 Let's start. So with the greatest pleasure, actually, I welcome Dr. Zhelko Ivankovic to talk about cryptocurrency and the challenge provided by the cryptocurrency. I just want to introduce a bit our speaker tonight. And Zhelko was the chief editor of Banka for more than 15 years. The most important magazine in Croatia for the banking and financial sector, a research director of the Banking Association in Croatia has been lecturing at the Verne University in Zagreb Economic Councilor at the Embassy in Canberra for Croatia, obviously in Canberra and in Tokyo, if I'm not wrong, in Tokyo as well. Economic Councilor, he wrote two important books. The first one of them actually is following, in some sense, an expression that was introduced in the economic jargon by Paul Krugman. The first book was about privatization and chronic capitalism by showing basically how Paul Krugman argument that was the expression was trying to capture certain type of socioeconomic phenomenon that was happening far east Asia was actually kind of traceable in Europe and in particular in former socialist countries. And the same type of argument that Krugman applied after the financial crisis in 97 actually could be reasonably kind of traced back here in former socialist countries, such as, for example, Croatia in this book actually talks extensively about some of the cases and use Croatia as a case study if you want and talk about the collapse of the largest Croatian conglomerate, the agro core and then illustrates in some sense the development of chronic capitalism in Croatia and the relationship with the privatization process taking place in Croatia after the fall of the socialist regimes. The chronic capitalism is kind of probably well known is a sort of type of economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of the risk but rather as a sort of an accumulation and a massive amount of money that is generated through, let's say, the coexistence or if you want to use a more sophisticated word, the nexus between a political establishment and certain type of business environments and so on. The second book actually leads more to the discussion of tonight because sorry for my Croatian pronunciation, best platino, free of charge, translate into a free of charge. And actually, I've been reading some of the reviews and it's considered to be actually one of the the first and the most important academic book written at that time and unavoidable, the reviewer says an unavoidable academic source for many scholars. In this book, actually, Giacco is actually talking about the dilemma presented by the digital age, the digital economy and what are the, in some sense, the political, economical perspective and what we can expect, in some sense, from the development of the economy. This leads in some sense to the discussion of tonight where actually Giacco, I think, is in preparation a third book, right, about that's what kind of we were talking about a third book talking about digital currency, cryptocurrency and so on. Angelico came to us to present some of the research he did in the last years about the cryptocurrency and the challenge they posed from a regulation point of view and what to what extent is legitimate to talk about just the code of law or there are more actually elements at place starting from the concept of responsibility itself. I don't want to take too much time to our speaker tonight. And I let you the, well, digital floor, I would say the floor in the college, but I let you the digital floor, Giacco, and welcome, welcome to the School of Business. Thank you. Thank you for, thank you for giving us the possibility to hear about your research and your findings. Thank you so much. Thank you, Stefano. Am I on now? You can see me and probably I hope you can see my presentation as well. Yes, we can. On your screen. Okay. Thank you, Stefano. I'm really pleased for the opportunity to present my to you and to your students and other in the audience. My recent research interest. Yes. The lecture and my book, you mentioned my book, I hope I will write that book is the conceptual history of money, somehow, and I start from the end from the currency. And this is my presentation about my latest piece. I will briefly introduce, I will add something to your introduction. Thank you for your introduction. This is my book best but not free of charge. Yes, this is. And I wasn't actually the director of creation banking association, but I was director of the research of creation banking association for two years. So just if anybody's from Croatia, listen to me to be correct. So my PhD, I'm a political philosopher, mostly interested in economics and finance. And my PhD at the Australian National University was in political economy. For the past few years, I'm writing mostly about cryptocurrencies and about the digital age. And this is my my book. Well, this is outline of the outline of my presentation for today. I will first describe very recent developments in the world of cryptocurrencies. And then I will provide general introduction, some basic concepts. After that, I will briefly explain what is basic idea, and what we what are basic principles of the cryptocurrencies. A comparison to bank money follows, then between cryptocurrencies and bank money. This is third part, third section. Then I will describe the development of the crypto world. And I will try to show there is some parallelism between the development of bank money and the development of crypto world. Most important elements of the development of crypto world are scandals from institutional perspective, because my perspective institutional perspective, scandals hacking, self improvement, which is in fact, self regulation, in my opinion, and