Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36606
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Juodelis, Mantas
Title: Ar kripto valiuta yra pinigai?
Other Title: Whether cryptocurrency can be classified as money?
Extent: 53 p.
Date: 7-Jun-2018
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Kripto valiutų teisinis kvalifikavimas;Pinigai;Teisinė pinigų koncepcija;Legal qualification of cryptocurrencies;Legal tender;Legal concept of money
Abstract: Kartu su besivystančiais globalizacijos reiškiniais, susidaro tvirtas pagrindas formuotis ir tobulėti įvairioms naujoms technologijoms. Kaip vieną iš jų svarbu paminėti – kripto valiutas; rodos, kurios dar tik nesenai pradėjo skaičiuoti pirmuosius egzistavimo metus, tačiau jau dabar aišku, kad pasaulio susidomėjimas šiuo reiškiniu, yra milžiniškas. Taigi, kalbant apie kripto valiutas, šiuo metu bemaž reikšmingiausias klausimas yra reiškinio teisinė prigimtis ir esmė. Manytina, jog moksliniame kontekste išaiškinus ir atskleidus pačią esmę, veikiausiai, tai ne tik turėtų reikšmingą ir tvirtą indėlį tolimesnei mokslo plėtotei, bet ir stipriai prisidėtų prie praktinio teisinio ir ekonominio konteksto. Tenka pastebėti, kad šia tematika Lietuvoje nėra išsamių mokslinių tyrimų, juolab ir Lietuvos teismų praktika šiuo klausimu vis dar išlieka tyloje. Žinoma, visi šie pavyzdžiai, tarytum inspiruoja, jog apie kripto valiutas aplamai nėra diskutuojama. Anaiptol, pasaulio teisininkų bendruomenėje netyla kalbos kripto valiutų reguliavimo klausimais. Juo labiau, kad šiuo metu esama šalių praktika yra įvairiaprasmė ir ganėtinai ženkliai skiriasi. Todėl tais sumetimais darbe, iš esmės, siekiama atskleisti klausimą, ar kripto valiutos yra pinigai. Magistro baigiamąjį darbą sudaro dvi dalys. Pirmoje dalyje, pirmiausiai, yra aptariama teisinė pinigų koncepcija, kuri, jeigu taip galima pasakyti, padeda apčiuopti problemą, jog pinigai, kaip materialinės teisės objektai, savo prigimtimi ir esme nėra vien tik teisinis reiškinys. Pinigai, savo ruožtu, artimai koreliuoja ir su ekonomine koncepcija. Ketvirtajame pirmos dalies poskyriuose, analizuojamos pinigų funkcijos, padedančios konceptualizuoti pinigų esmę ekonominiu požiūriu. Pagaliau grįžtant jau prie aptartų dviejų požiūrių, t.y. pinigų esmės teisiniu ir pinigų esmės ekonominiu požiūriu – jų sintezė sudaro pagrindą suformuoti bendrą kompleksinį pinigų apibrėžimą; padeda atskleisti pinigų sampratoje talpinamą dviejų disciplinų dichomotiją; ir suformuoja dviejų elementų: ekonominio ir teisinio – testą, leidžiantį patikrinti, ar konkretus reiškinys yra pinigai. (pasakytina, kad pirmosios dalies genezė slypi ne tik pinigų prigimties atskleidime, bet ir testo suformavime). Kadangi kalbama yra apie kripto valiutų kvalifikavimą pinigų atžvilgiu, todėl antrosios dalies pradžioje atskleidžiama skirtingų užsienio šalių: Kanados, Jungtinės Karalystės, Suomijos, Švedijos, Olandijos, Vokietijos, Europos bankų asociacijos ir Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų, praktika teisiškai kvalifikuojant kripto valiutas. Apjungus aptartas sąlygas: pinigų sampratą, šalių praktiką ir pirmoje dalyje suformuotu pinigų testą, atsakoma į klausimą – ar kripto valiuta yra pinigai. Atlikus literatūros šaltinių analizę, suformuota hipotezė nepasitvirtino – teisiniu požiūriu kripto valiutos artimai koreliuoja su pinigais, jos – privatūs pinigai; ekonominiu požiūriu – nėra pinigai.
Genesis of this Master thesis lies within the analysis of grounding question: whether cryptocurrency can be qualified as money. Speaking about fourth industry revolution, must be said that it has lead to fast and inevitable technology development. Alongside stacking up economy and finance system broadering, such global trends, made reasonable grounds to form and to emerge various technologies. For instance, to grasp the bigger picture – the essence of the development must be introduced with one, at the moment fastly developing technologies, called under the ticker of: blockchain. Although the “chap” is still counting its’ birth moment it is obvious that new phenomena already got caught world interest. For instance, lots of different groups are eager to extract value added from blockchain technology, e.g. banking sector, insurance sector, also it inspires such market agents as: artificial intelligence participants, fund rising participants, even such exotic alternatives like consumer protection, or countries. Legal qualification of cryptocurrencies inspires to say, that right now the question is taking place, whether cryptocurrencies is money whether it is other form of assets. To address more precise view, must be said that regarding aforementioned question Lithuania jurisprudence is still keeping silent mode. Although such questions deeply concerning world society, for example: different countries, supervisory authorities, legal community, etc. Also let us bring to the facts that countries