Legal Status of Electronic Money in Ukraine
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of a unified theoretical position on the definition of electronic money, insufficient understanding of their technical, economic, and legal nature, the discrepancy in the legal regulation of the circulation of such money in different countries is conditioned by the novelty of the institution of electronic money. In turn, due to the rapid progress, the issue of electronic money is becoming increasingly relevant, attracting the attention of lawyers, economists, and society as a whole. The purpose of this study is to analyse the legal status of electronic money, its advantages and disadvantages, considering the practice of the European Union in this matter. The study used a complex of philosophical and worldview general scientific and special scientific methods. The formal-logical method was used to define the basic concepts and legal categories related to the analysis of the legal status of electronic money in Ukraine. The historical method was used to highlight the process of development and establishment of legal regulation of electronic money in Ukraine. The method of systems analysis allowed to identify and formulate the main conclusions and recommendations for increasing the efficiency of cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union in the field of legal regulation of electronic money. Furthermore, when determining the legal status of electronic money, it is important to consider the legislation of the European Union. The study also analyses the differences in the legal status of electronic money from non-cash, virtual, and digital money.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it