top of page

Law of Cryptocurrencies 101: Development of Cryptocurrencies and Their Relationship With Law


Cryptocurrencies are defined as technologies that aim to distribute the power of governance and regulation—currently within the purview of central authorities—to the members of society. Cryptocurrencies have a huge market value, and the volume of transactions increases every day. In today’s world, cryptocurrencies, crypto monies, and other crypto assets are used as a source of investment. Because of the regulations of governments; cryptocurrencies, and other decentralized economic assets cannot be used as tools that enable people to maintain their daily activities. It cannot be counted as the main aim behind the development of cryptocurrencies. In addition, because of these restricting regulations, neither countries nor citizens benefit from this huge economic value at its maximum level, and it causes the usage of crypto assets as a source for black economies. By regulating the usage of cryptocurrencies, countries may benefit from their economic value; the association of cryptos and the black markets may be undercut, while during economically difficult times, people may even use them for transactions, earning money. Additionally, decentralized technologies can develop faster without harming the sovereignty of the states. In brief, the regulation of cryptocurrencies is beneficial for both countries and individuals in these aspects. This series is going to enlighten its readers about which legal remedies exist and how to tackle this emerging space from the perspective of symbiotic regulation aimed at enhancing our daily lives through these emerging technologies.

This 101 series is divided into seven chapters, with each providing a distinct discursive element on the legal environments of cryptocurrencies.

Law of Cryptocurrencies 101: Dispute Resolutions by Using Decentralized Systems: Resolutions for Cryptocurrencies

The volume of cryptocurrency trading transactions increases every day. The trading activities of these currencies are made on different blockchain systems and blockchain protocols: the Bitcoin blockchain protocol, the Ethereum blockchain protocol, and others. Users can interact and realize transactions among each other without the need of a gatekeeper, such as a state or company, or any other central supervision (Ortolani, 2019). Almost all blockchain protocols aim to facilitate cryptocurrency transactions and make them more secure, trusted, and pseudonymized (Buchwald, 2020). To achieve these aims, these protocols have rules, and these rules are found on the white papers. The white papers of blockchain protocols are defined as the constitutions of these decentralized systems. They include rules about how transactions can be made and which rules have to be followed. Both buyers and sellers have to obey the white paper of the relevant blockchain protocol (Ortolani, 2019). In addition, the decision-making mechanisms for blockchain-based platforms are different from traditional decision-making mechanisms, including dispute resolution. On these platforms, governance issues are solved by a consensus mechanism based on the vote of each member of the relevant blockchain system (Sims, 2021). The characteristics of disintermediation, immutability, and transparency of blockchain technology bring a new approach to the jurisdiction term globally (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021).

The “smart contract” is another tool cryptocurrency owners use to carry out transactions. Smart contracts can be defined as self-executing digital transactions that use decentralized cryptographic mechanisms of enforcement (Buchwald, 2020). Through these contracts, parties to the agreement can automate the implementation of the content (Cianci et. al., n.d.). The automation of a smart contract may have an important effect on the consequences of a dispute that arise from this smart contract (Ortolani, 2019). The increasing usage of these contracts fosters the necessity of private, self-enforcing systems of dispute resolution (Ortolani, 2019). In brief, because of these specialties of cryptocurrency transactions, parties to the transactions have to have a new type of jurisdiction (Ortolani, 2019).

The limits of the domestic courts, the deficiencies in applicable law around the world, and the complex technical evidence about transactions based on decentralized systems make solving disputes about cryptocurrencies with traditional dispute resolution mechanisms harder (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). For most cryptocurrency transaction disputes, traditional courts are not the appropriate forum. The most important reason for this inappropriate situation is the lack of regulations and precedent cases about blockchain technology and cryptocurrency transactions. Alternative dispute resolutions need to be used to solve disputes about cryptocurrency transactions (Sims, 2021). As a result of this fact, the term “crypto-courts” was created. These courts were created to make blockchain-based disputes about cryptocurrencies easier to solve as an alternative to traditional justice (Dylag & Smith, 2021). Cryptocurrency experts who designed these courts aim to generate a justice system that includes decentralized governance, a jury system where the juries are elected according to the will of users of blockchain systems (crowdsourced juror deliberation), and the execution of smart contracts (Dylag & Smith, 2021). Indeed, new decentralized dispute resolution platforms such as Kleros or Aragon have started to emerge as a result of the growing demand from cryptocurrency owners and the e-commerce industry. (Zhuk, 2023). These institutions create the necessary social and economic relations that are suitable for cryptocurrency transactions (Dylag & Smith, 2021). In conclusion, because of the lack of a traditional global legal system for cryptocurrency transactions (Zhuk, 2023), new dispute-resolution mechanisms have been created, and new platforms that serve these new dispute-resolution mechanisms have been founded (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019).

To the Decentralized Dispute Resolution Systems from Traditional Dispute Resolution

To understand the deficiencies of traditional court litigation and current alternative dispute resolution systems, the structure and main specialties of the current legal system have to be understood. People and organizations use the courts of the states and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve their disputes with each other. There are appeal mechanisms if parties are dissatisfied with the decision of the relevant court as well (Sims, 2021). The modern justice system is under the sovereignty of judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and other such positions. Parties to a dispute are dependent on their actions, decisions, defenses, and interpretations of legal rules. On the other hand, it cannot be said that there is a consensus mechanism among citizens in these judicial systems; decisions are not taken by an election (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021). The main two problems with traditional dispute resolution systems are their cost and the length of proceedings. The application process of a decision-making process could be much more difficult (Zhuk, 2023). Parties to a case may increasingly be dissatisfied with the cost and length of the proceedings (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). In addition, there are also problems such as discrimination and corruption. For several people, all of these problems are caused by the “monopoly” of the judges and their services (Zhuk, 2023). Because of this, some alternative dispute resolutions, such as mediation, arbitration, or online dispute resolution, have been created around the world (Zhuk, 2023).

Mediation is the first alternative dispute resolution system that consists of third parties resolving the dispute. An unbiased and unprejudiced decision-maker listens to and analyzes the main argument and supportive arguments of the parties, and at the end of the process, an agreement is made among the parties by the warrant of this decision-maker. Mediation is used to support court procedures in the current justice system. If the agreement cannot be made and the mediation process fails, parties can start court proceedings (Sims, 2021). Arbitration is another alternative dispute resolution mechanism, and it is one of the most popular alternative dispute resolution mechanisms around the world. It is used for both domestic and international disputes (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). In arbitration, the positions of the judge in proceedings are replaced with those of arbitrators. These arbitrators are the decision-makers in this alternative dispute resolution (Sims, 2021). Most commercial disputes and issues about employment and consumers are solved by using the arbitration method (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). The ability to appeal to a court is limited in arbitration (Sims, 2021). However, states act as gatekeepers in arbitration procedures, which makes the execution of the decisions that come from arbitration easier (Ortolani, 2019).

Especially in the international area, the decisions arising from these two dispute resolution processes are much more enforceable (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). However, if alternative dispute resolutions are used by parties, the economic value of the dispute must exceed the relevant limit (Sims, 2021). Indeed, it is certain that courts and traditional litigation are less costly than alternative dispute resolutions. Especially the fees of the arbitrators are extremely high for normal citizens (Zhuk, 2023). Thus, to resolve disputes more economically, online courts were founded in various countries by global companies. These courts have started to be used mostly to solve civil disputes (Sims, 2021). Countries such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand developed their own online alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The United Kingdom has spent more than one billion pounds on the modernization of the courts through digital ledger technologies (Dylag & Smith, 2021). One of the biggest e-commerce companies in the world, AliBaba, has founded its own arbitration court and started to hear its disputes in these courts (Sims, 2021). Until 2017, 60 million cases were resolved by e-Bay alone. In China, between 2017 and 2019, 20.000 cases were resolved by the online court of Hangzhou (Meshel & Yahya, 2021).

Traditional dispute resolutions are inefficient for solving disputes about cryptocurrency transactions and transactions made on blockchain systems. There are various reasons for this inefficiency: First of all, the parties to the cryptocurrency transactions are anonymous or pseudonymous. Second, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms are unable to change or execute a smart contract (Sims, 2021). Because of the high legal uncertainty in traditional litigation, the economic benefit of smart contracts can completely disappear (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021). In addition, for judges, it might be difficult to understand new technologies that are used for cryptocurrency transactions (Sims, 2021), and the enforcement of a court decision in a foreign country by a foreign judge might be difficult as well (Sims, 2021).

