Concerning the recognition of cryptocurrency as a means of payment in the territory of Ukraine: theoretical and legal justification

Abstract

The article is devoted to substantiation of expediency of legal consolidation of cryptocurrency as a means of payment in Ukraine. The scientific and legal positions in defense of the outlined issue with the corresponding argumentation were investigated. It was established that most scientists, formulating the concept of cryptocurrency or virtual assets, use the phrases «digital means of payment», «unit of value», «means of making payment», etc and the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank interpret virtual currency through the phrases «digital expression of value» and «a type of unregulated digital money» respectively. It was determined that the primary function of cryptocurrencies is to make payments, and the refusal to qualify it as a form of money and the prohibition of its use as a means of payment contradict the direct purpose of this innovation. The analysis of the practice of regulatory regulation of crypto assets in foreign countries proves that many countries are favorable to the full or partial recognition of cryptocurrency as a means of payment, among them: Germany (a monetary unit and a form of private money), Sweden (a contractual means of payment), Japan (a means of payment), USA (a currency, a form of money, an object of money transfers in certain states) Canada (a means of settlement), Spain (an official payment system), El Salvador (a means of payment), Singapore (is recognized as a means of exchange accepted by society or its part as payment for goods or services or in repayment of debt obligations), Switzerland (is equivalent to foreign currencies), Finland (a financial instrument, transactions with which are considered private agreements). It was assumed that the deterrent of recognition of cryptocurrency as a means of payment in Ukraine is the threat of potential competition of cryptocurrency with the national monetary unit (hryvnia). It was emphasized that such an approach avoids immediate legal risks for the financial and economic system of the country, but it goes against the trends of legal regulation of crypto assets by the most developed countries with a democratic system, and also ignores their main purpose – to serve as a means of payment, an alternative to fiat currency. The conclusion was made about the expediency of legal recognition of cryptocurrency as a means of payment and the possibility of contributing to the filling of the state budget thanks to the payment with cryptocurrency thanks to the corresponding legislative changes.