IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jbs/altfin/-201904-gcrls.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Global Cryptoasset Regulatory Landscape Study

Author

Listed:
  • Apolline Blandin

    (Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance)

  • Ann Sofie Cloots

    (University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law)

  • Hatim Hussain

    (Gujarat National Law University)

  • Michel Rauchs

    (Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance)

  • Rasheed Saleuddin

    (University of Cambridge- Newton Centre for Endowment Asset Management)

  • Jason Grant Allen

    (Humboldt University Berlin)

  • Katherine Cloud

    (Financial Conduct Authority)

  • Bryan Zheng Zhang

    (Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance)

Abstract

The first global comparative study of cryptoasset regulation by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance provides a comprehensive, systematic, and comparative analysis of the current regulatory landscape of cryptoassets and related activities. The study covers 23 jurisdictions and is based on both desktop research and in-person interviews with regulators and policymakers. The report aims to compare and contrast various regulatory approaches and practices with regards to cryptoassets in a number of jurisdictions and shed light on current regulatory challenges and opportunities. The study serves as a practical and analytical tool for regulators, market participants, and other stakeholders in the cryptoasset ecosystem. Section 1 sets out a theoretical framework to conceptualise cryptoassets and related activities. It looks at three key aspects in a regulatory context: (1) the nature and form of cryptoassets, (2) the issuance of cryptoassets, and (3) intermediated activities in the life cycle of cryptoassets. A number of regulatory recommendations are brought forward. Section 2 provides a global comparative analysis of cryptoasset regulation in 23 jurisdictions. It examines regulatory authorities regulating cryptoassets, their current definition and classification of cryptoassets and related activities, as well as regulatory processes and responses (e.g. existing regulation, retrofitted regulation, bespoke regulation and bespoke regulatory regime). Section 3 highlights some of the most salient challenges and potential gaps that stem from the development and implementation of cryptoasset regulation. Section 4 consists of an in-depth analysis of cryptoasset regulations in 23 jurisdictions that constitute the backbone of the comparative analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Apolline Blandin & Ann Sofie Cloots & Hatim Hussain & Michel Rauchs & Rasheed Saleuddin & Jason Grant Allen & Katherine Cloud & Bryan Zheng Zhang, 2019. "Global Cryptoasset Regulatory Landscape Study," Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance Reports -201904-gcrls, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:jbs:altfin:-201904-gcrls
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2019-04-ccaf-global-cryptoasset-regulatory-landscape-study.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lo, Yuen & Medda, Francesca, 2020. "Uniswap and the rise of the decentralized exchange," MPRA Paper 103925, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Ali Sunyaev & Niclas Kannengießer & Roman Beck & Horst Treiblmaier & Mary Lacity & Johann Kranz & Gilbert Fridgen & Ulli Spankowski & André Luckow, 2021. "Token Economy," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(4), pages 457-478, August.
    3. Bongini, Paola & Osborne, Francesco & Pedrazzoli, Alessia & Rossolini, Monica, 2022. "A topic modelling analysis of white papers in security token offerings: Which topic matters for funding?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    4. Xinwen Ni & Wolfgang Karl Hardle & Taojun Xie, 2020. "A Machine Learning Based Regulatory Risk Index for Cryptocurrencies," Papers 2009.12121, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.
    5. Allen, Darcy W.E. & Berg, Chris & Markey-Towler, Brendan & Novak, Mikayla & Potts, Jason, 2020. "Blockchain and the evolution of institutional technologies: Implications for innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    6. Thomas Lambert & Daniel Liebau & Peter Roosenboom, 2022. "Security token offerings," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 299-325, June.
    7. Simon Butler, 2019. "Criminal use of cryptocurrencies: a great new threat or is cash still king?," Journal of Cyber Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 326-345, September.
    8. Gonzálvez-Gallego, Nicolás & Pérez-Cárceles, María Concepción, 2021. "Cryptocurrencies and illicit practices: The role of governance," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 203-212.
    9. Liebi, Luca J., 2022. "Is there a value premium in cryptoasset markets?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. Ni, Xinwen & Härdle, Wolfgang Karl & Xie, Taojun, 2020. "A Machine Learning Based Regulatory Risk Index for Cryptocurrencies," IRTG 1792 Discussion Papers 2020-013, Humboldt University of Berlin, International Research Training Group 1792 "High Dimensional Nonstationary Time Series".
    11. Lin William Cong & Xi Li & Ke Tang & Yang Yang, 2021. "Crypto Wash Trading," Papers 2108.10984, arXiv.org.
    12. Giancarlo Giudici & Alistair Milne & Dmitri Vinogradov, 2020. "Cryptocurrencies: market analysis and perspectives," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(1), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Thomas Ankenbrand & Denis Bieri & Roland Cortivo & Johannes Hoehener & Thomas Hardjono, 2020. "Proposal for a Comprehensive (Crypto) Asset Taxonomy," Papers 2007.11877, arXiv.org.
    14. Zhang, Jiahang & Zhang, Chi, 2022. "Do cryptocurrency markets react to issuer sentiments? Evidence from Twitter," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jbs:altfin:-201904-gcrls. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ruth Newman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/jicamuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.