Cryptocurrencies: A Legal Regulatory System

[Raizen_RSA]

A system that allows you to easily regulate the cryptocurrency market and influence it thanks to the classification given by their scalability. The opportunity to be included in a different table will push programmers to adapt to the legislation. It will no longer be the right to have to adapt to information technology.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3811723

What do you think?

[aztecoin]

The proposal is very interesting, however one of the points to give more legality to the cryptocurrency market is to have a way to track transfers, the anonymity of the addresses for many is one of the problems, however I think there will be proposals such as This is to give more value and confidence to the cryptocurrency market, a good reference that you share, thank you.

[(o)(o)ilikeboobs(o)(o)]

Completing the legal system for cryptocurrencies makes it easier and more legal to use and invest in cryptocurrencies.
The legal framework for cryptocurrencies in each country will motivate developers to expand the crypto space with startup projects.
If every country all over the world accepts cryptocurrencies, then surely the market capitalization of cryptocurrencies will expand even further.

[Fesatmas]

It's not as easy as imagined, you can see this clearly, where the system and rules of each country can no longer be tolerated. because based on laws determined based on the economic needs of a particular country. and cryptocurrencies are still not given much free space. they could use a controlled system like Russia and North Korea did.
We hope that all can reduce the lack of freedom of the public in controlling economic growth in the field of cryptocurrency trading.

[Kakmakr]

I see a future where there will be a clear division between "public coins" and "gov coins" and where there will be regulation written to curb the spread of "public coins" and a "no restriction" type of regulation for "gov coins"

So you private coins will have to adhere to very strict regulations to strip all anonymity to make it legal and you will have a centralized authority handling all "gov coins" like the Central Banks. 

That us the future, where "Pseudo Anonymity" will die a quick death and most people will have to turn to dark markets to use them. 

[stompix]

A system that allows you to easily regulate the cryptocurrency market and influence it thanks to the classification given by their scalability.

I'm totally missing how you're calculating this scalability in your paper.

Since scalability is the major distinction that affects not only the usability of the cryptocurrency but
also the proof of work related to it, one could foresee:

A Table I for cryptocurrencies with a scalability of more than 2 minutes to be framed at the legislative
level as a safe haven similar to gold and a Table II with cryptocurrencies with a scalability of less than
2 minutes with an applicable legislation typical of classic financial instruments (shares, bonds , etc…).

What is this scalability of under or over two minutes?

And to be honest I really don't understand why would anyone think this is a revolutionary idea
You're basically making the same classification coinmarketcap and coingecko are doing for coins and then throwing them into categories based on simple characteristics, exactly where your paper should have researched the differences in greater detail is the place where you simply two, as a rule, the algorithm and the time between blocks.

Besides, in your comparison with drug ingredients, you're missing one fact which renders this analogy a bit troublesome, there are coins that work on a different blockchain, would you allow for example a token that has the same characteristic as an already approved one just because it runs on a chain that is outlawed?

Anyhow, this is just a 5 page paper on categorizing coins and tokens, it has, unfortunately, zero information on how exactly a regulatory system should be implemented and zero examples of those regulations. Hope this is not all you got for your final yearly thesis on some economical subject.

[franky1]

A system that allows you to easily regulate the cryptocurrency market and influence it thanks to the classification given by their scalability.

I'm totally missing how you're calculating this scalability in your paper.

Since scalability is the major distinction that affects not only the usability of the cryptocurrency but
also the proof of work related to it, one could foresee:

A Table I for cryptocurrencies with a scalability of more than 2 minutes to be framed at the legislative
level as a safe haven similar to gold and a Table II with cryptocurrencies with a scalability of less than
2 minutes with an applicable legislation typical of classic financial instruments (shares, bonds , etc…).

What is this scalability of under or over two minutes?

it about coins that have blocktimes of over 2 minutes or under two minutes
over two minutes are too long to be useful for 'cash' purchases. so the proposal is to class cryptos that take 2mins+ to confirm as 'commodity' and class coins that confirm in under 2mins as 'cash'

basically bitcoin = digital gold
crap coin= digital cash

what the topic creator does not realise by calling bitcoin a commodity is that he is too foolishly trying to put bitcoin into a classification of a golds UTILITY class and not its INVESTMENT class

bitcoin and gold should be in an investment class of ASSET
commodities are materials used to create other products.

gold sits in 2 categories.
commodity. because it can be used to make jewellery and electronic parts..
asset. because its a medium of value transfer and holding

the topic creator has wrongly chosen to identify bitcoin as having the same utility as wheat/oil/gold. not realising that golds asset classification also exists.

anyway.. all he wants to do is try classifying different coins into different utilities.. even when he seems to not understand the difference between commodity vs asset

hint: edit PDF to say asset not commodity

[Hydrogen]

A system that allows you to easily regulate the cryptocurrency market and influence it thanks to the classification given by their scalability. The opportunity to be included in a different table will push programmers to adapt to the legislation. It will no longer be the right to have to adapt to information technology.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3811723

What do you think?