I will try to prove. Finally, I think this would be enough. But finally, I will explain what Satoshi Nakamoto, I hope people know who Satoshi Nakamoto was. He was the creator of crypto cryptocurrencies. What did he get wrong, in my opinion. And for the discussion, I'll propose the topic of how the crypto world nevertheless survives. Well, let's start with the recent developments. A couple of weeks ago, at the end of November, I participated in a conference, the future of fintech in Zagreb. And I took this slide from one of presentations. The guy who presented it said that it looks like a meme, like a joke. But he said it is not a joke at all. It is in fact, reality. I believe that even among those interested in the subject, not many would understand clearly what this young man in the photo is saying. So try to read it. Yeah, so you put your app into a compound, a collateral, and then borrow USDP. Then you use Etterscan to lend some USDP back to back so you can farm and so on and so on. So it is not easy even to read, let alone to understand. But it happens somehow. So it happens. This relates to the latest hype in the world of cryptocurrencies to decentralised finance. They call it D5. Well, at the conference, the main topics were the centralised finance and a new proposal of European Commission for the regulation of crypto markets. But people from decentralized finance to some degree oppose not only European regulation, but any regulation. They even believe that regulation of some parts of the centralised finance is not possible at all. At the time of the conference, the total value of smart contracts, it is important that the centralised finance is based on smart contracts. It was about 15 billion dollars. And today, I think it is again almost 15 billion dollars, the value of contracts. So I look at it maybe one hour ago, before one hour. And probably, so I will explain a little bit smart contracts. Smart contracts are those contracts that are automatically algorithmically executed in specific if specific preconditions are fulfilled. So according to some interpretations, the rise of money put in smart contracts on the platform of this centralised finance is behind the recent bullish market in crypto. Today, Bitcoin is worth more than 19,000 dollars again. Well, there are proponents and opponents of the world of crypto money. If you read internet sites that promote the crypto world, or if you read their business documents, they are full of promotion of technical and obscure jargon, which pretends to be only for a closed community for specialists, close community of those who are already members of their almost holy circles. So they read themselves as special people who understand something very special. This jargon speaks about efficiency, success, productivity, and looks attractive to some people who are outside these circles. On the other side, side are critics. They can spot misleading informations, information, cheating, illusionary promises, criminal activities, Ponzi schemes, insider trading, price manipulation, money laundering, and so on. Well, it is true that from its beginnings in 2008, 2009, when Satoshi Nakamoto published his paper, published his terminal paper, the world of cryptocurrencies was full of scandals, even of confirmed criminal activities. And that lot of money was lost or stolen. Nevertheless, the last the world of cryptocurrencies still lives. There is some persistency in this law. It survived not only its own mistakes, but also attacks from high position from the people of official finance. After the birth of the ICO bubble, it was three years ago at the end of 17 and at the beginning of 2018. At that time, Bitcoin was also almost $20,000. So something has changed, attacks are weaker. Even some prominent officials change their position. For example, Christine Lagarde, I'm sure you know, she served as the director of the IMF International Monetary Fund, and is now the governor of the ECB, European Central Bank, and she she has repeatedly encouraged bankers to experiment with the crypto technology. And they start to do it now. So I also like to stress that in the last 10 years, there has been an intense theoretical discussion and research of the crypto money world. A lot of papers are published, scientific papers. And I strongly, I mentioned it here, because I strongly my presentation strongly relies on these papers and these books, research. The focus of this presentation is on self regulation, regulation and regulation. The idea of the presentation, my idea, I cannot review all 10 years, of course, because some of you are very well informed, and it would be boring for you and some are not, not informed enough. And an introduction would be exhausting. So my idea is back to basics. Back to the paper, Bitcoin appeared electronic cash system, which is written by Satoshi Nakamoto, nobody knows who Satoshi Nakamoto really was. But we have the paper, and we can read it. All that started with it. So my question is, the idea is an examination of the initial idea, and the principles, principles introduced into this paper. Have they be rejected, dismissed, or retained, transformed, or improved? So I will already, I will already, to avoid any suspense, I will already jump to my conclusion. So in my opinion, Satoshi Nakamoto could be at the same time satisfied and notice not satisfied with the development so far. He could be satisfied that his creation is still alive, taking into account attacks on it, and internal technological problems, and the problems on the market. On the other hand, hand, he can't be satisfied with the abandoning of his initial principle. However, for the conclusion, I will provide some preliminary arguments. According to Nakamoto, Bitcoin