In today’s world, cryptocurrency transactions are mostly solved by litigation and arbitration. Disputes about cryptocurrency investments, not trading activities, are usually settled through litigation. The increasing investments in decentralized monetary units have made court litigation popular around the world (Ortolani, 2019). The method of arbitration is also used for cryptocurrency investments. Thus, this alternative dispute resolution is mostly used for trading activities with decentralized monetary units. Online dispute resolution mechanisms are closer to decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms. However, the resolution of crypto disputes is much more complicated than online disputes because of their specific specialties (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). In brief, traditional dispute resolution mechanisms are used to solve issues arising from cryptocurrency transactions, but none of them is enough. Indeed, the structure of the blockchain blurs the lines between the execution of smart contracts and existing legal rules (Dylag & Smith, 2021).

Developments in artificial intelligence, the term open government, blockchain technology, and the increase in cryptocurrency trading transactions around the world are going to change how courts operate (Zhuk, 2023). Because of the structure of blockchain technology, new arbitration procedures need to be applied to the relevant dispute (Ortolani, 2019). States are aware of that situation, and they have started to use decentralized technologies in their litigation structures. In 2018, the Dubai Emirate launched the first blockchain court in the world. It is a commercial court, and all blockchain-based transactions, including cryptocurrency trading activities, are going to be solved by this court in Dubai (Dylag & Smith, 2021). China is also working on the foundation of new courts based on blockchain technology. Alternative dispute resolutions started to interact with these technologies as well. Arbitration institutions such as JAMS, AAA, and the ICC started to adapt the model of online crypto-arbitration (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). In addition, new start-ups and companies that work on decentralized technologies try to spread decentralized dispute resolution technologies because of the inefficiency of traditional ones. 

Main Specialties of Decentralized Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Decentralized dispute resolution systems have the potential to provide fast, cheap, and fair jurisdiction models for cryptocurrency transactions. They use a high level of automation to enforce decisions and to charge fees (Sims, 2021). For blockchain technology experts, the most important characteristic of crypto transaction dispute resolution systems is the ability of users to opt out of the conflict (Buchwald, 2020). In these systems, there is no central authority that controls the entire jurisdiction process (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). The “wisdom of the crowd” mechanism is used in decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms. This means that people in the system are effective in the jurisdiction that the platform has made (Buchwald, 2020). People act as adjudicators, and a consensus mechanism is used in the decision-making process. The jurors are selected by a voting system based on the relevant blockchain protocol (Cianci et. al., n.d.), and all users have to engage in the verification of the decision (Meshel and Yahya, 2021). It could be accepted as an important milestone for the democratization of the justice system (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021). After the voting process, the elected jurors are selected randomly and anonymously for each dispute. They are not assigned by the platforms itself; they are selected according to the decisions of the users of the platforms (Sims, 2021). Another example of democratization on these platforms is the freedom of jurors.

One of the other most important advantages of decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms is their economic benefit. By reducing the cost of the jurors and making this dispute resolution system more affordable for the middle class, accessing justice is much more beneficial (Zhuk, 2023). Because of their low costs of jurisdiction, high level of efficiency, and liberal structure, decentralized dispute resolution mechanism systems attract private sector actors (Zhuk, 2023). On the other hand, there is also the opportunity to create a smart contract by using the parties' own language and the coding language (Buchwald, 2020). Decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms include a discovery process as well. Parties can upload their evidence to the systems, which may be beneficial to supporting their argument (Buchwald, 2020).

Some issues that need to be bypassed by decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms as well: the verification and authentication of a legal document, the implementation of smart contracts, and supplying alternative dispute resolution such as mediation or arbitration (Zhuk, 2023). On these platforms, civil disputes are solved rather than criminal ones (Sims, 2021). So, it can be said that they need to develop themselves to solve criminal disputes as well. Another dilemma is the enforcement of the decisions of the decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms. These new decentralized dispute-resolution mechanisms can easily bypass the recognition and enforcement procedures of the states (Ortolani, 2019). Therefore, recognizing the decentralized justice as a valid method of dispute resolution is problematic for the state authority (Keinan, 2023). There is no obstacle against the hearing of an issue in a traditional court once more (Cianci et. al., n.d.). Unlike traditional mechanisms, there is no dialogue between jurors and disputants. Verbal declarations and statements are ineffective in these systems (Buchwald, 2020). The last disadvantage of decentralized dispute resolution systems are its time limits. A decentralized dispute resolution mechanism uses strict time limits for dispute resolutions, even stricter than traditional dispute resolution mechanisms (Sims, 2021). In addition to all these points, sometimes democratization can be harmful to the justice system. The users who select the judges for a dispute might not have the relevant technical and legal background (Cianci et. al., n.d.).