Ethereum can be easily regulated.

It was designed from the onset to allow for massive and widespread changes in its function. Last month vitalik vuterin announced sweeping alterations to eth's algorithms for handling fees.

Ethereum Cofounder Reveals How Radical Upgrade Could Challenge Bitcoin For Crypto Price Dominance

Now, a proposed upgrade to the ethereum blockchain that will destroy (or "burn") ether tokens could mean ethereum becomes more "sound" than bitcoin, according to ethereum cofounder Vitalik Buterin.

Ethereum's upgrade, known as EIP-1559 and part of a broader move toward ethereum 2.0, will see the network's current transaction-fee system overhauled, with users sending a fee to the network itself instead of the so-called miners that maintain the network. These fees will then be burned, reducing the overall ether supply—something that is itself a controversial topic among the cryptocurrency community.

"If bitcoin and its fixed supply is sound money, then if you have a decreasing supply, does that make [ethereum] ultrasound money," asked Buterin, speaking on a recent episode of the Tim Ferriss Show podcast alongside tech investor Naval Ravikant. "Sound money" refers to a currency's stability and utility as a store of value.

While Buterin called the question a "joke" he went on to explain that there's a distinct possibility the radical upgrade to the ethereum network, approved by developers last week and expected to be deployed in July, could result in the ethereum supply shrinking.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2021/03/12/ethereum-cofounder-reveals-how-radical-upgrade-could-challenge-bitcoin-for-crypto-price-dominance/

Eth could increase its supply one day. And decrease it the next. Its virtually identical to fiat in that regard. Which is why eth may never be considered a true inflation protected asset.

Bitcoin however would be more difficult to regulate in a similar fashion due to its technical design. Which greatly limits the degree to which regulation is possible. "Easy" bitcoin regulation is a somewhat contradictory term. It sounds like the title of a book. "Easy bitcoin regulation in 21 steps for dummies." Part of the reason bitcoin utilizes a decentralized design is the concept that decentralization will make it more difficult to regulate beneath a centralized authority. The claim of "easy" regulation alone makes the entire paper suspect IMO.

[franky1]

regulations can regulate <anything> because it doesnt actually set laws on the <anything> it regulates how people handle the <anything>

never think that regulations are impossible because of bitcoins tech.. because its never about bitcoins tech. its about the people using it.

beer bottles and cannabis plants have no eyes ears or brain to understand government laws.. so government dont aim regulations/laws at the 'product'. they aim it at the humans using it

laws cannot tell bitcoin its an asset rather than a currency. but it can inform devs, fund managers, exchanges  to treat it as an asset or currency for their own tax return declarations

and yes people do get arrested for handling things they are not supposed to. or fined for things they didnt declare when they should have

[Argoo]

I see a future where there will be a clear division between "public coins" and "gov coins" and where there will be regulation written to curb the spread of "public coins" and a "no restriction" type of regulation for "gov coins"

So you private coins will have to adhere to very strict regulations to strip all anonymity to make it legal and you will have a centralized authority handling all "gov coins" like the Central Banks. 

That us the future, where "Pseudo Anonymity" will die a quick death and most people will have to turn to dark markets to use them. 

It is quite possible that it will be so. Over time, states will strengthen the legal regulation of cryptocurrencies. Especially general purpose coins, the main function of which is their use as a means of payment. Tokens serving a specific type of business should be less heavily regulated. And private and commercial stablecoins, which use the currencies of states as collateral, may eventually be banned altogether, since they will directly compete with the digitized currencies of these states.

[so98nn]

The economic flow should not be controlled if crypto space is regulated because it will demise it's nature that is "decentralisation". Truly speaking crypto-currencies whole existence is because of that only. People love to trade it, people love to hold it, people love to invest in it BUT people don't want it to be controlled by any external body except "people" themselves. So though this concept outlays the positive outlook for the regulatory system of crypto currency then also it's not perfect in itself. It should follow the above written thumb rule so as to keep things running smoothly. The day crypto assets are controlled by lets say government then there is no difference between dust and gold! 