is a system of automatized transaction of electronic cash, without a trusted third party that would verify or confirm transaction. So therefore Nakamoto's main goal was to create money without regulation. My question is, was it possible at all? In my opinion, it is impossible. My thesis is money, money is a social creation. If any artifact is to become money, it has to be accepted as money. Shells, we have in history money as shells, sticks, paper notes, coins, and of course, bunch of cryptocurrencies, or crypto coin or Bitcoin is in fact a bunch of data, stream of data. So it has to be accepted as money to become money. Some people understand my thesis as self evident. But I will not stop here. For example, people from financial times, prominent authors like Isabella Kaminska or Jamima Kelly, they if they discuss with the people from the crypto world, they usually tell them it is not only technology, money must be must be accepted as money is a social construction. So, but they don't they don't prove it further. So I will try to explain it further. So what it means that money must be accepted. Nakamoto Nakamoto's basic idea was to create a system of electronic money without a trusted third party. It is five times mentioned in the paper. The assumption is there is no third party which regulates transactions and takes responsibility for their correctness. So please note the relationship between trusted trusted third party, responsibility and regulation. For this to be achieved, he created the idea of blockchain or the centralized ledger technology. It is kind of curiosity, of course, that Nakamoto in his paper didn't mention either blockchain or ledger. This is outcome of further interpretations or interpretation of his intentions. So this technology blockchain technology or DLT relies on three basic principles. No central intermediation of transaction. No reversibility of transactions. And so it is special kind of anonymity of users. I will explain it later to the anonymity. DFI, decentralized finance is a recent attempt at maintaining this principle. It is important to note that Nakamoto's goal was to create electronic cash. And I will now jump to legal definition of money. I will provide legal definition of money from the end of 19th century. It is formulated as description of cash transactions, paper notes and transactions with paper notes and with coins at the time at the end of 19th century. The description consists of four important elements. Money, that is cash, coins, passes freely from this is first, from hand to hand throughout the community in final discharge of debt, being accepted equally without a reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it. And without the intention of the person who received it to consume it. This, in fact, I would like to say that this definition is a consequence of long development of long thinking about money. And it is possible to find its roots even in Roman law. And now, there is a parallelism between principles of a blockchain and the legal definition of money. So probably the most characteristic, most important characteristic of money is that it represents the final discharge of debt. This is for us no reversibility of transaction. Take, for example, payment by check or with some other financial instrument. This is not final discharge of debt because a bank can decline to accept the check. As for anonymity, this feature of cash comes from Roman law. And in this definition without reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it, I will later explain a little bit more. So there is no central register. It is time mentioned in this presentation, there is no central register of cash transactions. If you buy something in the shop, there is no central register that you gave coins to the seller. So and Bitcoin is not for consumption and coins and paper notes are not for consumption. So now I will start with the bank money. I will explain bank money and its development. It is also an outcome of a long historical development. Today, today payment with bank money represent final, final discharge of debt. It was not always the case. Neither payment with the bank deposit nor with bank note was considered final centuries ago. It was like today, as I mentioned already, check or bill of payment which can be rejected if there is no money in the account. Well, for bank notes to become money, some preconditions had to be fulfilled. And this precondition for Bitcoin, I think the same preconditions are important for Bitcoin to become money. So they had to be used on massive scale. Bank notes, for example, they had to be standardized. Some routines in their use had to be established. The interest of parties in transaction had to be satisfied. And finally, I would stress that the responsibilities of parties in a transaction were allocated in such a way that bank notes were considered to be the final discharge of debt. Not only bank notes, but bank deposit if we use bank deposit as bank money. So only at the end of this process of standardization, routines, massive use on massive scale, law, European law or any other law recognizes some payment as money payment, as final pay. So let me speak a little bit about responsibility which is central, central subject or central topic of my presentation. The finality of bank money payment was achieved by a particular allocation of responsibility. It is necessary that the bank takes responsibility for the transaction from the buyer, the one who pays. Bank doesn't say, okay, I will read it first from the pair. And that the pay seller, the one who receives money recognizes responsibility of the bank. So what it means that bank takes responsibility for the transaction from the pair, if