Start-ups and Online Platforms for Decentralized Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

The decentralized dispute resolution industry is in its early stages. These courts perform with a system supported by blockchain technology, and their procedures are encoded in smart contracts (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021). Almost all these systems operate outside the traditional legal systems (Sims, 2021). Users of these platforms can choose their dispute resolution mechanism independently (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019). Platforms such as Aragon Court, Kleors, JUR, and OpenCourt are effective platforms for smart contracting processes, but they have different levels of global enforceability (Buchwald, 2020). According to blockchain stakeholders and cryptocurrency owners, the introduction of blockchain technology into the legal framework and the foundation of these decentralized dispute resolution platforms are going to be more efficient and secure for cryptocurrency trading transactions (Dylag & Smith, 2021).

Aragon Court

Aragon Court is a dispute resolution system for smart contracts that cannot be solved by traditional dispute resolution systems. It is one of the next-generation human organizations, a blockchain-based court. The jurors of the platforms are named “guardians” (Official Webpage of Aragon Court, n.d.). Three guardians are selected randomly by the users of the platform for each dispute. Jurors need to express their desire to be guardians. Users who wish to be jurors on the platform must hold the minimum amount of Aragon’s ANJ cryptocurrency. If a user is selected as the guardian, 30% of his active ANJ currency is locked by the platform as an assurance of voting (Sims, 2021).

Aragon is a permission-less platform. In other words, anyone can use the platform without getting permission from a central authority. The platform has strong protection against users in bad faith who have a huge amount of ANJ currencies and try to be an authority on the platform. The guardians are not selected according to the decisions of these users (Official Webpage of Aragon Court, n.d.). Strict time limits are applied on the Aragon platform. The parties to a dispute need to submit their arguments and the supportive facets of these arguments to the system within seven days. Then, guardians have a few days to vote, decide, and, if necessary, appeal the case (Sims, 2021). The platform also brought an arbitration service for their users (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021).


It is a legal tech firm that provides infrastructure for cryptocurrency transactions. On this platform, without legislative support, property transfers can be made using smart contracts and crypto monetary units (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019). Mattereum works with the United Kingdom Task Force (UKTF) to supply an applicable dispute resolution for decentralized monetary units. Decentralized arbitration is the most used method of dispute resolution on this platform (the official website of Mattereum). The platform has established a decentralized commercial arbitration court for property transactions by using cryptocurrencies. Technically competent arbitrators are responsible for solving the disputes (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019), and the relevant arbitration rules that are used in this platform are the rules of the New York Convention of Arbitration (Official Webpage of Mattereum). 


Kleros is one of the most popular decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms. It was founded in 2017, and over time, it enhanced its dispute resolution mechanisms and popularity (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019). Kleros defines itself as a specific arbitration mechanism for smart contracts and cryptocurrency transactions (Official Webpage of Kleros). According to several authorities, the platform is accepted as the most developed decentralized dispute resolution mechanism platform (Zhuk, 2023). The administration of Kleros declared that they have three objectives in the blockchain market: to create justice for new business models, to create a new field of legal technology based on blockchain technology, and to lead a new judicial reform and a new justice system that inspires people (Dylag & Smith, 2021). For each different type of dispute, a different type of court was founded on the platform (Official Webpage of Kleros).

