Cryptocurrency in terms of civil law

The day is coming closer and closer when it can be said that the cryptocurrency has taken strong enough positions all over the world, and not only as an interesting thing for cryptographers or another highly volatile component of the exchange portfolio, but really as a means of calculating the payment. Vaughn, Russia is already going to release its own vengeance .

Naturally, as a closed system, all currencies based on the blockchain are quite self-sufficient and hardly require some kind of regulation, and it is hardly possible. But if we approach the issue globally, for example, from the point of view of taxation or legitimization of large transactions using cryptocurrency, then many questions arise to answer which require a new category in modern civil law, and it is possible to refer to existing ones.

A very brief excursion into Russian civil law, which we need, is limited to one article: objects of civil rights (art. 128). What do we find in this rate? One of the most important classifications in civil law, which reads as follows: “Objects of civil rights include things, including cash and documentary securities, other property, including non-cash money, non-documentary securities, property rights; results of work and provision of services; Protected results of intellectual activity and equated to them means of individualization (intellectual property); intangible benefits. ”Let's try to try on every object in this list to cryptocurrency. Let's go from the beginning of the article, excluding things as a too general category, and, besides, taking other categories from this norm.
')
So, cash - a minus, because not cash, everything is clear.

Securities - a minus, because they represent the rights of obligations, which are enshrined in the decision on the issue or other act of the person who issued the securities.

ATTENTION! ICO is a separate topic for conversation, it will not be discussed in detail in this article.

Only briefly: ICO is inherently close to an IPO, but the difference is that there are no liens between the organization / multiple issuers issuing a crypto unit and its conditional acquirer: while purchasing cryptocurrency, we cannot require tokens , Coin and others like them, for example, exchanging it for fiat money in the future. Nobody owes us anything. Of course, the difference is rather fragile, the situation in Russia may change in the future, when regulators come into play (so far only in the US, there was no news at the time of this writing), but so far we have a difference and it is quite significant from the point of view of the right .

Further - more interesting: non-cash money.

It should be noted the different legal nature of cash and non-cash money. If the former relate to things, then the latter are considered rights of claim. History remembers a relatively recent period of time when cash was treated in the same way: for example, every ruble was secured with gold that a person could receive at a bank. Now, non-cash money is also exchanged in banks for cash, but in and of itself, the former are not things. Some reputable lawyers believe that our non-cash money is information in general, since banks operate with information about their movement.

Cashless payments - is the transfer of certainty about payments. Such an understanding of non-cash money is already much closer to the essence of cryptocurrency, as you probably already noticed. However, it does not take into account the most important aspect, which is mentioned by those who hold the first point of view: we can not only pay with non-cash funds with other bank customers, but also declare to the bank demanding to give us cash. And indeed, in the very phrase “bank customer” there is a contradiction to the essence of cryptocurrency.

This seems obvious, but nevertheless we emphasize once again: any cryptocurrency of two key features of non-cash money answers one (the one that relates to transactions between bank customers) and contradicts the other (the one that concerns the rights of claims to the bank itself). This state of affairs is obvious, since cryptocurrency is essentially a peer-to-peer network, and we remembered this once more for the sake of the realization that in everyday life the same Bitcoin goes almost the same as non-cash money, but unlike the latter, it is based on trust to other users and blockchain technology (can I really exchange a conditional unit for any benefit from another network user at any time?) than to a bank.

So, since non-cash money from the point of view of civil law is primarily a claim, then this category is also a minus, but not so fat as in previous times. Here we are rather confronted with the narrowness (or lag) of the official understanding of simple non-cash money, because in most cases they are not used as this is the right requirement, but perform a function akin to cryptocurrency, only the transactions are tracked by the bank, rather than using cryptography (agree that most most of us use non-cash payments and rarely withdraw cash in large amounts). So there is some proximity, and in general, over time and further rejection of cash payments, the differences should only be erased (except for the presence of the issuer, of course).

Having found a similarity with one of the objects of civil rights, let us now move away from stupid busting into the forehead and ask ourselves the question: what else from article 128 may be important for us, namely, to come under the sign of the absence of the issuer and at the same time the presence of value? It seems to be nothing like we see. But is it right that we acted "skipping" the category of "things" at the very beginning? Perhaps something in this broad concept fits our criteria?

Indeed, the category of things now includes precious metals, and among them gold (previously they were considered currency values). You probably have heard that Bitcoin is digital gold . Let's find out if this judgment is true. So, because of what gold was commonly used in circulation in the past and is of value to this day? There are several reasons for this:

1) Chemical properties of gold: stability, softness, allowing to give it any desired shape, as well as divided into several parts. Gold almost does not darken and almost does not become coated. All these qualities can be minimized in two: persistence and usability.

2) In addition, gold is not too hard to find, but still its quantity in the bowels of the Earth was initially seriously limited (limited).

3) Finally, gold was the first metal discovered by man (novelty).

Having projected these signs to Bitcoin, we will see that it also has novelty, limitations, persistence. The criterion of convenience remains quite controversial, and this is a vulnerable place in which the Altcoin is given a chance, but on the whole the statement that Bitcoin is digital gold is true.

Gold is regulated not only on the basis of the general rules of civilian circulation, but also on the basis of the Law on Precious Metals. This law establishes the procedure for accounting for precious metals, as well as some bans on their disposal. Nevertheless, the restrictions are far less stringent than those contained in the law "On Currency Values", which previously belonged to gold. There is a simple explanation for this: foreign currency and foreign securities belong to currency values, and the state is interested in protecting the national currency from foreign. Precious metals, on the contrary, do not belong to any state as an issuer, so no serious restrictions are required for them.

It turns out, having pushed away from the principle of Bitcoin decentralization, we will eventually come to the conclusion that the category of civil law, which is close to non-cash money and precious metals, will be the most suitable for cryptocurrencies. The first is from the point of view of the functioning of the entire settlement system between users, the second from the point of view of the absence of the issuer and the presence of the features mentioned above.

Well, plus or minus categories are clear, but what about cryptocurrency transactions? Yes, I know that de facto Bitcoin is not anonymous in its pure form. But even a pseudo-anonymity for civil law is enough for the transaction to raise certain questions. On the one hand, Article 19 of the Civil Code states that a citizen acquires rights and obligations under his own name, and in the case and procedure established by law, he can use a pseudonym. On the other hand, this does not mean that all anonymous transactions are invalid. For example, for retail sales transactions, the counterparty is any person who has submitted a document on the payment of the purchase price. We do not go to the shops, restaurants, museums on the passport! If anonymity does not interfere with the proper performance of the obligation, the transaction can be made without disclosing the names. Of course, there is no talk about notarial transactions in cases of using cryptocurrency.