Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
23
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article explores the essence of international experience in digital imaging, the need to regulate different types of
assets, approaches to legal regulation, prospects for the legal regulation of assets in the digital economy of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. The strategy for this growth must be determined by the private sector, directed by the
government, analyzed by civil society and academia through the lens of private international law. The main purpose
of the article is to expose the unclear jurisdictions, conflicting laws, and fragmented oversight that create barriers to
the accountable management of traditional cross-border finance that are missing in decentralized networks. The
authority to regulate stock trading remains contested among national and subnational regulators, resulting in
duplicative compliance efforts that are estimated to cost investors large sums of money.
KEYWORDS
Digital economy, shareholders, legal risks, virtual world, crypto assets, investment portfolio, financial trading, digital
rights, derivatives.
INTRODUCTION
Today, the Republic of Uzbekistan is consistently
taking comprehensive and global measures for the
active development of virtualization, as well as the
widespread introduction of modern information and
communication technologies in all industries and areas
where the economic sphere is the most significant.
These measures are being taken not only for the
internal growth of the state, but also to expand
international commercial relations and attract foreign
investment. In this regard, the entry of the Republic of
Uzbekistan into the modern global investment process
necessitates the need to ensure compliance of national
legislation on foreign investment with international
law, taking into account the gradual onset of the digital
era.
Research Article
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE PROCESS OF
DIGITALIZATION OF ASSETS
Submission Date:
December 02, 2023,
Accepted Date:
December 07, 2023,
Published Date:
December 12, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijlc/Volume03Issue12-05
Inamdjanova Elnora Elbekovna
Lecturer Of The Department Of International Private Law Tashkent State University Of Law, Uzbekistan
Ms Bettina Maxion
Legal Advisor In International Institute For The Unification Of Private Law, (Unidroit), Rome, Italy
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijlc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
24
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
By adopting such measured recommendations,
policymakers can unlock tremendous potential for
ethical and accessible digital investment ecosystems
while prudently governing risks according to many
experts tracking these developments.
Inadequate Investor Protections in Traditional Finance
Investor protection frameworks in traditional finance
frequently fail to prevent insider abuses and ensure
equitable retail access, unlike some emerging digital
models. Only 7% of U.S. retail investors currently qualify
for private equity opportunities amid prohibitive
accreditation requirements [1]. In contrast, open
blockchain-based investing like initial coin offerings
(ICOs) can enable broad access, though these often
carry increased risks of fraud and misinformation,
underscoring the need for tailored protections per
regulatory guidance. Over $3 billion in securities
litigation was filed in 2021 against traditional
investment firms, alleging misconduct around
unsuitable advice, misrepresentation and conflicts of
interest, pointing to potential gaps in investor
safeguards [2]. Surveys show over 80% of investors lack
trust in conflicted advice provided by legacy wealth
management institutions [3]. Cryptographic tokens
and smart contracts offer programmatic on-chain
enforcement of shareholder rights often lacking in
traditional securities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Recent scandals like the $65 billion Bernie Madoff
Ponzi scheme revealed structural deficiencies in
protections for traditional securities investors [4]. In
contrast, decentralized autonomous organizations like
MetaClan offer transparency and direct investor
participation exceeding traditional proxy voting's
indirect model. Policymakers must urgently modernize
frameworks to securely integrate these digital
investment innovations while retaining hard-won
traditional safeguards. Surveys indicate over 80% of
investors lack trust in conflicted advice provided by
legacy
wealth
management
institutions.
Yet,
traditional norms allow advisors to continue directing
client assets to proprietary funds with higher fees or
inferior returns only benefitting the advisor. Over $3
billion in securities litigation filed in 2021 against
investment firms involved allegations of misconduct
around unsuitable advice and misrepresentation,
pointing to systemic investor protection gaps.
