Blockchain for Business. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
As a result, the nodes or sub systems within a network can be placed all around the world, without a definite ‘home-base’, making the question of legal jurisdiction complex.
The structure of blockchains creates issues concerning liability and accountability as un-authorized public blockchains have no form of a central authority or decision-maker that can be held responsible for the actions carried out within the network [12].
Apart from this, within a blockchain, data is shared across every node or participants of the network, each maintaining a full replica of the database. This case makes the situation more difficult as the real owner of the blockchain couldn’t be determined or is quite difficult to be judge it for the already created blockchain [12−14]. This scenario presents a challenge where intellectual property is concerned, making it strenuous to determine the author or owner of the data.
Privacy is another great challenge for regulators of blockchain. Transactions are linked completely and solely to a network account address rather than a personal identification (PI number), apparently ensuring privacy. However, if a connection between the two node are made and on the same side it revealed, the protection of an individual(s) privacy is no longer exists [16].
1.10 The Current Regulatory Landscape
Blockchain regulation, like the technology itself, remains very much in its starting phase. Initiatives above the national level, such as the EU’s Blockchain Observatory and Forum, the European Blockchain Partnership and the Mediterranean Seven, focus on supporting its use and development, largely avoiding regulatory issues. This is because of a lack of consensus and harmony on blockchain and its applications; while some nations have treated it with suspicious eye, including China, although other countries such as Malta and Estonia have passionately and embraced it. This has made a regulatory landscape which differs from nation to nation [17].
Italian and Swiss agencies are among those that have chosen it to observe and check, for the time being, rather than embarking on the time-consuming process of developing and managing new legislation and policies that may soon be outdated given the early stages of blockchain technology development. “Switzerland doesn’t need new special regulations for blockchain”, asserted Ueli Maurer, the country’s Finance Minister [18]. The agencies of government have started opting to update and apply some new chances in their existing rules and laws to account for this novel technology.
Other nations have taken the some different kind of approach and have chosen to adopt and absorb some new national legislation, solely addressing and pointing sole aspects or specific applications of blockchain [17, 18]. Keen attention has been drawn up to the application of blockchain in the sector of finance and crypto tools and assets like Bitcoin. Countries such as Poland, France and Luxembourg have chosen to absorb some specific guidelines tailored to these issues.
Meanwhile, a few countries such as Liechtenstein have taken a more advanced and progressive and forward approach as the government has approved The ‘Blockchain Act’, which marks a milestone not just for Liechtenstein but for the international community which look at blockchain as a malicious and untrustworthy technology [19]. It provides the first holistic regulatory framework to govern the underlying concepts of blockchain.
1.11 The Future of Blockchain Regulation
Moving forward, regulators and policy makers will need to strike a fine balance when drafting blockchain legislation; overregulation will restrain development and also creates legal instability and uncertainty, which ultimately harms and affects the ultimate progress [19].
Blockchain must be regulated in such a way that accounts and support for the associated risks it produces while simultaneously encourages development of the technology. As such, legislation cannot simply consider current technologies but must seek and understand to be applicable to the generations of technology to follow.
Furthermore, while crypto and money explicit guideline is without a doubt fundamental, controllers should likewise embrace comprehensive structures equipped for directing the huge number of blockchain innovation applications, both now and to return. Non-money related applications are probably going to accomplish more footing and impact over the moving toward years, in this way requiring more noteworthy core interest.
Gauges will assume a vital job inside the route forward for blockchain, controlling its improvement and moving take-up by guaranteeing that the innovation supposedly is secure and solid [19, 20]. This pattern is starting to show up the same number of standard-setting bodies are connecting with the issues identified with blockchain and DLT. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has made a spotlight Group on Application of Distributed Ledger Technology devoted to the occasion of DLT principles [21]. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has built up a Blockchain Initiative to work together with its Standards Association on blockchain institutionalization endeavours. The alliance for Standards (ISO) includes a devoted Blockchain and DLTs Technical Committee as of now performing on a progression of blockchain and DLT rules, covering everything from wording to security to keen agreements, on account of be discharged in 2021 [22].
While organizations and organizations working with blockchain presently work in a moderately guideline free space, this can probably adjust inside the not so distant future. It’s significant that they follow of improvements and effectively look for cooperation inside the administrative procedure, to shape strategy results and guarantee an administrative structure that keeps on supporting development.
1.12 Business Model Challenges
Since the time Satoshi Nakamoto discharged the Bitcoin whitepaper and acquainted everybody with the blockchain innovation, the blockchain innovation appears to have increased its very own existence and has gotten a subject of enthusiasm over a wide assortment of organizations. A few organizations have begun working with another plan of action that is based around the blockchain. Right now, they are discussing fruitful usage of blockchain plans of action.
1.12.1 Traditional Business Models
A plan of action is an extravagant term used to clarify the arrangement/procedure that the organization needs to create benefit by selling an item or administration. The plan of action gives a diagram of the plans of the organization to create an item or administration and to showcase it. Various organizations will utilize a plan of action which best suits their necessities. There are four conventional plans of action:
Manufacturer
Distributor
Retailer
Franchise.
1.12.2 Manufacturer
This plan of action rotates around the formation of the item. The item could either be made without any preparation from normal assets or the maker can collect pre-assembled segments to make another item, for example, vehicles. An assembling business can follow two sub-models. It could either be “business-to-shopper” where they can sell their items straightforwardly to the buyers. Another choice includes re-appropriating the business part of the procedure to another organization, which is known as the business-to-business or B2B model. Right now, makers offer their item to the retailers who deal with the deals.
1.12.3 Distributor
The Distributor plan of action purchases the item from the maker and afterward they either offer it to the end clients or a retailer. In a common inventory network, makers are the purpose of root while wholesalers are the go betweens who associate the producers to their end-clients or the retail location.
1.12.4 Retailer
Retailers are physical shops or web based business sites which collect items from maker either straight forwardly or by means of a wholesaler. Retailers