Cryptocurrency: The Digital Coin

Cryptocurrency: The Digital Coin

Author: Rupa Paul, Amity University, Kolkata.

Abstract

A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court set aside a protest rally issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) barring any organization from providing banking services to anyone dealing with crypto or cryptocurrencies. The apex court did so on the grounds that the ban, which applies to all RBI-controlled facilities, was unequal.Judgment itself is designed as a film show – complete with flashback, backgrounds, conspiracy and climax – and is designed to be read by heart. Interestingly, on page 172 of the 180-page decision, the apex court actually appears to be referring to the support of the central bank circle.

Introduction:

It is only at the ‘climax’ of the verdict when the court issues the U-Turn immediately and finds that the RBI has never produced conclusive evidence that virtual or cryptocurrencies have had a negative impact on the banking sector or other RBI-controlled assets. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court ruled that the circle failed the test of equality. Before reviewing the details of the Supreme Court decision, it is important to identify the fault lines that reflect the financial status of the material. Cash currencies, or cryptocurrencies, as they are commonly called, are tokens that can be used to make transactions within special encrypted networks.

Bitcoin, which may be more popular with these currencies, for example, operates on a block chain. A block chain is a trusted administrator in all transactions that are guaranteed simultaneously across the entire network based on previous transaction cluster technology, while encryption prevents others from viewing each transaction – thus ensuring a reliable and accessible record that is not limited to one-point transaction management. Thus, cryptocurrencies are often hailed as a model that can effectively challenge domestic economic systems, which has been the persistent goal of emphasizing social liberalization in technology.

On the other side of this evolving economic consolation, there are serious issues with cryptocurrencies that have drawn the attention of regulators around the world: the secrecy and anonymity provided by cryptocurrencies enable financial management and terrorist financing; systems in which cryptocurrencies operate are not reliable enough to support the exchange system to some degree; and the volatile nature of the number of cryptocurrencies worldwide makes it unpredictable for consolidation within a large economy.

Administrators, as a result, approach cryptocurrencies from a position of scepticism and acceptance of acceptance. Given these erroneous signals, the key question remains one whether the cryptocurrencies system is allowed to operate without central control without being separated from the banking sector and the invention, an arrangement that could be further developed. In the economy the dreamers are dreaming about – even if the state-funded financial system will use its power to control more than the money seen in a way that undermines its core business of trade.

Two Questions

1. First, whether artificial money became actual money.
2. Second, whether the RBI had the power to regulate financial matters.

In the first question, the court dealt with the argument that the money itself was not equal to the money, instead, it was just property. As a result, it was argued, the RBI had no business controlling the shipment of goods among private individuals. After conducting an in-depth study of ‘monetary’ activities, definitions of ‘monetary’ in several types of legislation and abroad, the court established a simplified procedure – stating that “if an intangible asset can operate under certain conditions such as money (or without waste) the RBI will be able to recognize and deal with it

The second question introduces another problem in court use. This question is made interesting by the content of the RBI circle – the circle does not directly prohibit transactions in financial markets, but simply directs RBI-controlled companies not to offer banking services to those who sell or use trading in real money. The implication of this, however, is that cryptocurrency cannot be converted into fiat currency; that the link between the different cryptocurrency economy and the global economy has been seized, providing tangible tokens in value, and as a result, in fact, reaches a rare level in virtual financial transactions. The argument made in court, as a result, is that this is tantamount to indirectly controlling an area that the RBI cannot control.

At this stage, judgment should leave anyone concerned about the future of cryptocurrencies with a few questions. Even if this circular was struck, has the RBI certainty changed? Is it more than an RBI to obtain or produce documents that show the risks to a banking system with real money? If these risks are real, and scientific consensus seems to be the case, what prevents the RBI from coming back and blocking further, in this case with material support? And perhaps more importantly, did the Supreme Court actually register cryptocurrencies legally, or did it simply provide explicit legal support for the strongest prohibitions?

In overturning the sentencing, the Supreme Court deliberately created an opportunity for constructive solutions to arbitrary inquiries. The cryptocurrency community must make a case for a carefully regulated regulatory framework that allows for its growth – and if the RBI does not continue it’s ring-fenced or pursuit of further prohibitions, it should identify a range of multilateral solutions that can address legal concerns, financial system stability and system development. active financial currency.

One of the most interesting passages in the judiciary speaks to the Vedic concept of ‘net and net’ – the apparent disregard for the world’s signatories.

Perhaps the concept of negation requires the use of judgment itself. Ignoring worldly decisions made in the context of a particular situation can expose the root of a growing leviathan seeking to control what it cannot – in this case – looking beyond the small act of setting aside this circle seems to produce great results by bringing all tangible money within the full control of the central controller. It seems that celebrations can also be a distraction.

Cyber Law and Banking Law (RBI Act)

The Reserve Bank of India today advised members of the public to immediately register a complaint with local police / cybercrime authorities when they receive fake money from abroad or if they are victims of such an offer. It also lists, on its website, a list of such forums in which the public can register complaints.

The Reserve Bank, in the past, has warned members of the public not to accept promises of lottery / lottery / cheap foreign currency withdrawals by so-called organizations / individuals or citizens of India acting as representatives of such organizations / individuals. He also pointed out that the offer was fraudulent and warned the public to immediately register a complaint with the local police / cybercrime authorities when they found such a victim or became a victim of such a crime.

References

1. Article 30 of Fintech Law, http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LRITF _090318.pdf.
2. http://www.banxico.org.mx/informacion-para-la-prensa/comunicados/miscelaneos/ boletines/%7B5D9E200E-2316-A4B8-92A9-3A5F74938B87%7D.pdf.
3. https://www.gob.mx/shcp/prensa/las-autoridades-financieras-advierten-de-los-riesgosasociados-al-uso-de-activos-virtuales.