you save some money in the bank, and you want to pay for something, then can give you money and tell, okay, you pay for it. But if bank takes responsibility for the payment, bank will do it. Bank will transfer your money. Also, the one who receives money must recognize the responsibility of the bank. You know, that bank will do it. Bank will execute the transaction. So we can compare it with the payment service in Croatia. It is postal service post office, for example. And if you order post payment service to pay. And if something happens, the pay seller, the one who receives money will tell you, okay, solve your problem with the post office. But pay my money. You owe me some money. In the case of bank note, or in the case of paying with bank deposit, if client of bank seller, the one who receives money recognizes responsibility of the of the bank, this could become final payment. This could become money, not check, not financial instruments and so on. So in this was, I think, my key, my key point. So in Nakamoto's words, the bank is a trusted third party. Bank is in the in the center of transaction. It takes responsibility for the transaction. It regulates the transaction. And in the end, bank can be regulated by the state. If bank takes responsibility, it can be regulated by the state. Nakamoto's with his idea, no trusted third party, no responsibility, try to avoid any regulation, bank and state regulation. So also people from the DeFi decentralized fine. Similarly, the finality of bank payments. So in we know that recent development, anonymity of bank payment is saved. Is provided with the privacy of the relationship between client and the bank. But of course, privacy is nowadays is under attacks from from the community from the state from the government and so on. So in the world of bank payments, anonymity is not anymore so solid as early. So this is one slide which explained that my approach in this analysis, money is not described by market functions, sort of value, unit of account means payment, but by its institutional nature, not only legal characteristic, but by its institutional nature. For the institutional approach, cases of theft and similar misconduct are important for understanding money and other financial instruments. I will now describe how the crypto world evolved step by step toward recognizing responsibility. In Nakamoto's world, there is no trust. There is no responsibility I repeat it again. So the crypto world is full of various forms of misconduct. Not only the crypto world also the world of official finances, of course, but now we speak about the crypto world. So money laundering, price manipulation, insider trading, fraud, Ponzi schemes, hacking, fishing, ransomware, Facebook exchange, etc. And so on. So for the purpose of this presentation, I will describe only three significant large hacks. Mount Gox, hacked from 2014. Dao, I read it Dao, this is the centralized autonomous organization, DAO, hack from 2016. And this hack is for my presentation, the most important and coin check hack from the beginning of 2018. After that burst of the ICO battle, it was, I think, January, February of 2000, 2018. At the time of hack, I speak now about Mount Gox. Hack, it was the largest crypto exchange in the world. It was Japanese crypto exchange. And with coins worth $400 to $400 million dollars stolen some say it depends on the exchange rate, of course, some say only $200 million dollars, but I think doesn't matter for this presentation. Dao case, decentralized, decentralized autonomous organization is based on smart contract. And it wasn't first smart contract, of course. But it was exemplary smart contract. Very important smart contract. And after worth $150 million dollars, and coin check exchange at the beginning of 2018, 500 million of third type of currency, name coins. We can note here, in the first case, bitcoins were stolen in the second case, et cetera, et around, were stolen. And in the third case, name coins were stolen. So the crypto world recognizes responsibility as a protection and prevention from fraud. Mount Gox filed for bankruptcy. The exchange owners of exchange were declared their responsibility. 2000 later, 90% of the network members voted for hard fork. They voted for they canceled suspicious transaction. So this is, I think I should explain a little bit this case, because 9, 10% of network members voted against cancellation of transaction. Because this wasn't a hack in usual sense. We think about hack, as somebody break the code and change the code and takes money. It was actually abuse of smart contract. People who took $150 million dollars in it, they simply implemented what was already in code. This is why so code is low. This is why why 10% of people said, well, this was already in the code and we stick with the code. We keep with the code. And this is why they call it hard fork. Because 10% of them now have et classic, et around classic. And 90% of them established, I would say new branch of that kind. And in the third case, developers. So in the first case, owners of exchange took responsibility. In the second case, network members took responsibility. And in the third case, developers coders of them decided no hard fork will not cancel this, this transaction, this suspicious transaction, we will follow stolen coins. So in this case, anonymity is useless. Because if you pay in a shop with a coin, nobody can follow your coins, you know, so you already left the shop and you are free. But if you took money, stolen coins in the case of NEM, so developers decided because every coin is traceable, developers decided to follow your this coin. And the principle of pseudo anonymity is transform, I would say. I have now three slides