Model Framework for Consumer Protection and Crypto-Exchanges Regulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I liked "MODEL FRAMEWORK FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION AND CRYPTO-EXCHANGES REGULATION" (jrfm-2438880) because of its simplicity and linearity of analysis. The author does not over-complicate his analytical framework and refrains from any sophistication typical of most papers (even not strongly economics-related) on cryptocurrencies.

As I see it, this is a well done review/survey paper with some advice in terms of policy actions, which compensates for the lower level of "originality". But, as said, this is fine for me because the author conveys the ideas in a very clear way.

My suggestion would be to add at least an additional table/figure explaining/summing up in a visual way specific elements of the author's argumentation. This would make reading the paper easier.

There are some typos here and there: for instance, "Bitcoin describes" (line 21), "incorporation , licensing" (line 23-24), it should be "Ethereum" instead of "Etherium" etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, please see the attachment (typos revision - pages: 1, 4, 5, 11; table 2 added page 12 ).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed article deals with a topic that is thematically very close to me and I consider it very current and interesting: it is also particularly suitable for scientific treatment in the form of a research study in the context of fluctuating changes in the value of bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies.

In the introduction, I recommend setting the goal and research questions more precisely, to which the author would provide clear answers at the end. It would be appropriate to explain what bitcoin is in the introduction; is it a security or what is it? This key term needs to be defined as it does for example

  Peráček, T. (2021). A few remarks on the (im)perfection of the term securities: a theoretical study. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica, 11 (2), pp. 135-149, doi: 10.24818/TBJ/2021/11/2.01

Considering the nature of the work as a scientific work, one of the key parts in its processing is the appropriate choice of a methodological approach to solving the investigated issue. The author could pay more attention to this question as well as more precisely specify the research methods, as this part seems too brief to me. A prerequisite for a high-quality treatment of this topic is a thorough preparation consisting in gathering sources of knowledge from which the author drew ideas and knowledge. The list of used literature shows that it contains a lot of literature and other sources of knowledge. However, I do not know why there are no legal regulations regulating cryptocurrency trading.

I would also focus my attention on the issue of consumer protection against unfair actions by financial agents such as Sidak, Mikuláš, Andrea Slezáková, Edita Hajnišová, and Stanislav Filip. 2023. "Determination of Public Supervision Aspects and Legal Pillars of Activities of Financial Agents in Central European Countries" Administrative Sciences 13, no. 3: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030078

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and written on the highly relevant topic. It is well structured and has necessary level of novelty and contributes to the research in the sphere of cryptocurrencies regulation. 

In order to improve the paper ands make it more in-depth it would be great if author will give more extend comments on the following:

  Author talks about risks connected with price manipulation. How can law prevent price manipulation? Is it possible? Would be interesting to know author's opinion.

Author also talks about the necessity to prepare a model law or introduced a framework which standardizes and harmonizes the basic principles for activities with cryptocurrencies. I guess if authors will offer thew concept of the law or guidelines it will make the paper more practice-oriented and will attract more readers. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf