Regulatory Insight for Blockchain Protocols
In the realm of blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT) protocol governance, Taiwan's regulatory landscape is yet in its formative stages, absent of a comprehensive legal structure. Despite this regulatory vacuum, the prevalence of blockchain demands anticipation of forthcoming legislation. Developers venturing into this field must tread carefully across several critical domains:
Securities in the Digital Age: The Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) parallels tokens birthed from initial coin offerings with conventional securities. Under the Securities and Exchange Act, such tokens, if acknowledged as securities due to their investability and marketability, subject issuers to regulatory compliance and licensing requisites.
Digital Defense Protocols: In the event of a compromise within a blockchain network, developers may find themselves liable for damages, as mandated by the Civil Code, given the expectation to fortify their networks against cyber threats.
Data Privacy Concerns: The integration of user data within blockchain platforms mandates adherence to the Personal Data Protection Law, safeguarding user privacy throughout the collection, processing, and utilization phases.
Combatting Financial Crimes: The global crusade against money laundering extends into the digital realm, with Taiwan adhering to the Financial Action Task Force's guidance and enforcing stringent regulations on cryptocurrency exchanges to thwart such activities.
Variations in Public and Private Blockchain Oversight
The surveillance for public and private blockchains deviates markedly, with the former shouldering heightened scrutiny due to the expansiveness and anonymity of participants:
Anonymity vs. Privacy: The immutable nature of public blockchains contrasts starkly with the regulated node environment of private blockchains, complicating the alteration or erasure of private data.
Money Laundering Preventions: The 'know your customer' (KYC) protocols are more seamlessly woven into the fabric of private blockchains, facilitating user identification. Public blockchains, with their non-identifiable wallet addresses, present formidable challenges to upholding KYC standards, necessitating extra diligence from developers to mitigate privacy and anti-money laundering (AML) risks.
Enforcement Agencies and Their Domains
Taiwan's enforcement of applicable laws spans multiple administrative bodies, each vested with oversight relevant to their sector:
Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC): As the appointed authority on March 30, 2023, the FSC oversees virtual asset platforms, emphasizing customer protection through comprehensive guidelines that include transparency, AML efforts, and asset management.
Ministry of Justice: This body extends its regulatory arm to virtual currency platforms under the Money Laundering Control Act, equipped with the authority to confiscate proceeds from criminal activity.
Executive Yuan: Reflecting the varied applications of blockchain, the Executive Yuan ensures consumer protection across diverse industry uses, from traceability systems to tourism.
Regulatory Definition and Oversight of Digital Currencies
The framework for overseeing digital currencies is provided by the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), particularly under the guidelines introduced on June 30, 2021. Digital currencies are characterized under these guidelines as cryptographic representations of value, which are digitally tradable and can serve as a medium for payment or investment but are distinct from certain financial assets and government-issued currencies.
Entities that facilitate digital currency transactions are mandated to adhere to stringent regulations aimed at preventing money laundering and terrorism financing. This adherence extends to cryptocurrencies that fulfill specific criteria indicative of securities, which are then regulated under the Securities and Exchange Act.
Further, political figures and high-ranking officials must disclose their digital currency holdings, underscoring the transparency required in public service.
Anti-Money Laundering Measures for Digital Currencies
The national Ministry of Justice, tasked with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-financing of terrorism (CFT) efforts, has categorized digital currency exchanges and related businesses as financial institutions within the scope of the Money Laundering Control Act. These entities must undertake identity verification and transaction monitoring processes, a directive that challenges the inherently anonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions.
Consumer Safeguards in Cryptocurrency Transactions
Cryptocurrency is regarded as a 'virtual commodity' rather than a financial product, thus evading the protection mechanisms typically available to financial consumers. This classification is subject to exceptions, such as security-type digital currencies, which fall under securities regulations.
Taxation Stance on Cryptocurrency
Tax implications for cryptocurrency transactions are complex and contingent on the nature and location of the transaction and the parties involved. Business-related cryptocurrency transactions are taxable as business income, while individual transactions may be taxed differently. Notwithstanding, challenges persist in enforcing tax compliance due to the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency dealings.
Operating Standards for Cryptocurrency Traders and Exchanges
Please refer to the above discussions under sections concerning regulatory oversight and anti-money laundering measures.
Delineation and Regulation of Cryptocurrency Offerings
The FSC delineates virtual currencies as securities based on the Howey Test, thereby subjecting them to relevant securities legislation. Initial coin offerings (ICOs), unless falling under specific financial product characteristics, remain unregulated by the Securities and Exchange Act.
