FinTech, blockchain and Islamic finance : an extensive literature review

Purpose: The paper aims to review the academic research work done in the area of Islamic financial technology. The Islamic FinTech area has been classified into three broad categories of the Islamic FinTech, Islamic Financial technology opportunities and challenges, Cryptocurrency/Blockchain sharia compliance and law/regulation. Finally, the study identifies and highlights the opportunities and challenges that Islamic Financial institutions can learn from the conventional FinTech organization across the world. Approach/Methodology/Design: The study collected 133 research studies (50 from Social Science Research Network (SSRN), 30 from Research gate, 33 from Google Scholar and 20 from other sources) in the area of Islamic Financial Technology. The study presents the systematic review of the above studies. Findings: The study classifies the Islamic FinTech into three broad categories namely, Islamic FinTech opportunities and challenges, Cryptocurrency/Blockchain sharia compliance and law/regulation. The study identifies that the sharia compliance related to the cryptocurrency/Blockchain is the biggest challenge which Islamic FinTech organizations are facing. During our review we also find that Islamic FinTech organizations are to be considered as partners by the Islamic Financial Institutions (IFI’s) than the competitors. If Islamic Financial institutions want to increase efficiency, transparency and customer satisfaction they have to adopt FinTech and become partners with the FinTech companies. Practical Implications: The study will contribute positively to the understanding of Islamic Fintech for the academia, industry, regulators, investors and other FinTech users. Originality/Value: The study believes to contribute positively to understanding of Fintech based technology like cryptocurrency/Blockchain from sharia perspective.peer-reviewe

Settling for efficiency : a framework for the European securities transactions industry

Despite a lot of re-structuring and many innovations in recent years, the securities transaction industry in the European Union is still a highly inefficient and inconsistently configured system for cross-border transactions. This paper analyzes the functions performed, the institutions involved and the parameters concerned that shape market and ownership structure in the industry. Of particular interest are microeconomic incentives of the main players that can be in contradiction to social welfare. We develop a framework and analyze three consistent systems for the securities transaction industry in the EU that offer superior efficiency than the current, inefficient arrangement. Some policy advice is given to select the 'best' system for the Single European Financial Market

Disruptive Power of Blockchain on the Insurance Industry

Kindlustus on olnud globaalse majanduse võtmekomponendiks oma lisatasude suuruse, investeerimismahtude ja ennekõike oma isikliku ja äririski katva sotsiaalse ja majandusliku rolli tõttu. Aastate jooksul on antud sektoris olnud püsiv reform, kuid sellele vaatamata on kindlustuse tööstusharu jäänud suuremalt jaolt samaks oma ärimudeli ja toimimise osas. Seda sektorit domineerivad vahendajad, kes mängivad võtmerolli kliendi vajaduste mõistmises ja viivad selle kokku kindlale sihtgrupile mõeldud kindlustustootega. PwC poolt tehtud uuring raportis „Kindlustus 2020: Muutuse pööramine võimaluseks“ [1] võtab arvesse sotsiaalsed, tehnoloogilised, keskkondlikud, majanduslikud ja poliitilised faktorid ning viitab sellele, et kindlustuse sektoril on vajadus muutuda agentuuripõhisest jaotusmudelist kasutusepõhiseks ärimudeliks. Antud uurimustöö uurib plokiahela tehnoloogiat ja selle häirivat mõju kindlustussektorile hinnates praegust äriprotsessi ja –mudelit ning seda, kuidas see tehnoloogia suudab antud mudeleid täiustada. Uurimustöö järeldusena pakutakse uut protsessi suunda kindlustuse tööstusharule rõhutades kliendile pakutavat parema väärtusega teenust, kus on kasutusel plokiahela tehnoloogia. Võtmesõnad: plokiahela tehnoloogia, kindlustuse äriprotsess, jaotatud peaarvetehnoloogiaThe insurance industry has been a key component of the global economy by the amount of premiums it generates, the scale of its investment and more fundamentally, the essential social and economic role it plays in covering personal and business risk. Over the years, there have been a growing reform in this sector but despite some of these reforms, the insurance industry has remained much the same in its business model and operations. The sector has been dominated by intermediaries who play the key role of understanding and matching the need of the customer with specific tailored insurance product. A research conducted by PwC in a report titled “Insurance 2020: Turning change into opportunity” [1], takes into account STEEP (Social, Technology, Environmental, Economic and Political) drivers all points to the need of the insurance sector to evolve from the agency- based distribution model to an usage based business model. This paper examines the blockchain technology and its disruptive power in the insurance sector by evaluating the current business process and model in the industry and how this technology can improve this model. This paper concludes by proposing a new process flow for the insurance industry placing emphasis on better values service to the customer using blockchain technology

BlockChain: A distributed solution to automotive security and privacy

Interconnected smart vehicles offer a range of sophisticated services that benefit the vehicle owners, transport authorities, car manufacturers and other service providers. This potentially exposes smart vehicles to a range of security and privacy threats such as location tracking or remote hijacking of the vehicle. In this article, we argue that BlockChain (BC), a disruptive technology that has found many applications from cryptocurrencies to smart contracts, is a potential solution to these challenges. We propose a BC-based architecture to protect the privacy of the users and to increase the security of the vehicular ecosystem. Wireless remote software updates and other emerging services such as dynamic vehicle insurance fees, are used to illustrate the efficacy of the proposed security architecture. We also qualitatively argue the resilience of the architecture against common security attacks

Do Automated Trading Systems Dream of Manipulating the Price of Futures Contracts? Policing Markets for Improper Trading Practices by Algorithmic Robots

This Article seeks to determine if the CFTC needs new tools to combat disruptive, manipulative, or otherwise harmful trading practices that originate solely from the “minds” of ATSs. Part I of this Article provides a brief regulatory background of the derivatives markets, then examines the increased automation in those markets today, and concludes by looking at the CFTC’s initial responses to the issues raised by automation. Part II briefly looks at the law concerning different mental states for causes of action. Part III examines the CFTC’s pre and post-Dodd–Frank Act tools to police disruptive and manipulative trading practices, which are causes of action that, generally speaking, have scienter or culpable mental state requirements. This makes these tools ineffective in situations where none of the prospective defendants acted with the requisite mental state. Part IV analyzes the failure-to-supervise cause of action under CFTC Regulation 166.3. It determines that this regulation potentially could be an effective weapon against ATS-initiated behavior that disrupts or manipulates derivative markets because: (1) a Regulation 166.3 claim does not require proof of an underlying violation of the CEA or CFTC Regulations, and (2) decisions analyzing Regulation 166.3 appear to apply a reasonableness standard (as opposed to a scienter requirement) in scrutinizing whether a firm diligently supervised its employees and agents in connection with its business as a CFTC registrant. More specifically, although never explicitly stated, Regulation 166.3 violation decisions appear to apply a reasonableness standard that analyzes whether a reasonably prudent registrant—as opposed to a reasonably prudent person—would have acted the same in similar circumstances. Part IV also suggests that, to ensure that Regulation 166.3 will effectively deter disruptive and manipulative trading practices by registrants’ ATSs, the CFTC could promulgate a rule making clear that a registrant’s duty to diligently supervise its employees in connection with its business as a registrant includes making sure that employees monitor ATSs for improper trading practices. This Article is the first to: (1) suggest that Regulation 166.3 is most likely the best tool for combatting improper trading practices by ATSs where no human connected to the activities had the requisite scienter; (2) contend that Regulation 166.3 uses a reasonableness standard that is best viewed as a reasonably prudent registrant (as opposed to a reasonably prudent person) standard for diligence in connection with supervisory duties; and (3) point out that this standard establishes, as a baseline, mandatory awareness of requirements in the CEA and applicable CFTC and self-regulatory organization (SRO) rules and guidelines

Do Automated Trading Systems Dream of Manipulating the Price of Futures Contracts? Policing Markets for Improper Trading Practices by Algorithmic Robots

This Article seeks to determine if the CFTC needs new tools to combat disruptive, manipulative, or otherwise harmful trading practices that originate solely from the “minds” of ATSs. Part I of this Article provides a brief regulatory background of the derivatives markets, then examines the increased automation in those markets today, and concludes by looking at the CFTC’s initial responses to the issues raised by automation. Part II briefly looks at the law concerning different mental states for causes of action. Part III examines the CFTC’s pre and post-Dodd–Frank Act tools to police disruptive and manipulative trading practices, which are causes of action that, generally speaking, have scienter or culpable mental state requirements. This makes these tools ineffective in situations where none of the prospective defendants acted with the requisite mental state. Part IV analyzes the failure-to-supervise cause of action under CFTC Regulation 166.3. It determines that this regulation potentially could be an effective weapon against ATS-initiated behavior that disrupts or manipulates derivative markets because: (1) a Regulation 166.3 claim does not require proof of an underlying violation of the CEA or CFTC Regulations, and (2) decisions analyzing Regulation 166.3 appear to apply a reasonableness standard (as opposed to a scienter requirement) in scrutinizing whether a firm diligently supervised its employees and agents in connection with its business as a CFTC registrant. More specifically, although never explicitly stated, Regulation 166.3 violation decisions appear to apply a reasonableness standard that analyzes whether a reasonably prudent registrant—as opposed to a reasonably prudent person—would have acted the same in similar circumstances. Part IV also suggests that, to ensure that Regulation 166.3 will effectively deter disruptive and manipulative trading practices by registrants’ ATSs, the CFTC could promulgate a rule making clear that a registrant’s duty to diligently supervise its employees in connection with its business as a registrant includes making sure that employees monitor ATSs for improper trading practices. This Article is the first to: (1) suggest that Regulation 166.3 is most likely the best tool for combatting improper trading practices by ATSs where no human connected to the activities had the requisite scienter; (2) contend that Regulation 166.3 uses a reasonableness standard that is best viewed as a reasonably prudent registrant (as opposed to a reasonably prudent person) standard for diligence in connection with supervisory duties; and (3) point out that this standard establishes, as a baseline, mandatory awareness of requirements in the CEA and applicable CFTC and self-regulatory organization (SRO) rules and guidelines

Technology payment cards communication with banking institutions in the field of cashless payment

The aim is now used to describe the infrastructure of payment cards, ATMs, now used to describe the infrastructure of payment systems, mainly the payment cards and NFC technology and secure payment throw the internet. In this article, we examine a new technology application which is coming into its own around the world, in association with the revolution in wireless connectivity. Our findings are intended to guide in dealing with the economic aspects of mobile payments, and to help identify some important directions for the research