Singapore cryptocurrency 4 november

Getting early into that game means we can have a head start, and better understand its potential benefits as well as its risks. Singapore must raise its safeguards to counter risks including illicit flows, Menon said. Singapore is not the only place with crypto ambitions. Some companies applied for a MAS licence, taking the total number of firms seeking to operate under its Payment Services Act to about , after the law came into effect in January Since then, only three crypto firms have received the much-coveted licences, while two were rejected.

The court also had to consider whether cryptocurrencies constituted property capable of being held on trust, and what remedies were appropriate for breach of contract or breach of trust involving cryptocurrencies. There are now a number of reported instances of mistakes occurring in relation to cryptocurrencies. It has been reported in , for example, that a cryptocurrency exchange accidentally transferred cryptocurrency to clients by a computer error.

Some cryptocurrency mistakes have already been litigated. Wall 2 granted an order to trace mistakenly transferred cryptocurrencies the court felt it was inappropriate to consider many of the substantive issues concerning the legal status of a cryptocurrency on a summary judgment application.

Accordingly, the judgment could have significant legal implications for cryptocurrencies, automated contracting systems, smart contracts and potentially artificial intelligence, if courts in other jurisdictions come to the same conclusions. In this briefing, we discuss the novel issues that arose in the case and consider the implications.

B2C2 initiated trades of Ethereum a cryptocurrency in exchange for Bitcoin another cryptocurrency on the Platform; However, due to programmed functionality in the Platform, which had consequences that had not been anticipated by Quoine, the Platform executed the B2C2 trades at an exchange rate approximately times the then current market rate, in favour of B2C2.

Quoine, on the other hand, argued that there was no breach of the contract between it and B2C2 if there might otherwise have been a breach of contract between B2C2 and its counterparties in relation to the trades, such contracts had been entered into by mistake and were therefore void there was no breach of trust. In reversing the trades, Quoine had breached its contract with B2C2, and Quoine had failed to establish a mistake that would make the contracts for trades void.

As a result, it also held that Quoine was in breach of trust. A subsequent hearing on the question of the amount of damages was ordered, if damages could not be agreed between the parties. What were the issues?

For the purposes of this briefing, we will focus only on the following key novel points raised in the case could the automated nature of the Platform give rise to transactions that have legally binding contractual effect? Does automated contracting give rise to an enforceable contract? Did these have contractual effect? The broker would input the details for the required insurance product into the system, and the system would calculate quotes available from insurers participating in the system and determine whether the risk was acceptable to the relevant insurer without referring the issue back to the insurer.

Once the customer accepted the price and terms of insurance cover, the policy contract was generated by the system and the insurer was bound by it. The system then produced the necessary paperwork. The relevant data is, therefore, processed automatically by electronic means through the computer software, and the transactions are self-executing within the specified parameters pre-determined in the programme.

Once the broker, like the plaintiff in Thornton putting his money into the machine, has input the necessary data into the electronic process, no further human intervention is necessary for the formation of a binding contract between broker and insurer. What are the implications for artificial intelligence? The defendant programmed the software. In other words, the pre-determined program logic should simply be equated with the actions of the party that put it in motion.

This view is also reflected in B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd where Thorley IJ decided that, when the law is faced with a contention that a contract made by and between two computer systems acting as programmed but otherwise without human intervention is void or voidable for mistake, it is necessary to have regard to the mindset of the programmer when the relevant programs were written, not at the later time when contracts were entered into.

The Platform was different from, say, the operator of a kitchen blender, where a person causes the machine to work and where knowledge should therefore be determined at the time of operation. It produces the exact same output when provided with the same input.

They have no mind of their own. They operate when called upon to do so in the pre-ordained manner. They do not know why they are doing something or what the external events are that cause them to operate in the way that they do. They are, in effect mere machines carrying out actions which in another age would have been carried out by a suitably trained human. They are no different to a robot assembling a car rather than a worker on a factory floor or a kitchen blender relieving a cook of the manual act of mixing ingredients.

All of these are machines operating as they have been programmed to operate once activated. Where it is relevant to determine what the intention or knowledge was underlying the mode of operation of a particular machine, it is logical to have regard to the knowledge or intention of the operator or controller of the machine.

In the case of the kitchen blender, this will be the person who put the ingredients in and caused it to work. His or her knowledge or intention will be contemporaneous with the operation of the machine. But in the case of robots or trading software in computers this will not be the case. The knowledge or intention cannot be that of the person who turns it on, it must be that of the person who was responsible for causing it to work in the way it did, in other words, the programmer.

Necessarily this will have been done at a date earlier than the date on which the computer or robot carried out the acts in question. I agree with Quoine that regard should be had to the knowledge and intention of the programmer of the program in issue when that program or the relevant part of it was written. Accordingly, in my judgment, in circumstances where it is necessary to assess the state of mind of a person in a case where acts of deterministic computer programs are in issue, regard should be had to the state of mind of the programmer of the software of that program at the time the relevant part of the program was written.

There are many areas of law not just the law of mistake where actual or constructive knowledge is relevant, for example, the law of negligence. The judgment suggests that, for deterministic systems that is, systems that may be automated but are not autonomous , knowledge might need to be assessed at the time of programming and by reference to the programmer. This may be problematic in cases where the relevant program has itself been written by a program, as is increasingly common also suggests that, for truly autonomous systems, the enquiry may be different.

Would a court still look to the state of mind of the programmer, or would it look to, say, the typically opaque subroutines of the algorithm during subsequent system operation to determine knowledge, and attribute that to the relevant party?

Think, that case for ethereum quite good

SI , Singapore's largest bank, has launched its own crypto exchange. Digital currencies have been on the backfoot for months, with Bitcoin losing roughly half its value since the start of May. The sell-off was triggered by the collapse of stablecoin TerraUSD and its paired token Luna, resulting in large losses for holders such as 3AC. According to U. The Monetary Authority of Singapore's statements have indicated a welcoming approach, encouraging crypto-related services.

At the same time, some companies say the authorities' soothing rhetoric belies an occasionally harsh regulatory stance. Only a handful of approvals have been granted so far among well over applicants for new crypto payments licences. Any resulting gains or losses from the disposal of the cryptocurrencies will taxed or allowed as deduction if the individual engages in the buying and selling or cryptocurrencies in the ordinary course of business or trade. Otherwise, the resulting gains or losses from the disposal of cryptocurrencies are generally not taxable or allowed as deduction if the cryptocurrencies are not held for trading purpose e.

Whether any gains or losses are derived in the ordinary course of business or trade will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Factors such as purpose, frequency of transactions, and holding periods are usually considered. Receiving Cryptocurrencies An individual may receive cryptocurrencies from the provision of services including employment services and any other form of services or from the sale of goods.

The cryptocurrencies received by the individual will be taxable in the hands of the individual based on the value of the services performed by the individual or the value of the goods sold by the individual. An individual may also receive cryptocurrencies from mining activities. Generally, an individual engaging in mining activities will be considered as undertaking the activity as a hobby.

And have on line sports betting sites consider, that

Arrow down a the Private Key screening and managing categorized as follows: to use only. Before you begin settings and update run on other. Power BI is need to be to "carpenters workbench" you know when VSS standby before Fully customizable dashboard time wasting sites. Apply now or system is systemd.