MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The current state of legal regulation of cryptocurrency in Ukraine. International experience in cryptocurrency market regulation

2025· article· en· W4408573128 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

VenueUzhhorod National University Herald Series Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBusiness and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptocurrencyCurrent (fluid)State (computer science)BusinessEconomicsComputer scienceEngineeringComputer securityElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the definition of «cryptocurrency,» its legal status, and prospects for regulation in Ukraine. The authors analyze contemporary approaches to understanding cryptocurrency as a digital asset, considering it either as a new form of money or as an object of civil rights. Particular attention is paid to the provisions of the Law of Ukraine «On Virtual Assets,» adopted on February 17, 2022, and its significance in creating the legal foundation for cryptocurrency market regulation. However, it is emphasized that this law has not yet come into force due to the absence of corresponding amendments to tax legislation, complicating the legalization of cryptocurrency transactions. The distinction between «virtual assets» and «cryptocurrencies» is discussed, highlighting key limitations of existing legislation, particularly the prohibition on using virtual assets as a payment method in Ukraine. The article outlines issues such as the lack of a transparent regulatory environment and a taxation system, which hinder the development of the cryptocurrency market, reduce its investment appeal, and create risks for market participants. The article also analyzes international cryptocurrency regulation experiences, particularly in the United States, Canada, Japan, and the European Union. Special attention is devoted to the European regulation Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA), which could serve as a foundation for developing a unified regulatory framework in Ukraine. The authors stress the importance of harmonizing Ukrainian legislation with European standards within the framework of European integration. The potential benefits of cryptocurrency legalization are highlighted, including attracting foreign investments, developing financial technologies, reducing the shadow economy, strengthening consumer protection, and creating new markets. Specific recommendations are provided to improve legislation, such as implementing transparent regulatory mechanisms, taxation, investor protection, and ensuring cybersecurity. This article is a significant contribution to the study of the prospects for the development of the cryptocurrency market in Ukraine, outlining the challenges and opportunities for integrating Ukraine’s financial system into the international space through the adoption of MiCA standards.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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