Search results

Bitcoin’s introduction as the first cryptoasset in 2009 ushered in a new era, representing a seismic shift in the financial markets. Since then, this evolving asset class has generated much interest, excitement, and growth. This chapter begins by providing a brief background of cryptoassets. It then discusses their main types (cryptocurrencies, security tokens, and utility tokens), users (individual investors, major financial institutions, endowments, and hedge funds), and benefits and drawbacks. Next, it sets forth the book’s purpose, distinguishing features, intended audience, and structure. The chapter provides a synopsis of each of the remaining 21 chapters. Although no single book can encompass all changes and iterations of these technologies as they emerge in the marketplace, this book brings together a broad collection of industry expertise and academic analysis to create a book helpful to researchers, academics, and practitioners.

This chapter examines some emerging topics and trends as it connects cryptoassets to accounting, auditing, and financial reporting. It discusses the treatment of cryptoassets from a financial reporting perspective under the US and international accounting standards, frequently asked questions about auditing and attestation, and potential best practices for auditing various cryptoassets. It also discusses accounting for now and potential in the future. The chapter outlines how the rapidly changing cryptoasset landscape could lead to differentiated accounting treatment and audit best practices for practitioners seeking to attest to certain aspects of cryptoassets.

This chapter introduces the fundamentals of portfolio and financial consumer protection from frauds in the cryptoasset space. Cryptoassets pose new risks to portfolios and financial consumers: idiosyncratic risks stemming from their unique features and systematic risks arising from transitioning from centralized to decentralized finance. Market experience indicates that these risks threaten every portfolio and financial consumer holding cryptoassets. In the consumer protection framework, cryptoasset risks are higher than traditional asset risks. Cryptoassets fall outside the regulatory domain in many jurisdictions. Moreover, their decentralized nature, technological attributes, and the momentum of financial technology cause asymmetric technology, disarming system-based portfolio and consumer protection mechanisms against frauds and abuses. Hence, the idiosyncratic and systematic risks of cryptoassets highlight the importance of developing more vigilant self-protection mechanisms.

Cryptoassets have recently attracted the attention of national and international financial regulators. Since the mid-2010s blockchains have increasingly been adapted to automate and replace many aspects of financial intermediation, and by 2015 Ethereum had created the smart contract language that underpins the digitization of real assets as asset-backed tokens (ABTs). Those were initially issued by FinTech companies, but more recently banks active on international capital and financial markets, and even central banks, for example, the Bank of Thailand, have developed their own digital platforms and blockchains. A wide variety of real and financial assets underpins ABTs, viz., real-estate, art, corporate and sovereign bonds, and equity. Consequently, owing to the significant market capitalization of cryptocurrencies, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) published two consultative papers delineating its approach on cryptoasset regulation. In this study, the authors analyze the mechanics of ABTs and their potential risks, relying on case studies of recent issuance of tokens in equity, real-estate, and debt markets, to highlight their main characteristics. The authors also investigate the consequences of the increasingly oligopolistic structure of blockchain mining pools and Bitcoin exchanges for the integrity and security of unregulated distributed ledgers. Finally, the authors analyze the BCBS’ regulatory proposals, and discuss the reaction of international financial institutions and cryptocurrency interest groups. The main findings are, firstly, that most ABTs are akin to asset-backed securities. Secondly, nearly all ABTs are “off-chain/on-chain,” that is, the underlying is a traditional asset that exists off-chain and is subsequently digitized. The main exception is the World Bank’s bond-i that is genuinely native to the blockchain created by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and has no existence outside it. Thirdly, all ABTs are issued on permissioned blockchains, where anti-money laundering/anti-terrorist funding and know-your-customer regulations are enforced. From a prudential regulatory perspective, ABTs do not appear to pose serious systemic risks to international financial markets. This may account for the often negative reactions of banks, banking associations, and cryptocurrency interest groups to the BCBS’ 2021 proposals for risk-weighted capital provisions for cryptoassets, which are viewed as excessive. Finally, we found that issuance of ABTS and other smart contracts on permissionless blockchains such as Bitcoin and Ethereum could potentially generate financial instability. A precedent involving Ethereum and The DAO in 2016 shows that (i) there is a significant accountability gap in permissionless blockchains, and (ii) the core developers of blockchains and smart contract technology, and Bitcoin mining pools, exercise an unexpectedly high- and completely unregulated-amount of power in what is supposedly a decentralized network.

Although few fully understand the evolving science of blockchain technology, many agree that such technology promises countless crypto innovative applications. However, institutions using blockchain and cryptoassets face issues. Since more institutions are beginning to explore various private, public, and hybrid blockchains and their related cryptoassets, an increased need exists to understand and anticipate implementation problems. Such problems include contractual issues, privacy concerns, tax implications, jurisdictional issues, financial fraud, and data theft. Others involve intellectual property rights, money laundering, accounting and financial reporting, fork management and governance, and compliance and regulatory obligations. This chapter reviews and analyzes the various problems facing institutions in using blockchain and cryptoassets as financial instruments and mediums of exchange. It focuses on these aspects concerning custody, provenance, and reporting. This chapter also discusses the compliance, disclosure, and regulatory reporting of cryptoassets.