which explained in detail these three cases, but I will skip them because I already explained what is the most important and I will now, I will now summarize what I said. So all three cases involved central centralized decision making, owners of exchange, members of network and developers took over responsibility to decide whether particular transactions to be a final discharge of debt. In the DAO principle, the non reversibility of transactions was broken. In the coin, in the coin check, it is now obvious that the pseudo anonymity of users, anonymity and identifiability of crypto coins is different from the anonymity of users of metal or paper cash. Users can be identified. So I also want to stress that users of crypto finance don't oppose regulation. Quite the contrary. According to an analysis of almost 2 million discussion posts related to users trust of Bitcoin from 2019, 63% of users believe that regulation can only make Bitcoin to be strong and trusted by many people. They consider Bitcoin as money or believe that Bitcoin can become money proper if it would be regulated. Also business people from the crypto community are always excited if some crypto fund is formally recognized and legalized. So they also want regulation. So this is completely opposite to Nakamoto's intention to get rid of the trust of Bitcoin. Why does this happen? What Nakamoto? Am I on time? Do I have enough? Just a few minutes? Yeah, yeah, you are in time, Jelko. I mean, okay, keep going. You have all the time you want. Thank you. Thank you. So I will now speak what what did Nakamoto get wrong? Because this is the development is opposite to his initial intent. I will hear mention only two of Nakamoto's misunderstandings. First, payment is wider than the transfer of cash. Payment only completes a deal. A deal assumes a location of responsibility for the for the quality and the delivery of goods, for example, from side of seller, and for from side of buyer for payment of time, responsibility and so on. Therefore, it is not possible to avoid completely the problem of trust. Second failure. I will I borrow this from Kevin Berbach. Code is not law. Law assumes unknown circumstances, and the decision of a judge as to whether or not the law covers these circumstances, while code operative operates only with the data that are formatted in such a way to be included in the code. I will illustrate the problem with a recent case from the end of November, and in the area of decentralized finance. Well, you remember that guy from the beginning of my presentation, he is in the centralized finance decentralized finance is based on smart contracts, smart contracts, automatically, algorithmically execute transaction. So what happens at the end of November at the time of the conference I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation alone, in the form of smart contract was liquidated, following the information that the precondition for the cancellation was fulfilled. This has happened against the intention of sites in transaction. This is important. The information about fulfillment of conditions always comes outside of the smart contract blockchain. I was this was long, this was long and the loan was cancelled because of change of collateral the price of collateral. But I will illustrate smart contract on prediction market could be could be constructed. For example, for if people can guess which horse will win horse race, and people who bid, who bid that white horse will win horse race, automatically, if white horse win, really win, wins automatically get money, which is put in that smart contract. But what if that information is wrong? Because that information comes from outside of smart contract. Somebody can can hack that information. And this, in fact, happened with that long. So it means that contract cannot be smart contract cannot be automated. It shouldn't be automated. And transaction should be reversible and must be body which will which will confirm verify transaction and sometimes cancel it or reverse it. So if basic principles were wrong, the question is, how does the crypto world survive? And I will only only put my face. First, the crypto world evolves. I tried to explain it to illustrate it. Second, crypto world, world reduce experimental. Crypto world, the crypto world is full of trial and errors and experiments. And it produce experimental products and organization, payment, exchange, stablecoins, ICO for investments. Some better some worse, you know, so not so good. Decentralized financing and so on. And also, in some jurisdictions, crypto world, crypto coins are treated as non material assets, financial instruments, goods, currency, for example, three years ago, Creation National Bank declared that crypto coins are goods. And if somebody trade with crypto coins, he must pay VAT, because it is trading the goods. But in Europe, it is, yeah, it is generally accepted as money. And I think, and this is my last sentence for this presentation, I hope I wasn't so tiring. So it's future of crypto world depends on interaction between technology and people. Thank you for your attention. I have some, thank you. Of course, I'd like to discuss my thesis, my presentation, and also the future of crypto world. Thank you, Jelko. Thank you. A question can be asked by, by chat, obviously, and Bruce will moderate the discussion, passing the question to you. Or you can see, yeah. Thank you, Jelko. Thank you, Stefano. Some very thoughtful moments there, actually. It's now made me think. I need to go back to some of those sentences which you presented to dig deeper into the questions that have arisen in my mind. I have one question from an anonymous attendee who is asking, with the new IP laws being introduced