like: UK, Canada, US, Germany etc. maintain very various meaning of cryptocurrencies. More over to that, US even qualifies it in four different manner. Regarding what was said, this master thesis struggles with the question, does cryptocurrencies phenomena fall beneath the concept of money, more precisely, whether cryptocurrency can be qualified as money. Finally, worth mentioning, that by conveying legal nature and essence of cryptocurrencies, it not only will enhance further legal science development, but also most probably would boost practical threshold towards further development. Master thesis consists of two parts. The first part covers legal concept of money, which also helps to grasp the money idea, as means of legal objects. By showing that money phenomena condense not only legal standard but also correlates with economic concept. It must be said that 1.1 section gives more detailed view by reviewing court decisions and law jurisprudence. By doing so it helps to derive money (un)legality test, which enforces to carry out the measurements by answering – whether concrete phenomena can be qualified as money. Shifting forward towards money concept disclosure, historical money origin is looked at 1.2 section. Such sequence of analysis makes sense, because it helps to reveal some important conditions regarding further discussion. With respect to money definition, 1.3 section serves as a complementary part, because it summarizes money functions. Finally, further discussion (1.4 section) traces back to already discussed conditions, i.e. money legal nature and money (un)legality test. It also exposes any reader with economy money nature, and by combining these two conditions the common concept of money is formed. Also, such merger plan exposes the fusion of two different disciplines and helps to form test, comprising of legal and economy elements. Must be conveyed that test answers the question: is specific phenomena can be recognized as money. The second part of the thesis follows cryptocurrency qualification discussion, regarding the money concept. In order to reach the rock bottom, first section outlines the idea how different countries define cryptocurrencies: Canada, UK, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, Europe bank association and US. Worth noticing that concluding remarks gave the opening statement, that right now amongst different jurisdictions there is no common sense for cryptocurrencies qualification. On the other hand, signs show slighter shift towards money, i.e. cryptocurrencies phenomena are more akin to the money concept rather than other assets. Finally, by condensing afore discussed: different jurisdiction practice, money nature and money (un)legality test metrics thereby paper examines and extracts final findings which help to situate cryptocurrency qualification regarding money concept, by enclosing thesis hypothesis – whether cryptocurrency can be qualified as money. With respect to afore examined discussions thesis focuses on hypothesis – whether cryptocurrency can be qualified as money. The demand for the hypothesis to be denied or acknowledged, the paper determines the aim – to disclose whether cryptocurrency can be qualified as money. Having said the aim of this thesis, inter alia linguistic, systematic, historical, case analysis, comparative, analogy and logical methods are being used to attain the aim of this thesis. Also In order the aim of this thesis to be accessed, it isolates composition of three different objectives, as follows: 1. The first objective focuses on behalf of money nature disclosure regarding two different approaches: first of all, to expose the legal money nature; second to expose the economy money nature; additionally, concluding discussion is done to determine the causality amongst these two conditions. 2. Second objective is to examine the position of other countries have taken on the qualification of cryptocurrencies and how that came to legal regime of different jurisdictions. 3. Finally, bringing the money nature concept and different countries practice to make legal qualification of cryptocurrencies, by the means of legal objects, hereby denying or acknowledging strikes down this master thesis hypothesis. Findings help situate aforementioned hypothesis, by instructing that it has not been confirmed, i.e. from legal standpoint right now cryptocurrencies fall beneath the money concept as an alternative tender, in other words, as a private money; contrary to that, from the economic standpoint, cryptocurrencies do not satisfy all the necessary conditions to be qualified as money.
Internet: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/36606
Appears in Collections:2018 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
Show full item record

Page view(s)

294
checked on Mar 28, 2020

Download(s)

314
checked on Mar 28, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.