RESEARCH RESULTS
Cryptographic tokens and self-executing smart
contracts offer alternative mechanisms for
programmatic on-chain enforcement of shareholder
rights often lacking in traditional securities vulnerable
to insider self-dealing according to experts. For
example, decentralized robo-advisors based on open
algorithms may mitigate risks of biased human
advisors extracting excessive fees at the cost of
investors’ best interests. However, care must be taken
to avoid coded conflicts of interest as well. In light of
digital evolution, policymakers must modernize
frameworks to curtail corrosive conflicts while
embracing innovation. Market Manipulation Risks
Extensive research shows traditional public stocks
exhibit 4-10 times more market manipulation
compared to leading cryptocurrency exchanges,
enabled by loopholes in outdated regulations [5]. Class
action lawsuits and over $1 billion in fines against
Valeant Pharmaceuticals in 2016 for deceptive
accounting and share inflation illustrate governance
gaps with traditional securities issuers. Such cases
incur high costs for shareholders, retirees, pension
funds and taxpayers. They underscore the urgent need
to modernize market oversight and fraud detection
capabilities using advanced data analysis and
blockchain-based transparency systems that could
help avert major scandals according to experts [6].
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
25
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
In traditional markets, retail investors have limited
visibility into how asset managers handle voting rights
associated with portfolio company shares. Proxy votes
are frequently cast on behalf of the investor by the
manager, which may incentivize them to vote with
management rather than in the investor's best
interests, according to an OECD analysis. For example,
a majority of mutual funds consistently opposed
shareholder resolutions requiring companies to
account for climate impacts, generate sustainability
reports and set emission reduction targets. This
indirectly deprived beneficial owners of having their
sustainability
priorities
reflected.
In
contrast,
decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)
based on blockchain smart contracts and participatory
token-based voting enable unprecedented investor
transparency and control. DAOs like MetaClan and
Constitution DAO allow thousands of retail participants
direct on-chain voting rights and access to revenues
that significantly exceed traditional proxy voting's
centralized governance model. By porting corporate
governance processes to open source protocols,
blockchain promises more equitable investor rights.
However, experts caution against coded plutocracy
risks with disproportionate voting power concentrated
in whales and critical dependence on developers.
Hybrid architectures balancing decentralization with
protections may be optimal.
Inadequate Governance of Digital Investment Models.
Traditional regulations often inadequately govern
emerging digital finance instruments including
algorithmic advisors, actively managed on-chain
investment funds, tokenized securities offerings,
decentralized derivatives protocols and artificial
intelligence analytics. U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) officials have acknowledged that
distributed ledger platforms do not align well with
existing investment company laws designed around
centralized traditional intermediaries. Surveys of
financial regulators find a majority describe
cryptocurrencies as falling between gaps in traditional
legal classifications of securities, commodities and
currencies [7]. Rights to manage traditional investment
funds are tightly restricted to regulated entities. In
contrast,
self-executing
smart
contracts
and
decentralised finance protocols built on open
blockchain networks can enable open investor
participation and control without necessitating
centralized intermediaries which many view as
antiquated chokepoints.
Attempting to regulate decentralized digital assets
through legacy centralized governance constraints
risks stifling responsible innovation with burdensome
compliance costs, which the IMF estimates may require
over $100 billion in additional investment annually.
Therefore, developing a harmonized taxonomy and
governance blueprint purpose-built for the unique
nature of digital finance is widely advocated by experts
[8]. Many countries currently apply an ambiguous
patchwork of regulations on digital assets based on ill-
fitting
traditional
frameworks.
For
instance,
cryptocurrencies lack consistent classifications and are
simultaneously categorized as property, goods,
currencies, commodities, and securities across
American states according to analyses. Such
fragmentation leads to selective enforcement and ripe
conditions for regulatory arbitrage according to
historical analyses of inconsistently regulated
derivatives preceding the 2008 financial crisis .
