Deficiencies in the Judicial Classification of Cryptocurrencies Indicating the Need for Legislative Alternatives
Vol: 51, Issue: 1, Page: 135
2025
- 196Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage196
- Downloads149
- Abstract Views47
Artifact Description
The cryptocurrency industry is desperate for regulatory clarification, which would stabilize and secure cryptocurrency and, ultimately, promote increased investment. How the United States ultimately chooses to pursue cryptocurrency regulation has massive implications for future investment and the development of this technology. Disagreement over how to classify cryptocurrency under the investment contract test created in SEC v. Howey, including the recent Second Circuit split, has led to calls for resolving legislation. Cryptocurrency legislation has recently been passed by the European Union, and there are currently proposals for legislation before Congress in the United States.This Note considers the context surrounding demands for regulatory clarification of cryptocurrency. It examines the Howey test, how it would apply to cryptocurrency, and the Second Circuit split regarding Howey's application to crypto offerings. There are significant shortcomings in applying the Howey test to cryptocurrency. Ultimately, then, it is necessary to adopt clarifying legislation, such as regulations recently passed in Europe—the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation—and—and legislation currently before Congress—the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know