globally, what would the impact on the cryptocurrency, what would be the impact on the cryptocurrency platform of these? I don't know which law the anonymous attendee means. So I need more, I need more information about the laws. Okay, maybe platforms or protocol or IP address. What the question is asking with the new IP laws, maybe the anonymous attendee is online, and would he or she care to unmute maybe? And I will. Okay, intellectual property. Intellectual. So with a new intellectual property law, sorry, I was also, I was mistaking IP for IP addresses on the internet. So with the new intellectual property laws being introduced globally, what would be the impact on the cryptocurrency platform? Well, cryptocurrency platform. Okay. I think basically, this question relates to the blockchain technology, in my understanding, because a lot of hope is put in blockchain technology that blockchain technology can save intellectual property property in the digital world. For example, you can trace some song, you cannot share anonymously. Now, a lot of people listen songs, watch movies, and read scientific papers free of charge. So probably blockchain, blockchain as a next generation of internet, but I think we will wait decades for the blockchain to become next generation of internet, internet can trace, can trace every transfer through the internet of intellectual property, songs, scientific papers, and you cannot read any more anonymously. So, and anonymity was part of my presentation earlier, anonymity. And I think in the world of crypto currencies, crypto assets, because this world works on blockchain. I showed in the case of coin check hack, they can trace coins. Every coin can be traced. And there are some coins, which are Monero coins, for example, which are tangible. So one coin is the same. Usually, etter, Bitcoin, repo are every Bitcoin is different, like every paper note, every paper note has number, you know, and every is different. But you cannot trace it. Bitcoin, you can trace you can you can follow it. So Monero coin is anonymous in some sense, tangible. Every Monero, you cannot know which Monero coin is with you, Bruce, or with you, Stefano, and which one is with me. So as I said, people from the crypto community experiment, they change, there are 3000 crypto currencies at this moment, with different protocols, different algorithms, with different codes. So if IP internet, no internet, but intellectual property became traceable, so you can trace it. I think they will try to avoid it somehow. Maybe I answered because I don't know, actually, what, of course, they will be they will be somehow forced to declare their position, crypto exchanges. But I think crypto exchanges are already regulated and European regulation, which I mentioned at the beginning, mostly are concerned with crypto exchanges. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. I have a question from Natasha Babit. There are two actually related questions. The first one is is a very interesting, practical based question. Is there a is there a difference between a cryptocurrency and digital money? Or are they synonymous? No, no, that's different. Of course, that I mean, our course, terminology is still not accepted, generally. And some people, some people speak about virtual currencies, some people speak about digital money, some people speak about FinTechs, alternative finance, and it is not defined for it is not always very, always very easy to understand what they think if they say digital money. But for example, five, seven years ago, Facebook, which now tries to promote Libra, which would be probably crypto currency. They, they had already digital currency, crypto, Facebook credits, or Microsoft points, or in a game, Second Life, you have also internal digital, digital currency. So and I think we should distinguish crypto currencies, which is exemplar Bitcoin, crypto currencies work on blockchain technology, actually, the centralized ledger technologies. But we you can have without without in the digital world, you can have also digital currencies, digital money, I mentioned some of them. And this is not crypto. This is not cryptocurrency. How do you think cryptocurrency has influenced the trend of regulations leading to increasing transparency and financial institutions in terms of acceptance of decrease of privacy? Do you think people Miroslav Erdely may read it? So do you think people have become more comfortable with the with lower privacy? No, I don't think so. But they will probably accept we live in digital world and there is no there is no in the digital world and privacy is under attack, not only from the world of crypto. But if you remember 10 years ago, Zuckerberg, he said, forget privacy. This is the concept from all times and not only Zuckerberg, but other gurus of new of the new world. So I think privacy is under attack in the new world. And also blockchain will not save our privacy. Nakamoto's idea was to save somehow privacy also for for money laundering. But it was radical, it was radical attempt. But I don't think that the the privacy will be saved in the easy state in the development of the digital world. And if we speak about European regulation this year, this year, the European Commission launched that regulation of crypto year ago, they launched the GDPR regulation of privacy year ago, they they always have some big action in the world in the digital world. So big, big activity. So I think privacy is under attack. And other questions? Yeah, there is another question from Natasha Babic was a second question, actually was asking about in in that respect, can Mr Ivankovic comment on the introduction of the digital currencies by the central banks? Yes, this is very