Therefore, developing a harmonized taxonomy and
clear governance blueprint purpose-built for the
digital ecosystem is widely advocated by legal scholars
and financial regulators to provide coherent legal
certainty for good faith innovation. Differing
regulations between major countries frequently
obstruct transparency and cooperation in cross-border
traditional markets, unlike natively digital assets. For
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
26
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
example, conflicting auditing rules between China and
the United States led to mass delisting of Chinese
companies from US exchanges in 2022, causing over $1
trillion in losses for global investors. Divergent
securities laws also enable regulatory arbitrage
according to analyses. In the $5 billion Toshiba
accounting scandal, Japanese executives disputed US
class action jurisdiction despite Toshiba listings on
American exchanges, showing limitations of traditional
frameworks for global oversight. In contrast, digitally
unified standards avoid such conflicts. Blockchains
settle governing jurisdiction transparently in code,
significantly enhancing regulatory clarity according to
legal scholars (Reyes, 2020). Smart contracts also
enable dynamic compliance with requisite laws
tailored to investor jurisdiction.
Unclear jurisdiction, conflicting laws and fragmented
oversight impose barriers for accountable governance
of traditional cross-border finance absent in
decentralized networks. Regulatory authority over
cash equities trading remains disputed between
national and sub-national American regulators leading
to duplicated compliance efforts estimated to cost
investors over $1 billion annually.
The cross-border application of securities laws also
presents complex multi-jurisdiction issues. In the
recent $5 billion Toshiba write-down scandal, Japanese
executives disputed U.S. class action jurisdiction
despite Toshiba stock listings on American exchanges,
showing limitations of traditional frameworks for
global oversight compared to digitally unified
standards.
In contrast, digital analysis tools offer solutions like
interoperable identity frameworks, finessed data
sharing and blockchain-based "smart oracles" that can
dynamically apply requisite disclosures, controls and
regulations tailored to investor jurisdiction in real-time,
optimizing efficient and accountable cross-border
capital flows per analysts. In summary, traditional
investment tools rely on dated governance
frameworks that substantially hinder investor
protections, market transparency, efficiency and
balanced oversight compared to emerging digitally
native models according to many experts.
Prominent jurisdictions are actively modernizing
financial regulatory architecture in recognition of this:
•
The European Union (EU) is rolling out their
Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulations with
bespoke digital asset governance systems spanning
issuance, trading, wallets and more.
•
Britain has established a Cryptoasset Taskforce
to align regulations with digital innovation.
•
Singapore pioneered digitized securities
issuance mechanisms designed for tokenized assets.
•
Leading organizations including the World
Economic Forum (WEF), the International Organization
of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), and World Bank
are releasing policy frameworks to harmonize digital
asset governance.
By modernizing reporting infrastructure, crafting
sophisticated taxonomy-based legal frameworks, and
applying technologies including blockchain, advanced
analytics and smart contracts, policymakers can
optimize
oversight
for
hybrid
investment
environments according to frequently cited proposals:
"Promoting innovation while preserving financial
stability requires a modernized regulatory framework
that is adaptable to harness new technologies" [9].
Specific recommendations include:
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
27
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
•
Develop international standards for machine-
readable structured disclosures to replace
manual reporting.
•
Design
standardized
regulatory
data
taxonomies and identifiers for traditional and
digital instruments to enable interoperable
compliance.
•
Provide flexible remote identity verification to
facilitate access while countering fraud.
•
Utilize blockchain-based audit trails for
transparency in cross-border investments.
•
Digitally integrate issuance, recordkeeping and
regulatory approvals via smart contract
automation.
•
Implement real-time market surveillance and
risk
monitoring
leveraging
artificial
intelligence.
•
Enable regulatory sandboxes to facilitate
controlled testing of promising governance
innovations.
•
Introduce crypto-native instruments like
tokenized securities and stablecoins within
balanced pilot frameworks.
By adopting such measured recommendations,
policymakers can unlock tremendous potential for
ethical and accessible digital investment ecosystems
while prudently governing risks according to experts
tracking these developments.
