چهارچوب قانونی مقررات گذاری در حوزه استیبل کوین ها (بررسی تطبیقی حقوق ایران، ایالات متحده و اتحادیه اروپا) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
استیبل کوین ها یا رمزارزهای باثبات بخش بزرگ و بااهمیتی از بازار رمزارزها را به خود اختصاص داده اند و اعتماد کاربران بسیاری به آن ها به منزله یک ابزار پرداخت با قیمت ثابت و ابزاری برای ذخیره دارایی نیز مشاهده می شود. باوجوداین، رمزارزهای باثبات با چالش های متعددی روبه رو هستند که از آن جمله می توان به شرایط نامشخص و متغیر مربوط به ارائه خدمات آن ها اشاره کرد که در بسیاری از موارد، به نحو مناسبی حقوق دارندگان این رمزارزها را تأمین نمی کند. وجود برخی سرمایه گذاری های نامشخص در پورتفوی سرمایه گذاری ناشران این رمزارزها، فقدان شفافیت در تصمیم ها و همچنین وضعیت نامشخص میزان دارایی های پشتیبان و نحوه استفاده و جبران خسارت ازطریق آن ها نیز ازجمله چالش های دیگر است. براین اساس، چالش اصلی در تحقیق حاضر بررسی و تبیین چهارچوب قانونی قابل اعمال بر استیبل کوین هاست. این چالش ها ازاین رو مهم اند که علت استفاده از رمزارزهای باثبات، همان ویژگی ثبات قیمتی آن هاست که درصورت فقدان شفافیت و رعایت نکردن قواعد اقتصادی و قوانین، درنهایت از وضعیت باثبات خارج شده و ضررهای هنگفتی را به دارندگان آن ها وارد خواهند کرد. در پایان مشخص خواهد شد که ناشران استیبل کوین ها شرایط خدمات را به نحو مناسبی در دسترس کاربران قرار نمی دهند، شرایط خدمات بدون اطلاع قبلی قابل تغییر است، تهیه دارایی های پشتیبان معمولاً به نحو مناسبی صورت نمی گیرد و شفافیت کافی در انتشار تصمیمات وجود ندارد. راهکار مناسب، اعمال قوانین شرکت های تجاری بر صادرکنندگان رمزارزهای باثبات یا تدوین قانونی خاص در این زمینه است که فعالیت صادرکنندگان استیبل کوین را در قابل شرکت های تجاری سازمان دهد و ضوابط پولی و بانکی کشور را نیز درمورد آن ها قابل اجرا بداند.The Legal Regulatory Framework for Stablecoins (A Comparative Study of the Laws of Iran, the United States, and the European Union)
Stablecoins, or digital currencies with stable value, constitute a significant and important part of the cryptocurrency market. Many users trust them not only as a fixed-price payment tool but also as a means of storing assets. Nevertheless, stablecoins face numerous challenges, including unclear and variable conditions for providing services, which often do not adequately protect the rights of the holders of these cryptocurrencies. There is also a lack of transparency in decision-making, the unclear status of backing assets, and the way these assets are used and how losses are compensated. Therefore, the main challenge in this study is to examine the service conditions of the main stablecoins in the market and to define the applicable legal framework. In the end, it will be shown that these companies do not provide the terms of service adequately to users, the terms of service can be changed without prior notice, the procurement of backing assets is often not done properly, and there is insufficient transparency in the dissemination of decisions. The appropriate solution is to apply commercial company laws to stablecoin issuers or to draft specific legislation in this area that organizes the activities of stablecoin issuers as commercial companies and ensures that the country's monetary and banking regulations are applicable to them. Keywords: Regulation, Stablecoin, Algorithm, Fiat Currency 1. Introduction Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose value is stabilized by being backed by real assets such as fiat currencies, gold, or commodities (Bullmann et al., 2019, p. 3). These cryptocurrencies contrast with other digital currencies whose market value fluctuates based on supply, demand, and other economic factors. The first stablecoins emerged in 2014, with Tether being one of the earliest examples. Launched in October 2014 by Tether Limited, Tether is pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by physical currency reserves (Bruce et al., 2023, p. 2). In the following years, other stablecoins were introduced, including TUSD in 2017, which is pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by physical currency reserves. In 2018, USD Coin (USDC) was launched by Circle, and in 2019, Binance USD (BUSD) was introduced by Binance. These stablecoins have garnered significant attention from investors due to their price stability and convertibility into fiat currencies. The stablecoin market has grown substantially in recent years, with reports indicating that the total market capitalization of stablecoins exceeded $170 billion in 2022 (Lee, 2023, p. 2). However, several instances of stablecoin crashes, leading to a complete devaluation, have occurred. One notable example is the collapse of Terra-Luna, which resulted in over $15 billion being wiped out from the market, causing severe financial losses for token holders. Similar incidents have happened multiple times before, demonstrating the potential for such occurrences in the future (Clements, 2021, p. 135). This underscores the critical need for a legal framework to regulate stablecoins and manage their liquidation processes. The primary challenge in this area—common to both comparative law and Iranian law—is identifying appropriate mechanisms to protect stablecoin holders' rights. The importance of this issue is evident, as stablecoins are primarily used for long-term value preservation and investment. If they fail to maintain stability, holders may suffer irreparable losses. These risks are further exacerbated by the fact that stablecoins are issued by private companies, which determine all aspects of reserve asset storage, investment risks, redemption conditions, and other related matters. This highlights the necessity of regulatory measures to oversee the issuance and management of stablecoins. The