Legal Contract Fulfillment through Smart Contracts
No specific legislation governs smart contracts; their regulation is inferred from their applications in various sectors. Government-funded research explores the potential of smart contracts in areas like insurance and shared vehicle services, which indicates a growing interest in and validation of blockchain technology.
The Civil Code specifies core requisites for contract formation which smart contracts are capable of satisfying under certain conditions. These include the contracting parties' legal capacity, mutual consent, and the legality of the contract's subject matter. Nevertheless, smart contracts introduce complexities regarding the parties' continuous capacity and the validation of consent, which are challenging to address post-execution.
Smart contracts are particularly adept at automating straightforward transactional aspects of traditional contracts, such as payments, based on unambiguous conditions. However, they cannot replace elements requiring nuanced human judgment, such as confidentiality clauses or definitions of breach.
The enforceability of smart contracts through judicial systems poses significant challenges, given the technical nature of blockchain and the difficulty in establishing jurisdiction and interpreting 'intent' in code form.
Blockchain and Data Protection
When data is stored on a public blockchain, it becomes accessible to anyone, posing significant risks when personal data is involved. This is especially problematic when considering the following aspects:
Immutable Data versus Personal Data Rights: The immutable nature of blockchain stands in conflict with personal data rights enshrined in the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), notably:
The right to halt data collection, processing, or use;
The right to demand the erasure of personal data. Modification of blockchain data can only be achieved through disproportionately challenging means, such as commandeering over half of the network’s computational power, which is practically unfeasible.
Cross-Border Data Transfers: The PDPA’s framework for international data transfers includes potential exceptions enforceable by the pertinent authority. A problem arises when data traverses through the blockchain to jurisdictions lacking robust data protection regulations, raising questions on how authorities can monitor such transfers and apply necessary restrictions. As a solution, some experts have suggested 'off-chain' data storage, whereby personal data is stored on a separate platform and only linked to the blockchain. Yet, this introduces additional concerns about ensuring off-chain data security, maintaining privacy, and achieving data consistency with the blockchain.
Benefits of Blockchain in Data Protection: On the flip side, blockchain technology can enhance data integrity and availability through its decentralized architecture, which distributes data across numerous points, mitigating the risks of single-point failures. Its inherent transparency and synchronous updating can serve as an asset for instances where data authenticity is critical and a shared, unalterable ledger offers a secure method for data sharing.
Intellectual Property and Blockchain
Blockchain's borderless nature and decentralized applications (DApps) span multiple jurisdictions, leading to complex legal landscapes. For instance, the determination of international legal jurisdiction in intellectual property (IP) disputes over blockchain creations hinges on the domestic legislation of the country in question. Taiwanese law, specifically, does not delineate international jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Taiwanese jurisprudence may invoke the Code of Civil Procedure to establish jurisdiction, particularly when infringement activities or their effects manifest within Taiwan. The scope and duration of intellectual property rights associated with blockchain and DApps are contingent upon the legal system the claimant operates under.
The utilization of open-source resources in developing blockchain and DApps presents a conundrum for IP protection since such resources are accessible to the public. The innovation and uniqueness required for patentability and copyright under Taiwanese law might be deemed insufficient in open-source-based developments. Nevertheless, when original contributions are integrated, such blockchain constructs may qualify as derivative works, thereby securing copyright protection.
With the proliferation of NFTs, the replication and dissemination of digital works via these platforms may impinge on copyright statutes, especially when physical copies are associated. This raises significant concerns for copyright holders when their works are traded without consent.
Global Web3 Legal Expertise at Prokopiev Law Group Prokopiev Law Group stands at the forefront of legal innovation, embracing the complexities of the evolving digital landscape. As a dedicated blockchain law firm, we possess a robust partnership network that spans across borders, allowing us to offer comprehensive Web3 legal advice and solutions on a global scale.
Whether our clients are navigating cryptocurrency legal issues, NFT legal matters, or the foundational DAO legal structure, our expertise ensures their ventures are built on solid legal ground. With a keen understanding of Web3 intellectual property rights and a meticulous approach to DeFi legal consultancy, we empower our clients to forge ahead with confidence.
Prokopiev Law Group is adept in addressing the nuances of Web3 compliance and provides token sale legal guidance. Our practice is a nexus of knowledge for entities operating in the metaverse law arena and those seeking Web3 startup legal support. We are committed to safeguarding Web3 data privacy and protection and stand as a staunch advocate for those seeking a crypto exchange regulation lawyer.
The information provided is not legal, tax, investment, or accounting advice and should not be used as such. It is for discussion purposes only. Seek guidance from your own legal counsel and advisors on any matters. The views presented are those of the author and not any other individual or organization. Some parts of the text may be automatically generated. The author of this material makes no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information.
Σχόλια