Comprehensive сlassification of virtual assets

Background: One of the problems of the modern lawmakers in different countries is that they try to regulate an object before they study the nature of its origin, which, logically, entails many errors regarding its definition in the legal framework. The absence of unified definitions and clear classification of virtual assets as tools for implementing the methods of financial and management accounting of property according to their fundamental and unique features makes it nearly impossible to determine the features of virtual assets important for legal regulation and, therefore, to enshrine them in laws and establish a proper legal framework. The paper is dedicated to solving a relevant and cross-discipline scientific and applied task of developing a comprehensive multilevel classification of virtual assets. Unlike the few existing classifications that focus on parts of the virtual asset phenomenon and selective methods of its implementation, the paper proposes an all-encompassing comparison of all known types of virtual assets, which confirms the comprehensiveness of the classification proposed in this paper. Purpose: To develop and substantiate a comprehensive and multilevel classification of known types of virtual assets, which allows solving the cross-discipline scientific and applied task of systematizing virtual assets for future development of a single approach to regulating relations, the objects of which are different types of virtual assets. Materials and Methods: In order to study the nature of virtual assets and develop a comprehensive classification, a set of scientific research methods has been used: analysis, including cause and effect analysis, synthesis, comparison, generalization, systematization and interpretation of results and induction. Results: The author describes a triune nature of virtual assets: technological, economic and legal, information and applied. This classification of virtual assets will allow determining promising tools for accounting of property and rights. Unlike other known approaches to differentiating virtual assets, where crypto-assets (or cryptocurrencies) were unjustified “leaders”, the author has distinguished the group of tokenized assets for the first time. This particular group, due to its direct relation to property, allows performing accounting as well as reaccounting of property and rights in modern digital accounting systems – decentralized information platforms based on the distributed ledger technology (blockchain), whereas this accounting cannot be performed using crypto-assets due to absence of direct relation to property. Out of virtual assets, the author distinguishes a digital asset and analyzes the semantic features of the term “digital asset”. The digital asset is based on a unique information resource as the original asset and on the property of derivativeness from the real asset, which greatly differentiates it from other types of virtual assets. All of that allows considering it as an effective tool for implementing the methods of financial and management accounting of property. Thus, owners of digital assets can use the new way of accounting of their property and personal non-property rights. Based on the properties of a digital asset, the author distinguishes other types of virtual assets: polyasset and monoasset, with the relevant examples. The author provides the characteristics of their features and structural components while comparing them to the features of digital assets and giving clear and well-known financial and legal analogies regarding the implementation of mutual obligations between parties to a traditional deal. The paper also contains the first systematization of seven properties and parameters of a tokenized asset and, therefore, description of properties of three variations of a tokenized asset: monoasset, polyasset and digital asset. This allowed presenting the varieties of virtual assets as a three-level classification based on the complexity of the nature of virtual assets. The author’s classification distinguishes seven types of virtual assets and contains their description. Conclusions: Overall, the proposed approach to classification allows giving a scientific answer to the question of how to compare the multitude of known virtual assets and how to relate them to the legal framework of a state. These developments will be useful for legislators in basically every country, financial, tax and banking state bodies, as well as private companies when keeping books and performing accounting of virtual assets in their business activity.