Kleros was launched on the Ethereum blockchain protocol (Aouidef, Ast & Deffains, 2021). Therefore, the jurors of the platform are paid with Ether (Sims, 2021). The mechanism of crowdsourcing jurors is applied here; the jurors are elected according to their expertise, independence, impartiality, and transparency by an election among the users of the platform (Allen, Lane, and Poblet, 2019). As per Aragon’s policy, if users can hold a sufficient amount of cryptocurrency, they can be selected as judges. There are three jurors per round, but the complainant can use more jurors on the condition of paying their fees (Sims, 2021). All jurors are assigned to each case randomly (Official Webpage of Kleros). The ability to access justice has increased with crowdsourcing. With this policy, users who cannot afford the fees of the judges can use this common reserve of the platform (Sims, 2021). On the other hand, for each appeal, the number of jurors and the total cost of the appealed case increase. Through this policy, the platform aimed to disincentivize excessive appellate proceedings (Buchwald, 2020).


JUR is a blockchain-based platform founded in 2018 to generate smart contracts and solve disputes sourced by these smart contracts. The founders of the platforms say that JUR is going to be a milestone for the future of Web 3.0. For them, the platform is an example of pure democracy and transparency (Official Webpage of JUR). Unlike other platforms, in JUR, if a claimant starts a prosecution against another user, this claimant has to have an idea about how this problem can be solved (Buchwald, 2020). The main dispute resolution mechanism used on the platform is arbitration, and the applied arbitration rules are the rules of the New York Convention (Sims, 2021). There are three different layers depending on the dispute’s economic value: the first layer, the court layer, and the layer for the highest-value disputes (Sims, 2021). Disputes above 150.000 USD are for the layer of higher-value disputes. On the other hand, simple disputes try to be resolved in less than 24 hours, making dispute-resolution a fast process. Arbitrators for disputes are selected from the arbitration hub. These arbitrators are not the own arbitrators of the platform. They are selected from different arbitration centers around the world if the principles of the centers match the principles of the platform (Sims, 2021).


It is the first online international arbitration institution in the world, established in London (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). It was founded to solve contracts based on blockchain systems and make these contracts legally enforceable. The main aim of the platform is the use of blockchain technology in international law, and to generate a borderless contract system around the world (Official Webpage of Cryptonomica). Cryptonomica is based on the arbitration rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNICITRAL Rules). It has its own blockchain arbitration rules as well, and it solves cryptocurrency trading by these rules (Meshel & Yahya, 2021). In brief, Cryptonominica was founded to secure and execute smart contracts that consist of cryptocurrency transactions, and if necessary, a dispute arising from these contracts can be heard by the platform’s decentralized dispute resolution mechanism.

Law Blocks

The platform of the Law Blocks consists of both the methods of decentralized arbitration and decentralized mediation. It serves as a blockchain-based, transparent jurisdiction service for the parties to a smart contract. If there is a dispute, firstly, parties to the dispute try to reach an agreement. But if that stage fails, they can go to the methods of arbitration or mediation. The platform benefits from artificial intelligence technology to solve smart contract disputes, and it also works on a courtroom, which will work on a metaverse platform. Judges are selected by the users of the blockchain; however, there are also AI judges on the platform (The Official Webpage of Law Blocks). 


It is a project that was started by MIT and has been built on the principles of privacy. Users of this platform can create privacy-preserving smart contracts known as “secret contracts” about their cryptocurrency transactions (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019). The contracts in the system are protected by robotic systems and a special cryptographic mechanism (Official Webpage of Enigma). Enigma cannot be defined as a dispute resolution platform directly. However, problems with confidential data on blockchain systems can be solved on this platform (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019). The platform follows the recent legal developments in the United Kingdom, and make the contracts in their system enforceable (Official Webpage of Enigma).

Blockchain Arbitration Forum (BAF)

The aim of the BAF is to increase awareness about alternative dispute resolution mechanisms based on blockchain systems. The forum can be defined as a group of researchers who create new studies about alternative dispute resolution systems around the world (FlashIntel, n.d.). On the platform, there is a pool of jurors who have different expertise (Keinan, 2023). It includes mediation and arbitration clauses for smart contracts and cryptocurrency transactions. The platform includes a library for smart contracts, which includes a set of coded rules based on Universal Rules. If a party breaches the smart contract, the relevant sanction is located in this library automatically, and it will be executed (Allen, Lane & Poblet, 2019).


