Digital currency: prospects and analysis of the market of cryptocurrency exchanges in Russia and foreign countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scant legislative definition of the phenomenon of virtual currencies, the lack of established business circulation and, consequently, the scattered judicial practice, all point to the complexity of understanding the legal status of electronic digital media - digital currency. Since distributed ledger technology is still in its infancy, digital currency users, miners, cryptocurrency exchange owners, tax regulators and policymakers face a number of unresolved issues at the national and international level. It is unlikely that any major economy today would support a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin, which cannot be controlled by a central bank and was created by a secretive cryptographer. Nevertheless, we believe that central banks around the world will launch their own digital currencies, combining the advantages of cryptocurrencies and traditional money. For the future: despite the legislative basis for the fixation of digital currency in Russia, we believe that the further free use and use in civil circulation of cryptocurrency is questionable. Introduction in the near future by the Central Bank of Russia of such a category of object or a type of non-cash money as "digital ruble" practically excludes the free circulation of digital currency. Presumably, that (central bank digital currency, CBDC) or digital ruble will work on the principle of optional means of payment, combining the properties of cash and non-cash funds and subject to issuance by the Bank of Russia in a digital format. The issues related to the legal status of digital rubles today are open and are in the plane of not only civil law, but also constitutional law. The analysis of crypto-exchanges around the world presented in this article reveals one trend - these activities are subject to licensing. For the full development of global financial activities, including the cryptoindustry, the development of competent business legislation on the organizers of trade turnover - crypto-exchanges - with the establishment of general principles of their activities, with the definition of the criteria of these subjects, as well as the content of their actual activities is necessary. To regulate such an institution, a specialized type of licensing is needed, by analogy with fiat money activities, based on the progressive experience of such states as Malta, Estonia, the USA, Canada, Latin America, Switzerland, Japan, etc... Such licensing could be tiered, depending on the volume of cryptocurrency transactions. The creation of strict standardization for any trade, exchange transactions with digital currency would allow Russia to be a full participant in global business. Finally, improving the legal literacy of Russians when participating in exchange activities will raise the status of investment, allow the population to avoid financial risky operations, which will ultimately contribute to the stabilization of the economic situation in the country. The author declares no conflicts of interests.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".