[GeorgeJohn]

Cryptocurrency regulations can only occur in the country when government is working hand to hand with cryptocurrency, which can be a part of elevation from the country economy, from what I captured concerning regulations of crypto is determined by the country mindset of management, so regulations differs, some countries like China who adventure into crypto, I think they making well concerning it, only thing we need for boost of economy is concentration, strategy, plan's.

[Ryker1]

Well, in my opinion --the idea is terrific, the potential is high. However, it would remove the main essence of cryptocurrency and the reason it was made.
The reason why cryptocurrency worked is that it was able to resolve problems we had before, which are centralization, high taxes, provide users to become anonymous, transact freely, potential investment. Like not everyone gives a damn with the government and be controlled. It is too unfair as well if legislation will only be applied today, newcomers won’t feel the reason why they have to move to cryptocurrency. So good luck with this idea and hopefully this will work soon.

[stompix]

it about coins that have blocktimes of over 2 minutes or under two minutes
over two minutes are too long to be useful for 'cash' purchases. so the proposal is to class cryptos that take 2mins+ to confirm as 'commodity' and class coins that confirm in under 2mins as 'cash'

And here you go again...
What has the scalability to do with the current block time?
Scalability as far as any dictionary is concerned is the ability to grow or to expand, and that ability is in all the coins, all coins can change their time block or the block size, the word you were trying to use was something else but it's nothing new, confused as always.

Well, in my opinion --the idea is terrific, the potential is high.

What terrific idea, did you even read that proposal?  

The economic flow should not be controlled if crypto space is regulated because it will demise it's nature that is "decentralisation". Truly speaking crypto-currencies whole existence is because of that only. People love to trade it, people love to hold it, people love to invest in it BUT people don't want it to be controlled by any external body except "people" themselves.

In the economy, regulations don't necessarily mean centralization.
Regulation can occur even for decentralized environments and business types, for example in our family business in the farm and meat industry, we have hundreds and thousands of regulations, we must obey standards but there is no central point that directs our business flow, we buy supplies from who we want and we sell it to whom we want, that's a free market economy yet a regulated one. Usually, the confusion for this attack on decentralization appears when people are wrongfully demanding that even actions that involve crypto should not be regulated which would be impossible.

[int03h]

Regulations will benefit the cryptocurrency. The first is trust and there are more transparent projects. The cash flow will flow into cryptocurrencies on a more frequent basis, which means that the overall market cap will increase continuously.
I want the government not to apply securities laws to cryptocurrencies. The current adoption of cryptocurrencies is quite good.

[el kaka22]

Regulations will benefit the cryptocurrency. The first is trust and there are more transparent projects. The cash flow will flow into cryptocurrencies on a more frequent basis, which means that the overall market cap will increase continuously.
I want the government not to apply securities laws to cryptocurrencies. The current adoption of cryptocurrencies is quite good.

I think regulations will not help at all but legality will help and regulations means legality and that is why people like it. If we didn't mix regulations with legality we would know what we are getting with regulations.

For example, Texas confirms crypto payments and crypto as a whole, Ohio does as well, Miami does too, these are all states or cities that accept bitcoin as legal tender and do not have extra regulations than anything else, that helped bitcoin to grow in those places, whereas New York has regulations and made it legal as well but most New York based companies left as soon as that happened, why? Because it was such harsh regulations that it would not make any business sense to stay there, which means you can make it legal with regulations but if your regulations are horrible you might as well just banned it and it would be the same.

[Theb]

5.Solution

Given  the  obvious  similarity  between  drugs  and  cryptocurrency,  an  identical  classification  system  could be applied to decide on the nature of the cryptocurrency and consequently on the applicable legislation. Since scalability is the major distinction that affects not only the usability of the cryptocurrency but also the proof of work related to it, one could foresee

I bet the government wouldn't go this far in terms of classifying cryptocurrencies. Simply what I have been seeing so far is the general classification of cryptocurrencies which is Utility and Securities and thus these classifications affect what laws are covered with them and in other countries they have these similar classification only difference is the terms they are using. Why they won't classify cryptocurrencies in terms of their scalability? I believe that it won't come to this point as there is simply hundreds of cryptocurrencies the population can choose from and other payment methods that I don't think that it will come to a point that scalibility will be a big issue for the cryptocurrencies being used in a mode of transaction.

[slapper]

I see a future where there will be a clear division between "public coins" and "gov coins" and where there will be regulation written to curb the spread of "public coins" and a "no restriction" type of regulation for "gov coins"

So you private coins will have to adhere to very strict regulations to strip all anonymity to make it legal and you will have a centralized authority handling all "gov coins" like the Central Banks. 

