Within the past decade, cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, have been among the resultants of information technology development in the international and even internal financial system which have had benefits such as the expansion of international currency exchanges and cheeping against challenges like increase in a number of crimes like money laundering and violations of financial and economic order of the countries. From the individual jurisprudence point of view, the cryptocurrencies are considered as a kind of property and their transactions are not usorious and uncertain (Gharar); therefore, if the trading base of cryptocurrencies is correct from the jurisprudential point of view, the exchange of cryptocurrencies is permissible in legal terms. But if the trade base of cryptocurrencies is not legitimate, their trade is void and forbidden. From the point of view of governmental jurisprudence, however, the status of cryptocurrencies exchanges is different.  In accordance with no harm, respect, government system maintannace, action (Iqdam), and justice principles, all of which prevent the implementation of inappropriate monetary policies and the excessive increase in the amount of money in the Islamic economic system, it is essential that their trading is prevented until a legal system for the control of cryptocurrencies have been created by the government in the economy of the country.

Cryptocurrencies, as one of the most essential products of blockchain technology, have unique and sometimes new features such as distributedness, asymmetric cryptography, and consensus mechanism, and they have a specific mechanism. Despite the widespread acceptance of crypto-currencies in our country, there are significant challenges in advancing their use. According to our country's legal system based on jurisprudence, these challenges can be summarised in the two axes of "not being property" and "being unknown" of cryptocurrencies. In addition, the use of cryptocurrencies inside the country is also prohibited by the approval of the Council of Ministers. To prove that cryptocurrencies are property, on the one hand, the definitions of property from a jurisprudential and legal point of view were discussed. On the other hand, the nature of cryptocurrencies was examined from the point of view of various legal documents and conventions. It was explained that cryptocurrencies can be considered property from a jurisprudential and legal point of view. On the other hand, while explaining the concept of white papers, the criticism that the mechanism governing cryptocurrencies is unknown has been answered. Finally, citing legal evidence, it has been demonstrated that the decision of the Council of Ministers is not strong enough to invalidate the contract in which the currencies were used.

In this paper, we evaluate the behavior of return, liquidity, and information efficiency in cryptocurrencis market. Cryptocurrencis are a kind of virtual currencies which cryptography technology is a basic element in their designing. They are often managed in an undistributed manner. The sample consists of 13 cryptocurrencies which were traded during 3 years (11/1/2015 until 11/1/2018) consistently. We apply Dickey-Fuller test, Ljung-Box autocorrelation parametric test, Fama-French autocorrelation test, Run and Hurst non-parametric tests to explore momentum and long-run memory in cryptocurrencis market. Findings show that cryptocurrencis return has an unpredictable behavior in markets which are more liquid. Indeed, liquidity has a direct relationship with information efficiency in cryptocurrencis market. Totally, the more liquid cryptocurrencis markets are, the less return predictability will be happened and cryptocurrencis return time series will move to a random walk. Therefore, the efficient market hypothesis will be improved.

Background and purpose: 

Since 2007, with the introduction of Bitcoin based on blockchain technology, a new generation of electronic money has emerged that can circulate among different people and be used in the cycle of economic exchanges. Decentralization, cross-border nature, anonymity of users, anonymity and complexity of processes of interception and identification of participants, encryption and irreversibility of transactions are the features that draw the attention of criminals to the use of cryptocurrencies in criminal activities. The purpose of this research is to describe and explain the crimes related to the field of cryptocurrencies and to identify the legal challenges of these crimes.

The current research is applied in terms of its purpose, and in terms of research tools, it is documentary and library, and the information collected using library resources that have been analyzed by descriptive-analytical method.

The result of this research shows that ambiguity in the nature of cryptocurrencies, how to apply laws and regulations on cryptocurrencies, how to identify and detect crimes, seizure and confiscation and storage of cryptocurrencies, use of electronic evidence and determination of jurisdiction are some of the challenges. The main issue in the proceedings of crimes related to cryptocurrencies that judicial and police authorities should pay attention to and provide basic solutions in this regard.

Since earliest times, money has been a medium of exchange, a measure of the value, and store of value. The newest developments in the field have made us face a new type of money known as cryptocurrencies which, contrary to the traditional forms, are not controlled by states. This has given rise to questions on their legitimacy. This article provides both a jurisprudential and conventional understanding of the issue with some explanations about their functions and benefits and harms. First, we have sought the possibility of attributing finance to this new type of money and after approving it, its transactional structures are presented. According to jurisprudential definitions, one can adjust acts such as bai’(contract of sale) , solh (amicable arrangement), and undetermined contract to transactions that use cryptocurrencies. We have concluded that, contrary to current oppositions, we can confirm the validity of transactions based on cryptocurrencies.

Today, the occurrence of emerging phenomena in technology calls jurists to make a double effort in order to adapt them to jurisprudence issues and regularize them when encountering those issues. One of these technologies is the mining of "Cryptocurrency". Due to its basic similarity with "Je'aleh (a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee)", in this study, the compliance evaluation of cryptocurrency mining with the rules, pillars and conditions of je'aleh has been examined. Analytical studies show that the current general request issued by the cryptocurrency system designer can be considered "Ja'il (the promissor)" and it can be applied to general Je'aleh. In addition, the reward of mining cryptocurrency can be considered as "Jo'al", the solution and the purpose of rationality, and the miner as an "agent". The "action" in cryptocurrency mining is known and clear and is done through CPU, GPU and ASIC. The only problem of compliance evaluation is manifested in the qualification of possession of "Ja'il"; it is not possible to fulfill this condition due to the anonymity of "Satoshi Nakamoto" - the creator of cryptocurrency." Unless the customary impossibility of designing cryptocurrency by a lunatic and a child and the high cost of its design proves that the creator is not financially isolated. It should be noted that the compatibility of cryptocurrency mining with Ja'ala does not mean its legitimacy, but in this regard, there are still problems such as the taxation of cryptocurrency as well as the superficiality of their mining, which should be examined in other studies.

The purpose of this research is to present the risk management model of cryptocurrencies in Iran with a combined (qualitative and quantitative) approach. In the qualitative section, a conceptual model was designed by asking 20 experts in the field of cryptocurrencies and blockchain through an open questionnaire. In the quantitative stage, the model was tested with a statistical sample of 102 experts in the field of payments system using the Structural Equation Modeling approach. Data analysis was done in two parts: measurement and structural model. The technical characteristics of the model including reliability, convergent and divergent validity were investigated. In the structural part, research hypotheses were also evaluated. The results show that legal and jurisprudential, technological, political/security and economic risks are among the risks that affect the use of cryptocurrencies. The effect of using cryptocurrencies on benefiting from its benefits was also positively obtained; Therefore, it can be concluded that although blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies have various risks, but it has many benefits that governments can benefit from with appropriate and expert planning.

Cryptocurrencies are digital assets created using encryption techniques intended to serve as a means of exchange. Given their cross-border nature, it's important to consider their status within the international legal system. While many governments have recognised cryptocurrencies as money, others view them as assets that can be traded, like goods or services. Under certain conditions, they may also be treated as investments. This raises the question of how cryptocurrencies should be classified under international law of trade and foreign investment law. The hypothesis is that categorising cryptocurrencies as goods, services, or capital presents challenges in applying traditional international law of trade and foreign investment frameworks. The World Trade Organization, as the most critical component of the international trade regime, lacks explicit rules related to cryptocurrencies. Applying the principles of the national treatment and the most favoured nation within this framework to cryptocurrency-based transactions will encounter obstacles. One of the most significant challenges in classifying cryptocurrencies as foreign capital is determining whether these assets meet the requirements for such classification, regardless of their origin. If cryptocurrencies can be considered securities or telecommunications services, they may be included under the scope of the World Trade Organization's legal system. Additionally, investing in technology such as distributed ledger using cryptocurrencies, purchasing company shares with cryptocurrency, buying equipment for investment purposes, or acquiring AI tokens could all be examples of capital under general investment treaties.

The advancement of technology and the emergence of new types of it in the current era have forced governments to adopt different approaches. These approaches are chosen based on the regulatory and legislative system of each country on the one hand and on the other hand the economic and political conditions and requirements of each period and each technology. The approach of countries may change over time. Cryptocurrencies are one of the things whose regulation has become an issue for governments in the last decade. In their way of dealing with this issue, governments range from complete prohibition to complete freedom. Most of the challenges that governments face in facing such issues are common or similar. The first challenge that governments have faced in the field of cryptocurrencies and which causes them to choose a specific approach towards cryptocurrencies is how to identify their nature. In addition to considering the internal and governmental structure of the country, the countries also involve their analysis of the nature of cryptocurrencies in determining the regulatory authority for cryptocurrencies. This research has investigated the relationship between these two issues by examining the approach of countries to the two issues of the nature of cryptocurrencies and determining the regulatory body of cryptocurrencies. The result of this research shows that the majority of countries consider cryptocurrencies as a type of asset and consider them close and similar to securities and other financial instruments. In the selection of the regulatory body, most governments have not recognized the need to establish a new authority for the regulation of cryptocurrencies, and they have chosen their own authority for regulating securities and other financial instruments among the existing bodies.