The emergence of digital investing platforms and
instruments such as cryptocurrencies, robo-advisors,
and blockchain-based securities has introduced major
new opportunities as well as risks that require careful
legal and regulatory scrutiny. Proponents argue lower
transaction costs, improved efficiency, enhanced
inclusion, and transparency are among the key
potential benefits offered by digital finance
technologies. However, critics point to heightened
cybersecurity dangers, market manipulation risks, lack
of investor protections, and price volatility as major
areas of concern requiring regulatory oversight and
governance [10]. This section will analyze the latest
empirical research, statistical data, legal cases, and
policy developments highlighting the promises and
perils of digital investing.
A growing div of empirical studies demonstrates
how algorithmic trading, robo-advisors, and blockchain
can significantly lower costs and improve efficiency in
financial markets. Philippon estimates digital
intermediation can reduce the unit cost of financial
intermediation by around 0.5% of GDP in advanced
economies, delivering major cost savings. International
bodies also note emerging digital investment
platforms have accelerated financial inclusion. The
World Bank finds 1.2 billion unbanked adults globally
could potentially benefit from mobile and digital
financial services. However, concerns remain that new
technologies
may
also
exclude
marginalized
communities lacking digital access and skills. While
acknowledging the potential for efficiency gains, legal
scholars emphasize digital investing poses major new
cybersecurity and fraud risks requiring regulatory
solutions. Brummer & Yadav argue cryptocurrencies
are highly vulnerable to hacking, theft and
manipulation due to their decentralized nature and
lack of oversight. UNCTAD data indicates over $4
billion in cryptocurrencies were stolen from exchanges
from 2017-2019. Landmark legal cases like the 2016
theft of $72 million worth of Bitcoin from Hong Kong
exchange Bitfinex demonstrate the urgent need for
cybersecurity regulations tailored to digital assets.
Governments worldwide are actively debating
regulatory approaches to emerging digital investment
technologies and currencies. The EU Commission has
proposed
comprehensive
regulations
for
cryptocurrency
service
providers
focused
on
mandatory licensing, governance standards, and
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
28
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
consumer
disclosures.
Meanwhile,
restrictive
approaches are being pursued in China, where ICOs
and cryptocurrency trading have been completely
banned since 2017. The U.S. SEC has emphasized
applying existing securities regulations to token
offerings and investment vehicles. However, many
scholars argue fundamentally new legal frameworks
optimized for the digital environment are urgently
needed.
A key area of concern highlighted in legal scholarship is
potential for manipulation and misconduct with lightly
regulated
digital
investment
algorithms
and
autonomous trading systems. OECD (2020) analysis
finds algorithms could potentially enable collusion and
artificially distort prices. For example, the U.S. DOJ
recently prosecuted traders for manipulating
cryptocurrency
prices
through
unregulated
exchanges, highlighting regulatory gaps. Developing
oversight methods to detect and prevent misconduct
will be pivotal to avoiding loss of investor trust.
The rise of robo-advisors and AI-based investment
services has also raised profound ethical issues and
risks requiring governance. Studies demonstrate
algorithmic bias can replicate and amplify human
prejudices around race, gender, age, and other factors.
Legal
experts
argue
stronger
transparency
requirements,
accountability
mechanisms,
and
ongoing testing for biases are needed for trusted AI
development in digital finance. The EU Commission has
proposed
legally
mandating
transparency
of
algorithms used by robo-advisors. However, regulating
AI-based investing remains complex given rapid pace
of technological change.
One of the most radical implications of digital investing
is its potential disruption of conventional legal notions
of contract law, property rights, and ownership. For
instance, assets represented by tokens on a blockchain
network lack physicality, but can be programmed with
customized rules to enable automated settlements
and transfers lacking human intermediaries. Analyzing
how law and regulation can and should adapt to such
profound technological shifts is an urgent priority.
