Policy Forum: Canada's Proposed Cryptoasset Legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryptoasset miners verify and record transactions, maintaining the integrity and security of the blockchain network. The Department of Finance ("Finance") has recently proposed new Excise Tax Act (ETA) provisions regarding the goods and services tax (GST)/harmonized sales tax (HST) treatment of crypto mining. Under these proposed provisions, crypto mining activities provided to anonymous recipients will not be subject to GST/HST, but the crypto miners performing these activities will also not be eligible to recover any GST/HST paid on their business inputs (and thus will be forced to bear the brunt of the tax themselves). We believe that Finance's decision to tax what it can identify—the business inputs of Canadian crypto miners—is a roughly balanced but reasonable approach. Although Finance might be legitimately criticized as departing from Canada's decision to eliminate the cascading of tax found in the former origin-based federal sales tax, it seems impossible to administer a destination-based transactional tax such as the GST/HST when faced with "anonymous" recipients (the users of the crypto miner's services). Finance appears to have minimized the cascading of tax by including a carve-out for identifiable recipients of a crypto miner's services, allowing the regular zero-rating rules in the ETA to apply in limited circumstances. In the face of utter uncertainty, Finance's reactive approach is likely the best that it can do. Given the rapid evolution and inherent decentralization of the crypto space, a more broadly based proactive approach would seem imprudent at this time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".