that cryptocurrency should be defined, taking into account the theory of legal fiction, an interchangeable type of virtual asset in the form of an encrypted electronic record, the emission and accounting of which is performed decentralized on the basis of distributed ledger technology and cryptographic algorithms, which is an object of property rights and can perform circulation and accumulation functions.","PeriodicalId":51956,"journal":{"name":"Ekonomia i Prawo-Economics and Law","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ekonomia i Prawo-Economics and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/econlaw.2023.01.011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is devoted to the legal analysis of the concept of cryptocurrency in the context of the need to harmonize its legal and economic characteristics. The economic content of cryptocurrencies has been studied, taking into account the fact that they were created specifically to perform economic functions — decentralized storage and circulation of value. It is substantiated that the presence of decentralized principles of cryptocurrency emission through mining and the existence of blockchain technologies and cryptographic algorithms do not allow the state to establish legal features of cryptocurrency through traditional legal forms of defining a certain subject as a means of payment. It was concluded that cryptocurrency couldn’t be defined as an intangible good, regulated by the Civil Code of Ukraine, because of the economic purpose of cryptocurrency as a means of circulation and preservation of value. It is proposed a legal approach to cryptocurrency, which would allow incorporating cryptocurrency into the national legal system and circulation operations, prevent shadow operations and the legalization of “dirty funds”. In this context, it is proposed to approach cryptocurrency as ejusdem generis, bringing the understanding of cryptocurrencies closer to other things. The possibility of recognizing of cryptocurrency as the right of claim characteristic of non-cash money is denied. Unlike electronic money, cryptocurrencies do not mediate the payment obligation and the right to demand. It was concluded that cryptocurrency should be defined, taking into account the theory of legal fiction, an interchangeable type of virtual asset in the form of an encrypted electronic record, the emission and accounting of which is performed decentralized on the basis of distributed ledger technology and cryptographic algorithms, which is an object of property rights and can perform circulation and accumulation functions.
关于在定义“加密货币”概念时应用法律虚构理论的必要性
本文致力于在需要协调其法律和经济特征的背景下对加密货币概念进行法律分析。加密货币的经济内容已经被研究过,考虑到它们是专门为执行经济功能而创建的——去中心化的存储和价值流通。事实证明,通过挖矿进行加密货币发行的去中心化原则的存在,以及区块链技术和加密算法的存在,都不允许国家通过将某个主体定义为支付手段的传统法律形式来确立加密货币的法律特征。结论是,加密货币不能被定义为乌克兰民法典规定的无形商品,因为加密货币的经济目的是作为流通和保值的手段。提出了一种加密货币的法律途径,允许将加密货币纳入国家法律体系和流通业务,防止影子业务和“脏钱”合法化。在这种情况下,有人建议将加密货币视为一种公平的generes,从而使对加密货币的理解更接近于其他事物。否定了承认加密货币作为非现金货币的请求权特征的可能性。与电子货币不同,加密货币不调解支付义务和索取权。结论认为,考虑到法律虚构理论,加密货币应该被定义为一种可互换的虚拟资产,其形式是加密的电子记录,其发行和记账是在分布式账本技术和加密算法的基础上分散进行的,是产权的对象,可以执行流通和积累功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书