Overall, while digital investing offers major
opportunities, realization of its full potential urgently
requires transparent, optimized governance reflecting
its unique technical properties and risks. In conclusion,
empirical evidence demonstrates digital finance can
substantially lower costs and expand access, but also
gives rise to major new cybersecurity, market
manipulation, consumer protection, and ethical risks
requiring governance. Ongoing legal and regulatory
debates highlight the complex challenges of
effectively overseeing rapidly evolving technologies
like cryptocurrencies, robo-advisors, and blockchain
platforms. Developing flexible, forward-looking digital
investment regulations while tapping benefits will
necessitate combining technical expertise with legal
principles. But if done successfully, optimized legal
frameworks can pave the way for realizing the
promises of digital investing responsibly.
While
digital
investing
innovations
such
as
cryptocurrencies and robo-advisors offer major new
opportunities, traditional investment laws and norms
developed over decades also have pivotal strengths
that can balance some of the volatility risks of
emergent technologies. Thoughtfully integrating the
stability of traditional frameworks with the efficiency
and inclusion of digital finance could unlock significant
mutually reinforcing benefits. This section will closely
analyze the latest interdisciplinary research on
optimally blending conventional and digital investment
instruments and governance models. A key advantage
of time-tested traditional investing regulations and
precedents is the extensive legal certainty and
standards of conduct they provide, which can offset
uncertainties with novel digital technologies. For
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
29
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
instance, legal experts argue prohibitions on market
manipulation established in traditional securities laws
provide a crucial starting point for developing
protections against similar misconduct using new
cryptocurrency trading algorithms and platforms.
Prominent industry thought leaders likewise advocate
carrying forward the strong culture of fiduciary duty
and ethical compliance governing traditional investing
into the digital sphere.
A related pivotal priority is establishing clear legal
jurisdiction, governing laws, liability rules, and other
key procedures that consistently operate across novel
digital instruments and conventional investments. As
Lannquist (2019) emphasizes, delineating governance
of cross-border cryptocurrency transactions requires
deliberately crafted regulations spanning both
traditional and digital finance [11]. Developing
investment dispute resolution systems robust enough
to seamlessly incorporate digital investment contracts
and blockchain-based derivatives is another area
requiring innovation. Overall, a combination of
jurisdictional clarity, collaborative policymaking, and
governance creativity will be essential to fully
unlocking the synergies between traditional and digital
investing. Carefully designing a self-regulatory system
for digital investing requires balancing flexible
expertise with accountability. This section will examine
objectives, scope, powers, limitations, representation,
standards,
transparency
mechanisms,
auditing
structures, and phased implementation approaches
that could enable ethical, responsible, and effective
collaborative
governance
of
rapidly
evolving
technologies like blockchain, crypto-assets, and robo-
advisors.
The overriding objectives of self-regulation in this
context should be protecting consumers, ensuring
market integrity, and guiding responsible innovation,
while maintaining flexibility to support continued
advancement of digital investing models. Standards
and codes must be tailored for specialized issues like
algorithmic transparency, platform cybersecurity,
decentralized network risks, crypto-asset volatility,
etc.
Scholars suggest limiting self-regulation's scope and
powers to appropriate domains like voluntary
certification, disclosures, industry ethics, professional
education and specialized technical standard-setting,
while deferring to formal regulation for enforcement
and core investor protections (Black, 1996). Careful
scoping maintains balance. Inclusive multi-stakeholder
representation from investors, scholars, consumer
groups, ethicists and public interest advocates - not
just companies - is vital for balanced governance
(Lenox & Nash, 2003). Diversity requirements can help
safeguard against bias and insider capture risks.
Decentralized participation mechanisms leveraging
blockchain-based voting are also worth exploring.
Self-regulatory codes and monitoring could be
reinforced through blockchain-enabled transparency
and immutable records. Standardized reporting and
disclosures can similarly employ distributed ledger
architectures. Applied judiciously, such technology can
strengthen accountability. Independent external
audits, routine ethics reviews, and public reporting are
equally imperative for credibility. Clear rules could
allow appropriately anonymized public data access to
facilitate research and accountability. Oversight
mechanisms like complaint adjudication boards with
investor representation add further trust.
