Prospects for the legalization of cryptocurrency in Ukraine, based on the experience of other countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presently, legal circles, both among theorists and practitioners, are particularly concerned about the legalisation of cryptocurrencies and transactions with them according to the current legislation. For this reason, the purpose of this work was to study approaches and methods to legalisation of income derived from cryptocurrency speculation based on the provisions of the tax legislation of Ukraine. A theoretical analysis of the general concepts under study was conducted, which in turn formed the object of this study. The common and distinctive features of the researched concepts were identified, thus establishing the relationship and dependence between them. As for the practical aspects, the study revealed them in the analysis of particular regulations, namely, the specific features of their implementation. Positions and opinions of various scholars on it were compared, which allowed for a qualitative coverage of ways to legalise the income that citizens receive from cryptocurrency speculation. On the basis of the analyzed scientific publications, the most successful and suitable for implementation in Ukraine, the experience of other countries, in particular the USA and Canada, has been determined. It has been proven that the legalization of citizens’ incomes received from cryptocurrency transactions is a necessary process for the economic development of the state.The practical value of the study lies in the fact that it can be used both by scholars, in the context of the primary source for further study of this issue, and by lawyers whose activities are related to cryptocurrencies. The scientific value of this study was covered in the description of effective approaches to transactions with income generated by cryptocurrencies, which have not yet been studied to the required level
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".