LEGAL NATURE AND CLASSIFICATION OF CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE CONTRACTS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Keywords:
cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency exchange contracts, sui generis assets, commodities, digital transactionsAbstract
This study examines the legal nature and classification of cryptocurrency exchange contracts through a comparative analysis of regulatory approaches in various jurisdictions. The research employs a mixed-methods approach, combining doctrinal legal analysis with empirical data from case studies and expert interviews. The findings reveal significant variations in how different legal systems categorize and regulate cryptocurrency exchange contracts, ranging from treating them as financial instruments to classifying them as commodities or sui generis assets. The study identifies key challenges in applying traditional contract law principles to these novel digital transactions and proposes a framework for harmonizing regulatory approaches across jurisdictions. The implications of this research are far-reaching, offering valuable insights for policymakers, legal practitioners, and market participants navigating the complex landscape of cryptocurrency regulation.
References
1. Abe, T. (2018). Japan's approach to cryptocurrency regulation. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 1(2), 85-101.
2. Anderson Mori & Tomotsune. (2020). Amendments to Payment Services Act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan. Retrieved from https://www.amt-law.com/en/publications/detail/publication_0022223_en_001
3. Blandin, A., Cloots, A. S., Hussain, H., Rauchs, M., Saleuddin, R., Allen, J. G., ... & Cloud, K. (2019). Global cryptoasset regulatory landscape study. Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, 36-37.
4. Blockchain Task Force. (2018). Legal framework for distributed ledger technology and blockchain in Switzerland. Federal Council Report.
5. BaFin. (2020). Kryptowerte: BaFin veröffentlicht Merkblatt zur Erlaubnispflicht. Retrieved from https://www.bafin.de/SharedDocs/Veroeffentlichungen/DE/Meldung/2020_03_03_meldung_Kryptoverwahrgeschaeft.html
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
7. Brummer, C. (2019). Cryptoassets: Legal, Regulatory, and Monetary Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
8. CFTC v. McDonnell, 287 F. Supp. 3d 213 (E.D.N.Y. 2018).
9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
10. European Commission. (2020). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA). COM/2020/593 final.
11. FATF. (2019). Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach to Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers. FATF, Paris. Retrieved from www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/Guidance-RBA-virtual-assets.html
12. Ferrarini, G., & Giudici, P. (2020). Digital Offerings and Mandatory Disclosure: A Market-Based Critique of MiCA. European Company and Financial Law Review, 17(5), 517-547.
13. Financial Services Agency. (2017). Summary of the amended Payment Services Act. Retrieved from https://www.fsa.go.jp/en/news/2017/20170403-1.html
14. FinCEN. (2013). Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies. FIN-2013-G001.
15. Finck, M. (2018). Blockchain regulation and governance in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
16. GFIN. (2019). The Global Financial Innovation Network (GFIN). Retrieved from https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/global-financial-innovation-network
17. Houben, R., & Snyers, A. (2018). Cryptocurrencies and blockchain: Legal context and implications for financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion. European Parliament's Special Committee on Financial Crimes, Tax Evasion and Tax Avoidance.
18. Hughes, S. J., & Middlebrook, S. T. (2015). Advancing a Framework for Regulating Cryptocurrency Payments Intermediaries. Yale Journal on Regulation, 32, 495.
19. IOSCO. (2020). Investor Education on Crypto-Assets: Final Report. The Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions.
20. Maume, P., & Maute, L. (2021). The MiCA-Regulation in a Nutshell. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 4(1), 101-116.
21. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). QUANTUM SUPREMACY: EXPLORING THE DISRUPTIVE POTENTIAL OF QUANTUM COMPUTING ON CRYPTOGRAPHY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR DATA SECURITY. science, 2(1).
22. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). THE EMERGENCE OF QUANTUM LAW: NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION OF QUANTUM COMPUTING AND LEGAL THEORY. Elita. uz-Elektron Ilmiy Jurnal, 2(2), 49-63.
23. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). Quantum Computing Regulation: a Global Perspective on Balancing Innovation and Security. Journal of Intellectual Property and Human Rights, 3(8), 95-108.
24. Abdikhakimov, I. (2023). INSURANCE CONTRACTS: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES, POLICYHOLDER RIGHTS, AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTS.
25. Abdikhakimov, I. (2023, November). Superposition of Legal States: Applying Quantum Concepts to the Law. In International Conference on Legal Sciences (Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 1-9).
26. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). QUANTUM SUPREMACY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR BLOCKCHAIN REGULATION AND LEGISLATION. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 4(1), 249-254.
27. Abdikhakimov, I. (2023). Jurisdiction over Transnational Quantum Networks. International Journal of Law and Policy, 1(8).