In conclusion of these developments, it can be clearly said that the systems of decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms are at an early stage of development. They have huge advantages, such as being cost-effective, transparent, and democratized. In addition, during the solution of a dispute born from the smart contract, the structure of this smart contract and the structure of the blockchain technology are protected. In spite of all of these benefits, countries such as Morocco, India, Colombia, China, and Iran impose strict restrictions on cryptocurrencies and other decentralized monetary units. It is the biggest obstacle against the spread of decentralized dispute resolution platforms. Democratization and transparency cause judges to make wrong decisions about the dispute. There is also a problem with how the smart contract will be executed independently of a state’s jurisdiction. The whole of them demonstrates that the implementation of decentralized dispute resolution mechanisms and their popularization around the world will not be a simple process (Zhuk, 2023).

Bibliographical References

A Brief History of JUR (n.d.). Official Webpage of JUR. 


Allen, Darcy W. E., Lane, A. M., & Poblet, Marta. (2019). The governance of blockchain dispute resolution. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 25(1), 75-102.


Aouidef, Y., Ast, F., & Deffains, B. (2021, March 16). Decentralized Justice: A Comparative Analysis of Blockchain Online Dispute Resolution Projects. Frontiers.


Buchwald, Michael. (2020). Smart Contract Dispute Resolution: The Inescapable Flaws of Blockchain-Based Arbitration. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 168(5), 1369-1424.


Cianci, M., Longo, A. J., Ward, D. V., & Iwry, J. (n.d.). Benefits & Risks of Decentralized Dispute Resolution. Bloomberg Law. 


Cryptonomica - Advanced Tools for Smart People (n.d.). Official Webpage of Cryptonomica.!/ 


Dylag, M., & Smith, H. (2023). From Cryptocurrencies To Cryptocourts: Blockchain and The Financialization Of Dispute Resolution Platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 26(2), 372–387. 


Blockchain Arbitration Forum (BAF) (n.d.). Flashintel. 


Keinan , D. (2024). Ensuring Proper Enforcement of Cryptocurrency Arbitration Clauses: A Call for Supreme Court Intervention [Student Works, Seton Hall Law].


Law Blocks (AI) Dispute Resolutions. (n.d.). Official Webpage of Law Blocks. 


Mattereum Protocol Stack (n.d.). Official Webpage of Mattereum. 


Ortolani, P. (2019). The Impact of Blockchain Technologies And Smart Contracts On Dispute Resolution: Arbitration And Court Litigation At The Crossroads. Uniform law review, 24(2), 430-448.


Sims, A. (2021). Decentralised Autonomous Organisations: Governance, Dispute Resolution and Regulation [Doctoral Dissertation, Macquarie University Sydney].


The Court of Kleros. (n.d.). Official Webpage of Kleros. 

What is Aragon Court? (n.d.). Official Webpage of Aragon. 


What is Enigma?  (n.d.). Official Webpage of Enigma. 


Zhuk, A. (202Decentralized dispute resolution, an innovation facilitated by blockchain-based technologies, is on the rise. The revolution reviewed. ). Applying Blockchain To The Modern Legal System: Kleros As A Decentralised Dispute Resolution System. International Cybersecurity Law Review. 


Visual Sources

2 comentários

10 de jun.

The article "Law of Cryptocurrencies 101: Development of Cryptocurrencies and Their cable and internet packages directv Relationship with Law" provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving legal landscape surrounding cryptocurrencies. It delves into the historical background of digital currencies and explores their intricate interplay with regulatory frameworks. With clear insights into the challenges and opportunities presented by this burgeoning sector, the piece offers valuable knowledge for both enthusiasts and policymakers navigating the complexities of cryptocurrency law. A must-read for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of this dynamic field.


Navigating the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency law is essential for both users and regulators alike. As blockchain transactions demand secure and accessible solutions, Zert emerges as a beacon of reliability. Our mission to democratize finance aligns with the need for clarity in legal frameworks surrounding cryptocurrencies. With our fully licensed platform spanning three continents, users can engage in secure transactions with confidence, even amidst legal complexities. Stay informed, stay empowered, and trust ZERT to lead the way in making blockchain transactions accessible, instant, and secure for all.

Author Photo

Fırat Çetiner

Arcadia _ Logo.png

Arcadia has an extensive catalog of articles on everything from literature to science — all available for free! If you liked this article and would like to read more, subscribe below and click the “Read More” button to discover a world of unique content.

Let the posts come to you!

Thanks for submitting!

  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
bottom of page