This chapter examines possible regulatory updates to address the challenges of monetary sovereignty and singleness of money. These two challenges are particularly pertinent to the new means of payments enabled by the use of distributed ledger technology (DLT). These new means of payment include cryptoassets such as bitcoin and ether, stablecoins and tokenized deposits. The degree to which these new means of payment can be a threat to monetary sovereignty and singleness of money can differ widely, depending on the contexts of the jurisdictions, as well as the details of these new means of payment themselves.

This paper examines the impact of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), regulated stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets on the cryptocurrency market, following the guidelines set by the Basel Committee. This study aims to analyze the implications for secure storage, cross-border transfers and necessary investments.

The paper uses a policy analysis approach to assess the potential effects of the Basel Committee’s regulations on CBDCs, regulated stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets. It explores their impact on the cryptoasset market, strategies of central and commercial banks, payment systems and risk management.

The adoption of CBDCs, regulated stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets is expected to grow rapidly in the coming years. It raises concerns about secure storage, cross-border transfers and required investments. Central banks are likely to introduce CBDCs and authorize stablecoin issuance, aiming for efficient monetary policies and risk management. Basel III regulations may lead to asset tokenization by banks, reducing asset size and increasing fee-based income.

This paper provides insights into the potential impact of the Basel Committee's regulations on CBDCs, regulated stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets. It contributes to the understanding of the evolving cryptoasset market and the strategies of central and commercial banks in adopting these technologies. The findings offer valuable information for policymakers, regulators and market participants in navigating the changing landscape of digital assets.

Shariah-compliant security tokens can play an important role in developing innovative solutions to resolve voluntary and involuntary financial exclusion in Muslim societies. This paper aims to present features of Shariah-compliant security tokens and supporting ecosystems that can provide additional sources of financing for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and create alternative investment opportunities for retail investors.

This conceptual paper presents the building blocks of security tokens, their ecosystem and key functions and activities and then examines these features from Islamic perspectives. This is done by reviewing the contemporary literature on cryptoassets and their ecosystems and analysing these in light of Islamic legal and ethical values and principles.

The paper provides a framework of how Shariah-compliant asset- and equity-based security tokens can be used by SMEs to raise funds quickly and efficiently on crypto exchanges. Given the novelty and complexity of the technology involved and the lack of understanding and skills to develop blockchain-based systems among SMEs, this paper suggests developing security tokens and exchanges in a controlled manner under the supervision of a nation’s stock markets.

Although several studies examine cryptocurrencies from Islamic perspectives, literature on other cryptoassets and their role in financial inclusion is scant. This paper identifies Shariah-compliant asset- and equity-based security tokens and supporting ecosystems that can contribute to the development of digital capital markets where SMEs can raise funds efficiently and retail investors can invest in alternative asset classes.

Cryptoassets are an asset class recorded in a digital form that does not represent a financial claim or liability for an issuer or a custodian. This chapter provides a detailed review of various cryptoassets by comparing different characteristics, products, and listing exchanges and discusses criticisms of the crypto ecosystem. It also discusses cryptoasset features, methods of tokenization, and advances in decentralized, peer-to-peer exchanges. Another topic examined is the criticisms of cryptoasset exchanges and ongoing regulatory implications due to cryptocurrency’s open-source nature. The chapter evaluates numerous types and trends of cryptoassets, including currency, utility, platform, and transactional tokens.

Since the inception of modern portfolio theory, traditional asset classes have been the standard investment products for portfolio construction. With the introduction of cryptoassets such as cryptocurrencies, tokenized securities, smart contracts, and blockchain-based token assets, the crypto “revolution” has created a new asset class for consideration in a modern portfolio. This chapter explains cryptoassets in a portfolio, including their limitations and parameters as an asset class in a diversified portfolio. Finally, it reports an improvement in a new portfolio’s reward/risk ratio using the Sharpe ratio when adding cryptoassets to simulated equity, bonds, and real estate portfolios. A caveat is that a cryptoasset’s contribution to a well-diversified traditional portfolio differs from the performance of investing in a single and isolated cryptoasset.

This study aims to provide an overview of the regulatory framework for AML supervision of cryptoassets.

A review of current legislative framework in the EU is presented in this paper.

A comprehensive framework is required to ensure that the AML risk posed by cryptoassets is mitigated.

This is an original article written for presentation at the Economic Crime Symposium in Cambridge (Jesus College).

To review the findings of the Financial Conduct Authority's consumer research on cryptoassets.

Summarises the FCA's research and draws on other recent cryptoasset papers/announcements.

The research finds consumers do not understand crytpoassets well, and not many of them buy them; those that do see them as a fast track to wealth.

This research will further inform the approach the FCA eventually takes in clarifying the regulatory perimeter for cryptoassets.

Summary by experts in the field.

Cryptoassets are a diverse category of digital assets that rely on blockchain technology. They encompass various categories, such as cryptocurrencies, utility tokens, security tokens, tokenized assets and securities, and stablecoins. Cryptocurrencies are decentralized digital units of value that enable secure and transparent transactions. Utility tokens provide access to specific services or products within a blockchain network. Security tokens offer rights and entitlements similar to traditional securities, representing ownership in real-world assets or participation in investment opportunities. Tokenized assets and securities are digital representations of tangible or intangible assets, allowing for fractional ownership and enhanced liquidity. Stablecoins are blockchain-based digital assets designed to maintain a stable value, often pegged to fiat currencies or physical assets. This chapter examines each category's characteristics, benefits, and risks; explores their implementations and current applications in the fintech ecosystem; and discusses relevant regulations and future development opportunities.

This chapter differentiates between centralized and decentralized exchanges (DEXs), emphasizing the importance of regulations and compliance related to the market’s development and expansion for cryptoasset trading and investment. It also explains the pros and cons of using different methods to trade cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies and their tradeoffs. The chapter discusses how centralized and DEXs emerged, their history and potential future, and the possible role of future regulations and regulatory clarity around how they may operate. Additionally, it compares cryptoasset markets to other more traditional markets such as equities, real estate, and foreign exchange.

This paper aims to provide an overview of different issues related to jurisdictional arbitrage found in general regulatory arbitrage literature and their projection to the specific area of cryptoasset regulation.

By distinguishing any parallel, analogous and neighbouring concepts, this paper attempts to clarify the notion of jurisdictional arbitrage. By discussing certain aspects and effects of three regulatory regimes, BitLicense, 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD5) and the European Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCa), it makes clear that national/State/regional policymakers have already failed to create arbitrage-proof regulatory frameworks by acting exclusively within their jurisdictional limits. Against this background, this paper discusses briefly regulatory competition and international harmonisation as alternative solutions to inappropriate and ineffective national/regional legislative approaches.

Based on a structured theoretical analysis, this paper reaches three important findings. First, academics, international bodies and other commentators use inaccurately the general concept of “regulatory arbitrage” to refer to the specific problem of jurisdictional arbitrage creating in this way an interpretative confusion; second, commentators confuse jurisdictional conflicts with jurisdictional arbitrage; third, the solutions to this regulatory problem can actually be found in its underlying causes.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first specific-issue paper on jurisdictional arbitrage in the context of cryptoasset regulation and aims to trigger further academic discussion on this evolving phenomenon and inform the development of future cryptoasset regulation combatting this problem.

In 2004, Roanoke College began offering a Student-Managed Fund course, wherein students were able to manage a portfolio of equity and fixed income using real money. While not a widely adopted concept at the time, it has since become quite common in finance programs, either through courses or clubs. In February 2019, the author supplemented activities in the course with the addition of real cryptoassets for students to manage. The paper discusses the design, implementation, and pedagogical advantages of the fund.

The paper expands on the existing literature regarding student-managed investment funds (SMIFs or SMFs) by presenting a case study on the implementation of a student-managed cryptoasset fund at Roanoke College.

The value of experiential learning through student-managed funds (SMFs) is well established. Thus, these programs have become much more common in recent years and are now often expanding to securities beyond equities and bonds. The introduction of cryptoassets to be traded by students at Roanoke College is another step in improving students' exposure to various markets and appears to further improve research and critical thinking skills.

This is certainly one of the first, and to the author's knowledge may be the only, real money cryptoasset fund managed by students.

Cryptocurrencies are notoriously difficult to value from a fundamental perspective. This valuation challenge is rooted in various debated issues in academia and the investments industry. For example, do cryptocurrencies and other cryptoassets have intrinsic value in the conventional sense? Can one appropriately regard cryptocurrencies as digital fiat currencies? What distinguishes cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether from precious metals like gold from a financial perspective? How do cryptocurrencies compare to other cryptoassets in terms of pricing and valuation? This chapter aims to provide responses to these questions, discuss approaches to cryptoasset valuation, and identify areas for future research.

This chapter reviews the underlying technologies of cryptoassets, including fundamental cryptographic primitives used in distributed ledger technologies and permissionless blockchain technologies and their consensus protocols such as proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. It discusses the pros and cons of existing approaches to improve blockchain scalability and considers the requirements for security and decentralization. The chapter also examines the following techniques: layer 1 tuning, layer 1 sharding, and layer 2 solutions. It concludes with an overview of technologies to swap cryptoassets off-chain, technical requirements for cross-chain transactions, and reviews cross-chain atomic swap implementation using hashed time lock contracts.