MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do cryptocurrencies have the potential to mitigate the impact of sanctions

2023· article· en· W4318828894 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePressacademia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Sanctions and International Relations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctionsContext (archaeology)Economic sanctionsBusinessFinanceCashInternational tradeEconomicsEconomic policyEconomyPolitical scienceLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose- Sanctions, as an alternative to the use of military force, are used as a means of diplomatic coercion for the target country to abandon some of its decisions or avoid some possible practices. While half a century ago, sanctions included issues such as trade and travel restrictions and arms embargo, today the form and content of sanctions have changed significantly. In the last decade, most of the sanctions imposed on some states, especially to Iran and the Russian Federation, are financial sanctions. These financial sanctions, it is aimed to cut the target country's ties with the global financial markets, to disrupt the cash/capital inflow and outflow to the target country, to prevent trade by removing them from global payment systems such as SWIFT and to restrict some activities of central banks. However, the issue of whether cryptocurrencies, which we have heard frequently since 2009, can be used as a means of mitigating or overcoming the financial sanctions is frequently on the agenda. In this context, we analyze whether cryptocurrencies can be used to mitigate or overcome the financial sanctions imposed on the target country. Methodology- The size of the financial sanctions applied by the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan and EU countries against the Russian Federation, after the war started in Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and the foreign money inflow/outflow volume needed by the Russian Federation as a result of its removal from the SWIFT system are compared with the volume of cryptocurrencies owned by the Russian Federation. Findings- The blockchain database system, which underpins cryptocurrencies, still struggles with a number of challenges. Especially the ability to increase the capacity (scalability) of the blockchain network is one of these problems. The scalability problem hinders the effective use of cryptocurrencies by the Russian Federation. In addition, when the financial transaction capacity and the size of the sanctions applied to the Russian Federation are compared with the crypto market size of the Russian Federation, it is seen that there is a significant difference in sizes. Conclusion- In today's conditions, cryptocurrencies stay away from the capacity to mitigate or overcome the financial sanctions applied to countries with large trading capacities such as the Russian Federation and to be used as a means of payment. However, in the coming years, in the case of developments in cryptocurrency technologies, cryptocurrencies have the capacity to be used to circumvent financial sanctions. Keywords: Sanctions, financial sanctions, payment instrument, crypto assets, blockchain. JEL Codes: F51, G20, B17

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it