Cryptocurrency: History, Advantages, Disadvantages, and the Future

Cryptocurrency is a digital asset that has seen a large amount of attention within the past five years. Its origin is intriguing to some based upon its newness, yet it has invoked mysticism and skepticism in others. Bitcoin is the most recognizable currency, receiving heavy media attention. There are several other cryptocurrencies as well, less in the spotlight. Most appealing to cryptocurrency could include lack of government oversight, and increased privacy available to the consumer(s) (Bunjaku, Gjorgieva-Trajkovska, and Miteva-Kacarski, 2017, p. 37). Additional advantages include the simplicity in the start-up process, the ease of transferability, and the opportunity to have a seamless process in investing and/or exchanging monies. Cryptocurrency creates the ability to invest for some people groups that could never invest before and diversify investment portfolios (Theron and van Vuure, 2018, p. 2). While the newness of cryptocurrency certainly has been appealing for some, it also has been perceived oppositional by others. There has been concerns identified with regard to the level of trust required, an obvious and significant drawback if valid. Another identified disadvantage to cryptocurrency is its low amount of oversight and liquidity hurt for investing future. The ability for cryptocurrency to be used for illegal and/or evil activity is an ethical drawback (Nian and Chuen, 2015, p. 15). Lastly, the uncertainty of the future is a significant drawback. The future of cryptocurrency requires much economic forecasting. The new changes that cryptocurrency will bring to traditional economic institutes is an area which cryptocurrency needs to explored more. Lastly, is cryptocurrency a fad or an economic bubble

Financial Inclusion, Cryptocurrency, and Afrofuturism

As a community, Black people consistently face barriers to full participation in traditional financial markets. The decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency market is attractive to a community that has been historically and systematically excluded from the traditional financial markets by both private and public actors. As new entrants to any type of financial market, Black people have increasingly embraced blockchain technology and cryptocurrency as a path towards the wealth-building opportunities and financial freedom they have been denied in traditional markets. This Article analyzes whether the technology’s decentralized system will lead to financial inclusion or increased financial exclusion. Without reconciling the racially discriminatory history or effects of the current central financial system, the innovative decentralized appeal to Black people will do little to overcome economic inequity. It may be possible that some cryptocurrencies can be tools for financial inclusion by improving economic outcomes and building wealth outside of traditional financial institutions, but without an intervention, a decentralized system will not necessarily lead to decentralized wealth. The rise of cryptocurrency presents an opportunity to think about how to create a fairer, more inclusive financial system. Taken together with the financial exclusions of the past, cryptocurrency can be a vehicle through which we think about true financial inclusion. However, asking traditionally marginalized groups to participate in an extremely risky cryptocurrency market in pursuit of racial equity is an unrealistic solution given the legacy and reality of financial exclusion. A decentralized system cannot fix the systemic racial inequality that has been embedded in our financial systems. This Article proposes using an Afrofuturist framework in the shaping of policy toward cryptocurrency. An Afrofuturist paradigm pushes for systemic problems to be solved through wholesale systems change rather than tinkering at the margins. Moving forward using an Afrofuturist lens would facilitate a rethinking of our financial systems and the role of cryptocurrency as a portal for racial equity

Financial Inclusion, Cryptocurrency, and Afrofuturism

As a community, Black people consistently face barriers to full participation in traditional financial markets. The decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency market is attractive to a community that has been historically and systematically excluded from the traditional financial markets by both private and public actors. As new entrants to any type of financial market, Black people have increasingly embraced blockchain technology and cryptocurrency as a path towards the wealth-building opportunities and financial freedom they have been denied in traditional markets. This Article analyzes whether the technology’s decentralized system will lead to financial inclusion or increased financial exclusion. Without reconciling the racially discriminatory history or effects of the current central financial system, the innovative decentralized appeal to Black people will do little to overcome economic inequity. It may be possible that some cryptocurrencies can be tools for financial inclusion by improving economic outcomes and building wealth outside of traditional financial institutions, but without an intervention, a decentralized system will not necessarily lead to decentralized wealth. The rise of cryptocurrency presents an opportunity to think about how to create a fairer, more inclusive financial system. Taken together with the financial exclusions of the past, cryptocurrency can be a vehicle through which we think about true financial inclusion. However, asking traditionally marginalized groups to participate in an extremely risky cryptocurrency market in pursuit of racial equity is an unrealistic solution given the legacy and reality of financial exclusion. A decentralized system cannot fix the systemic racial inequality that has been embedded in our financial systems. This Article proposes using an Afrofuturist framework in the shaping of policy toward cryptocurrency. An Afrofuturist paradigm pushes for systemic problems to be solved through wholesale systems change rather than tinkering at the margins. Moving forward using an Afrofuturist lens would facilitate a rethinking of our financial systems and the role of cryptocurrency as a portal for racial equity

Cost-effective blockchain-based IoT data marketplaces with a credit invariant

Billions of Internet of Things (IoT) devices deployed today collect massive amounts of potentially valuable data. To efficiently utilize this data, markets must be developed where data can be traded in real time. Blockchain technology offers a potential platform for these types of markets. However, previous proposals using blockchain technology either require trusted third parties such as data brokers, or necessitate a large number of on-chain transactions to operate, incurring excessive overhead costs. This paper proposes a trustless data trading system that minimizes both the risk of fraud and the number of transactions performed on chain. In this system, data producers and consumers come to binding agreements while trading data off chain and they only settle on chain when a deposit or withdrawal of funds is required. A credit mechanism is also developed to further reduce the incurred fees. Additionally, the proposed marketplace is benchmarked on a private Ethereum network running on a lab-scale testbed and the proposed credit system is simulated so to analyze its risks and benefits

The Failure of Market Efficiency

Recent years have witnessed the near total triumph of market efficiency as a regulatory goal. Policymakers regularly proclaim their devotion to ensuring efficient capital markets. Courts use market efficiency as a guiding light for crafting legal doctrine. And scholars have explored in great depth the mechanisms of market efficiency and the role of law in promoting it. There is strong evidence that, at least on some metrics, our capital markets are indeed more efficient than they have ever been. But the pursuit of efficiency has come at a cost. By focusing our attention narrowly on economic efficiency concerns—such as competition, friction, and transaction costs—we have lost sight of other, deeper values within our economic system, including wider conceptions of duty, fairness, and morality. And while regulators sometimes pay lip service to these values, they often treat them as merely a subset of efficiency: the best way to treat investors fairly, to promote equality, and to prevent immoral, exploitative behavior, in this view, is simply to create an efficient market. We have seen the consequences of this emphasis play out in spectacular fashion in the last decade. New market structures and technologies—from special purpose acquisition companies to social-media oriented trading apps to cryptocurrencies—have emerged to eliminate barriers to trade and compete with institutional incumbents. These strategies may well lead to more efficient markets insomuch as they facilitate access to capital, but they also have the side effect of placing unsophisticated individuals into complex contractual arrangements with sophisticated market actors. The result is an “efficient” market, but one with steep moral and social costs. This Article examines the limits of market efficiency as a regulatory goal and suggests a set of structural and substantive reforms aimed at better balancing efficiency with the other goals of markets. It concludes that regulators, courts, and scholars alike need to adopt a more comprehensive understanding of the proper ends of market regulation, one that emphasizes the purpose and spirit of finance over the false promise of efficiency