That us the future, where "Pseudo Anonymity" will die a quick death and most people will have to turn to dark markets to use them. 

Not likely. There will be countries allowing people to buy and sell coins without having any strict regulation. I believe most centralized exchanges will choose to move their headquarters there. Swap, Dex, Defi are also created for freedom, decentralization, and security. And above all, the willingness of the people can make the government loosen the laws they impose on cryptocurrency. Nonetheless, Tax is mandatory. It is needed in order to develop a country. If you are an exemplary citizen, you should not avoid tax 100%. 50% is good, I guess

[Raizen_RSA]

A system that allows you to easily regulate the cryptocurrency market and influence it thanks to the classification given by their scalability.

I'm totally missing how you're calculating this scalability in your paper.

Since scalability is the major distinction that affects not only the usability of the cryptocurrency but
also the proof of work related to it, one could foresee:

A Table I for cryptocurrencies with a scalability of more than 2 minutes to be framed at the legislative
level as a safe haven similar to gold and a Table II with cryptocurrencies with a scalability of less than
2 minutes with an applicable legislation typical of classic financial instruments (shares, bonds , etc…).

What is this scalability of under or over two minutes?

it about coins that have blocktimes of over 2 minutes or under two minutes
over two minutes are too long to be useful for 'cash' purchases. so the proposal is to class cryptos that take 2mins+ to confirm as 'commodity' and class coins that confirm in under 2mins as 'cash'

basically bitcoin = digital gold
crap coin= digital cash

what the topic creator does not realise by calling bitcoin a commodity is that he is too foolishly trying to put bitcoin into a classification of a golds UTILITY class and not its INVESTMENT class

bitcoin and gold should be in an investment class of ASSET
commodities are materials used to create other products.

gold sits in 2 categories.
commodity. because it can be used to make jewellery and electronic parts..
asset. because its a medium of value transfer and holding

the topic creator has wrongly chosen to identify bitcoin as having the same utility as wheat/oil/gold. not realising that golds asset classification also exists.

anyway.. all he wants to do is try classifying different coins into different utilities.. even when he seems to not understand the difference between commodity vs asset

hint: edit PDF to say asset not commodity

It is impossible to give a one-to-one classification to a single product... It is much easier to define specific categories and base yourself on the only discriminant that unites all cryptocurrencies: the transaction speed.

For drugs it is the power of the psychotropic effect that classifies them as a "health product" (morphine) or as a drug (cocaine).

If you have a SURE classification system you can push programmers to build specific operating protocols so that a crypto is considered a commodity, money, bond, derivative.

If I want my crypto to be a commodity by law I will program it as Bitcoin. If I want it to be a bond by law I will program it as Ripple.

Yes ... it's only six pages but the Bitcoin white paper has 9 pages.

The blockchain works with the asymmetric signature. A system that has existed long before the whitepaper.

A simple solution to a simple technology is the best thing to have legal certainty and to allow the law to influence information technology and not vice versa.

I'm not saying that the parameters have to be what I say (more than two minutes, less than two minutes, only three tables etc ...) but that relying on a table system is the best way to be sure not to do the end that Ripple risked having with the SEC.

[Raizen_RSA]

A system that allows you to easily regulate the cryptocurrency market and influence it thanks to the classification given by their scalability.

I'm totally missing how you're calculating this scalability in your paper.

Since scalability is the major distinction that affects not only the usability of the cryptocurrency but
also the proof of work related to it, one could foresee:

A Table I for cryptocurrencies with a scalability of more than 2 minutes to be framed at the legislative
level as a safe haven similar to gold and a Table II with cryptocurrencies with a scalability of less than
2 minutes with an applicable legislation typical of classic financial instruments (shares, bonds , etc…).

What is this scalability of under or over two minutes?

And to be honest I really don't understand why would anyone think this is a revolutionary idea
You're basically making the same classification coinmarketcap and coingecko are doing for coins and then throwing them into categories based on simple characteristics, exactly where your paper should have researched the differences in greater detail is the place where you simply two, as a rule, the algorithm and the time between blocks.

Besides, in your comparison with drug ingredients, you're missing one fact which renders this analogy a bit troublesome, there are coins that work on a different blockchain, would you allow for example a token that has the same characteristic as an already approved one just because it runs on a chain that is outlawed?

Anyhow, this is just a 5 page paper on categorizing coins and tokens, it has, unfortunately, zero information on how exactly a regulatory system should be implemented and zero examples of those regulations. Hope this is not all you got for your final yearly thesis on some economical subject.

the Bitcoin whitepaper has only 9 pages.

Read it might help you

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf