Шанхайский суд прояснил правовой статус токенов в Китае

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2023-11-21Last updated on 2024-11-21

Судья Сан Цзе из Народного суда округа Сунцзян в Шанхае опубликовала статью о законности выпуска криптоактивов в Китае, прокомментировав решение по судебному разбирательству, начатому в 2017 году.

Сан Цзе (Sun Jie) упомянула дело о сельскохозяйственной компании, которая подписала соглашение о внедрении блокчейна с компанией по управлению активами. Соглашение подразумевало создание Белой книги для выпуска токенов, и за эту услугу сельскохозяйственная компания заплатила 300 000 юаней (на тот момент около $44 400).

Спустя год токены так и не были выпущены. Инвестиционная компания заявила, что другая сторона соглашения сначала должна была разработать приложение, прежде чем будет запущен токен. Однако сельскохозяйственная компания подала в суд, потребовав возврата уплаченных средств.

Суд постановил, что соглашение между компаниями предусматривало незаконную деятельность, в которой были задействованы обе стороны. Инвестиционной компании было приказано вернуть 250 000 юаней. Суд пояснил, что цифровые активы не имеют статуса государственной валюты, а являются виртуальным товаром с элементами собственности.

«Частным лицам не запрещено хранить виртуальную валюту, но коммерческие организации не могут инвестировать в цифровые активы или выпускать токены самостоятельно. Принимая участие в транзакциях с виртуальными валютами, частные лица и предприятия не должны рассчитывать на то, что их интересы будут защищены законом», — написала судья Сан Цзе.

В Китае запрещено торговать криптовалютами и заниматься майнингом. Поэтому судья предупредила, что спекулятивная торговля биткоином и другими криптовалютами нарушает экономическую и финансовую систему. Кроме того, криптоактивы могут использоваться для отмывания денег, незаконного сбора средств, мошенничества, создания финансовых пирамид и другой незаконной деятельности.

В августе Верховный народный суд Китая признал транзакции с виртуальными активами одним из способов отмывания денег. Ранее китайские власти собирались ужесточить закон о борьбе с отмыванием денег (AML), чтобы сократить риски, связанные с криптовалютами.

Related Reads

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit24m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit24m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit27m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit27m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1h ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片