Regulation of cryptoassets as a new technology is at its nascent stage globally, when the regulators are still adapting to the technology and its effects. The approach to cryptoregulation is determined by the level of economic development in the country, in particular of its financial markets, social circumstances, political climate and high-profile developments in the industry. Two jurisdictions stand out in this regard – European Union and USA.
The former stands out in terms of impact it has on other regulators' activity, the latter on the effect their regulators' decisions have on the whole cryptoindustry. The purpose of this thesis is the presentation of regulators' approaches and decisions in relation to crypto-assets, with a particular focus on regulation in the USA. It analyses legislative documents as well as decisions, recommendations and rules of regulatory agencies and court decisions in specific cases.
This thesis will hypothesise that regulation in the USA, with the high-profile rulings like Tornado Cash and Grayscale, is more appropriate and influential than regulation in the EU in light of the recent (and not yet fully applicable) Regulation on markets in cryptoassets (Regulation (EU) 1114/2023). To understand the effects of regulation, examples from different jurisdictions around the world will illustrate the different regulatory approaches and the ratio behind them.
As cryptoassets are new and relatively complex topic, this Thesis is followed by two appendices describing the history of cryptoassets and common forms of cryptoassets today. For readers who are unfamiliar with crypto, it is recommended to read the appendices before starting the main part of the thesis. However, for easier understanding, terms are briefly explained in the footnotes, when they are first mentioned in the text.
|
