| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
175674
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study looks at the challenge that cryptocurrencies could pose to national security as it pertains to terrorism. The study begins by untangling what are cryptocurrencies before shifting attention to how criminal use cryptocurrencies and how terrorist could use cryptocurrencies. One of the key issues identified is the lack of an international regulatory regime, including, a definition of what are cryptocurrencies and how one could regulate the sector. By engaging in such research, this study seeks to encourage international society to focus more on cryptocurrencies and develop an effective, binding regulatory regime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
180586
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
177599
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Within the social sciences, there is growing interest in the ways in which cryptocurrencies are shaping interactions. The major approaches have been economic, sociological, legal, and technological. On the other hand, the international relations (IR) literature has been silent on the issue. This is striking as cryptocurrencies are considered to be a potential threat to dollar’s hegemony (Pierracini 2018), which has been credited as garnering the US economic and political advantages associated with its power position in international society (Strange 1987). Furthermore, private crypto-investments also stimulate debates on the denationalisation of currencies, which implicates the entire state-based architecture of Westphalian politics. Therefore, the emergence of cryptocurrencies could influence hegemonic cycles, diplomacy, and power distribution among states and between state and non-state actors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
192006
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
‘Follow the money’ is currently the central principle of international financial security, although money itself is probably one of the most unlikely objects to make traceable. Two recent scandals around a security unit and the payment processor Wirecard show how existing systems of financial surveillance that seek to capture ‘flows’ of money for security purposes are either enabled or frustrated. While this current regime of financial surveillance adheres to demanding the free flow of money through financial infrastructures and various actors and intermediaries, new digital currencies build on a set type of ledger(s) in which money is stored as data. Hence, what we understand as money does not ‘flow’, but is rather updated. This change in the underlying infrastructure means that traceability does not need to be enacted; it is an intrinsic feature of digital currencies. With new central bank digital currencies (CBDC), the regime of financial security thus changes from the monitoring of financial flows and flagging of (potentially) illicit transactions towards the storage of financial data in (de)centralised ledgers. This form of transactional governance is engendered by shifting geopolitical agendas that increasingly rely on fractured instead of globalised financial infrastructures, thus making CBDCs themselves subject to security efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
184052
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Are price discontinuities in cryptocurrencies jointly related to large swings in geopolitical risk? This is a relevant question to answer given recent news from the press that Bitcoin’s price jumps are driven by jumps in the level of geopolitical risk index. To answer this question, we examine first the jump incidence of daily returns for Bitcoin and other leading cryptocurrencies and then study the co-jumps between cryptocurrencies and the geopolitical risk index using logistic regressions. Our dataset is at the daily frequency and covers the period 30 April 2013 to 31 October 2019. The results show that the price behaviour of all cryptocurrencies under study is jumpy but only Bitcoin jumps are dependent on jumps in the geopolitical risk index. This revealed evidence of significant co-jumps for the case of Bitcoin only nicely complements previous studies arguing that Bitcoin is a hedge against geopolitical risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
189423
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the relationships between 21 fiat currencies to Bitcoin price movements using daily data from the beginning of 2012 to the end of March 2021. We use a two-stage analysis. The first stage excludes currencies, which are uncorrelated with the daily returns of the Bitcoin. The second stage is to run a Granger-causality test on the remaining six currencies to examine whether lagged excess returns on the Bitcoin Granger-cause the excess returns on the currencies or vice versa. Results support the conclusion that the return on Bitcoin Granger-Cause the return on the Israeli Shekel (ILS), but not vice versa. A possible explanation of these outcomes is the susceptibility of financial investors in Bitcoin and the ILS to the Israeli economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|