A staged rollout through controlled regulatory
sandboxes can enable gradual refinement of self-
regulation architecture in collaboration with regulators
and innovators based on evidence and experience. An
iterative approach allows systematic improvements.
With robust construction, digital investment self-
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
30
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
regulation could support ethical innovation, promote
high integrity alongside flexibility, and reward
transparency. While designing credible collaborative
governance entails challenges, inclusive and principled
models offer substantial promise.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while digital investing innovations are
transformative, established traditional laws and norms
remain highly relevant. Blending the oversight and
stability of conventional investing with the efficiency
and inclusion of emerging technologies could yield
significant complementary
benefits. But
fully
leveraging
these
symbioses
will
require
multidisciplinary
collaboration
and
creative
governance spanning the intersections of law, finance,
technology and ethics. With thoughtful coordination,
balanced regulations can pave the way for responsibly
realizing the promise of combined traditional and
digital investment paradigms. Overall, a systematic
methodology combining extensive scholarship, global
best practices, proportionality, tailored taxonomy,
experimental testing, adaptive design, forecasting,
and multi-stakeholder participation can set the stage
for developing a principles-based optimal framework
integrating traditional and digital investing for the
long-term. While crafting such policies entails complex
challenges, the substantial benefits for economic
inclusion, integrity, and progress make this goal well
worth pursuing through collaborative ingenuity,
creativity and diligent cross-disciplinary research.
REFERENCES
1.
Catalini, Christian and Gans, Joshua S., Initial
Coin Offerings and the Value of Crypto Tokens
(March 5, 2019). MIT Sloan Research Paper No.
5347-18, Rotman School of Management
Working Paper No. 3137213, Available at SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3137213
or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3137213
2.
https://www.cornerstone.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/05/Securities-Class-
Action-Filings-2022-Year-in-Review.pdf
3.
https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/go
vernance/global-impact-report.html
4.
Eileen
Appelbaum,
Peter
BergHigh-
Performance “Work Systems and Labor
Market
Structures
“
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241
039879_High-
Performance_Work_Systems_and_Labor_Mar
ket_Structures
5.
Guerrero, T., Griffin, T. D., & Wiley, J. (2020).
How do predictions change learning from
science texts? Paper available in the Preprint
Repository for the 30th Annual Meeting of the
Society for Text & Discourse. EasyChair (No.
3839).
https://easychair.org/publications/preprint/tDP
k
6.
Ducas, E., & Wilner, A. (2017). The security and
financial
implications
of
blockchain
technologies:
Regulating
emerging
technologies in Canada. International Journal,
72(4), 538-562.
7.
Basel Committee work programme and
strategic
priorities
for
2021/22
https://www.bis.org/bcbs/bcbs_work21_22.ht
m
8.
Dirk A. Zetzsche, Douglas W.Arner, Ross P.
Buckley, Decentralized Finance // Journal of
Financial Regulation, 2020, 6, 172
–
203
9.
On
American
Rescue
Plan’s
Second
Anniversary, Treasury Releases New Data on
Act’s Historic Investments in Economic Growth
https://home.treasury.gov/
Volume 03 Issue 12-2023
31
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
12
Pages:
23-31
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
584
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
10.
Omarova, Saule T., New Tech v. New Deal:
Fintech As A Systemic Phenomenon (July 30,
2018). 36 Yale Journal on Regulation 735
(2019)., Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper
No.
18-39,
Available
at
SSRN:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3224393
or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3224393
11.
Ashley
Lannquist,
Central
Banks
and
Distributed Ledger Technology: How are
Central Banks Exploring Blockchain Today?
2019
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Central
_Bank_Activity_in_Blockchain_DLT.pdf