central hypothesis of this paper is that Iranian law lacks adequate regulations concerning the bankruptcy of stablecoin issuers. Therefore, it is imperative for Iranian legislators to adopt legal frameworks to safeguard the interests of Iranian citizens in this regard. To achieve this, lessons can be drawn from legislative experiences in comparative legal systems. In the subsequent sections, we will examine the concept of stablecoins and attempt to outline the applicable legal framework governing them. 2. Methodology This study employs a comparative legal research method to analyze the regulatory framework governing stablecoins in Iran, the United States, and the European Union. The comparative approach is particularly suitable for this research as it enables an in-depth examination of different legal frameworks, their similarities and differences, and their effectiveness in addressing the unique challenges posed by stablecoins. 3. Results and Discussion Stablecoins serve diverse functions and may fail for various reasons. A critical issue in this regard is the absence of a contractual counterparty for decentralized stablecoins. If these software protocols fail, token holders have no legal recourse since there is no counterparty to fulfill any obligations. The key concern lies in their decentralized nature, which implies the absence of a central organization or company accountable for potential losses. Although some decentralized tokens are managed by a group or organization composed of selected users, such entities merely oversee asset management and bear no responsibility for project failure. For instance, DAI is a decentralized stablecoin developed by the MakerDAO project. Launched in 2017, it has since become one of the most popular decentralized stablecoins. This token is issued through an algorithmic supply control mechanism that operates based on supply and demand. When demand for DAI increases, the algorithm reduces its supply to maintain price stability. According to the DAI whitepaper, no entity is responsible for compensating losses in the event of a value collapse. This means that if DAI falls below one U.S. dollar, token holders may lose part or all of their investment. MakerDAO strives to maintain the token’s value by adjusting its supply through algorithmic controls. However, there is no guarantee that these measures will succeed, as price volatility and the value of collateral assets are external factors beyond MakerDAO 's control. On the other hand, dual-model stablecoins may involve a counterparty, yet they, too, offer no protection to token holders in case of failure. For example, the stablecoin Neutrino USD is governed by a computer protocol known as the Neutrino Protocol . This protocol regulates the supply of Neutrino USD via an algorithmic control mechanism to stabilize its value. When demand for Neutrino USD rises, the algorithm decreases its supply to sustain price stability. The supply control mechanism for Neutrino USD is executed through a smart contract managed by the Neutrino Protocol . This protocol autonomously regulates the value of Neutrino USD by adjusting its supply and ensuring that a sufficient amount of collateral is always available to support the circulating tokens. However, the whitepaper of Neutrino USD explicitly states that no guarantee is provided against the token’s failure. 4. Conclusions and Future Research The present study demonstrated that stablecoins are widely used across the globe, prompting various countries to recognize the necessity of regulatory frameworks for their governance. The analysis revealed that applying existing monetary, banking, and commercial company laws to stablecoins only addresses certain legal aspects, necessitating the adoption of a specific and comprehensive legal framework for them. Such a comprehensive law should include the following provisions: Definition: The law should provide a precise definition of stablecoins to prevent multiple interpretations. This definition must encompass the core characteristics of stablecoins, such as price stability, backing by real assets, and convertibility into physical currency. Issuance and Transactions: The law should specify the conditions for issuing and trading stablecoins. These conditions should include requirements such as obtaining a license, compliance with anti-money laundering regulations, and ensuring transparency in stablecoin-related information. Given the nature of stablecoins, it appears that the licensing authority would be either the central bank or the securities and exchange organization . Supervision: A regulatory body must oversee all aspects of stablecoins, including issuance, transactions, and storage. This authority should also be responsible for addressing violations. Considering the function of stablecoins as a means of payment or securities, their oversight would likely fall under the jurisdiction of the central bank and the securities and exchange organization , respectively. Consumer Protection: The law should safeguard consumers against fraud and misuse of stablecoins. This protection may include requirements such as full disclosure of information related to stablecoins and mechanisms for compensating consumers in cases of financial loss. Compensation for Losses: The law must establish appropriate mechanisms for compensating stablecoin holders in case of losses. If stablecoin operations fall within the scope of corporate law, existing legal remedies—such as criminal regulations, compensation mechanisms, and bankruptcy laws under commercial law—may be sufficient to address these issues.
تبلیغات
