Abstract
The obligatory features of the unit of account are formulated. Distinctive characteristic properties of a set of cryptocalculation units, in particular, subsets of x-type (coin) and y-type (token) calculation units, are revealed. It is proved that these sets do not intersect. It is proposed to allocate a subset of C 2 in the set of coins, which has an additional characteristic property — functioning on the basis of a smart contract. The thesis that any settlement unit carries the cost of a resource is proved. Even for units of account with the so-called “intrinsic value” (bitcoin), the presence of a resource in its functions was found. Four characteristic properties inherent in the set of “money” (M = {money}) are disclosed and a subset DM = {digital money} is allocated, containing a set of digital Fiat money secured by the state (sets F = {fat}) and a subset P = {private}, which is actually an addition to the set F). It is proved that cryptocurrencies have characteristic properties of the set M = {money} only within their own community. The paradox of the algorithmic guarantor, reflecting the absence of the need for formalization of algorithmic informal institutions, is formulated. Disclosed defnitions of such concepts as “cryptocurrency”, “token economy” and “tokenization economy”. Euler circles are used to visualize the relationship between different sets of calculation units. A coherent classifcation of calculation units based on the characteristic properties of the identifed sets is formed. The results of the study can be used to form the basis of legal regulation of the circulation of digital units of account.
Highlights
It is proposed to allocate a subset of C 2 in the set of coins, which has an additional characteristic property — functioning on the basis of a smart contract
The thesis that any settlement unit carries the cost of a resource is proved
Four characteristic properties inherent in the set of “money” (M = {money}) are disclosed and a subset DM = {digital money} is allocated, containing a set of digital Fiat money secured by the state and a subset P = {private}, which is an addition to the set F)
Summary
В настоящий момент крайне остро стоит задача оп ределения для целей государственного регулирова ния таких понятий, как «токен» и «криптовалюта». С точки зрения институциональ ного подхода токенизацию экономики можно определить как процесс формирования неформального института, основанного на связях и взаимодействии в отношении оборота токенов. Настоящее исследова ние не нацелено на всесторонний анализ понятия «токенизация экономики» с точки зрения инсти туционального подхода, ибо это является целью отдельного исследования. В любом случае и для любых целей термин «токенизация» подразумевает введение в оборот «токена» — только уже значение понятия «токен» различается в зависимости от сферы применения. Термин «токенизация экономики» в данном исследовании предлагается использовать в контексте процесса построения экономических взаимодействий на основе оборота самостоятельно значимых единиц, токенов. Применение этого термина позволяет абстрагироваться от привычных образов, возни кающих в связи с применением термина «актив»
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