interesting idea. This is kind of digital currency. It depends, would it be on blockchain or some other technology, some different technology. This is very interesting idea. And I think the key moment of this idea is the problem. What would central banks, in that case, allocate what responsibility and what kind of business will be allocated to commercial banks? Because in that case, you can have your account in the central bank, you know, what will commercial banks do with in that world in the world of they will probably collect, they will probably provide loans. But we'll see what will happen. So yes, this is interesting idea. And I mentioned Christine Lagarde. I think she her goal is she is oriented towards central banks, experiment with the digital currencies with crypto currencies, probably you can take over from commercial banks, which are risky, take over personal and business account. This is basically idea for now. I would have a question. Thank you. Thank you very much. No, I was actually, yeah, I was trying to I was going through through your reasoning, right? So and based also on the type of experience I have like in teaching finance, international finance, financial markets and so on. So and normally the dominant view, even I was presented normally to students, but it's kind of dominant views well in the field is that normally we take a different approach, we don't take the institutional approach, which is the one you adopted that one. So I was trying to go through in my mind, because normally we take a functional approach to the function of money. Normally that's what we do because obviously you start from the basics and you need to explain the function of money and so on. So and I was thinking about if if we go through the reasoning, but we take a functional stance as functional position, we would end up with the same type of conclusions as you have without taking, let's say, an institutional approach. I totally share with you like the idea and I kind of agree totally with you money money is actually indeed a social construct as a form of kind of emerging from the social kind of kind of bargaining accepting and so on. But at the moment we take into account or you do you think actually that for example, the crypto community in general the cryptocurrency community and so on does have uniquely or sees it uniquely as a functional and not as an institution and that's the reason why in some sense is in some sense inclining not having any type of regulation or thinking that can be self regulated because you know, like the idea is the argument normally put forward here is the same when many, many years ago. As you know, like it was the same argument that was actually done in regular finance by the people doing basically over the counter, right? So over the counter contracts like derivatives, for example, and the claim was they don't need any regulation. Why do you need a regulation is a self regulated because financial agents are actually rational? We know it's not true. But you know, behavioral finance showed up is completely different later on. But their argument was uniquely a functional type of argument. And based on the rationality of the agents. Do you think that if you would take a different position there like not an institutional one, which I agree is the one actually should be taken in finance not just in the crypto currency but in the overall finance world, they should be taken in that one, not the functional one, which is the dominant one, a more pragmatic one. Would you would you have the same type of issue? Or, for example, Nakamoto had that idea when he created the a functional one, a type of transactional one. Well, this is very interesting, really interesting questions. This is not not my polite answer. Thank you for that question. No, no, no, I understand it. No, I was trying to think it through. I remember that in my abstract of this presentation, I mentioned that Kenneth Rogov, which is not he doesn't follow finance from the institutional approach. So he is from your camp, I would say, from the camp of traditional understanding of finance functional approach. As you said, he called it crypto cryptocurrency libertarian. What? So this is ideological explanation. What it means, libertarian. So at the discussion, this, it was discussion at the conference in Zagreb, at the end of November, and one of the proponents of Cryptovald. I'm not against the Cryptovald. As you can see, from the end of my presentation, I think it is very interesting experiments. There are very interesting experiments. But I, I only explained some short coming coming, you know, so this is actually this is the subject of my interest. And I think it is very interesting that now we can discuss what is what is money? Actually, yeah, think about Crypto. So I'm back to Kenneth Rogov and Rogov and to that conference. One of one of people from the Crypto currency camp said, we have in the decentralized finance smart contract. And in that contract, if something goes wrong, you can lose money, but you can it is your risk. You cannot call. There is no phone number. You can call and ask what what was going with my with my money. So if we I think this is that functional approach. Yes. And but at the end of my presentation, nevertheless, if you look at this world from functional or from institutional view, 63% of people, they don't know about our discussion functional or or institutional 63% of people want to have phone number and call somebody if something goes wrong, if something if some steal his money, you understand what I do. I do. I think this is the same the same point from both both sides. No, no, actually, I I do. So I as I said, I share with you exactly the same view. I don't have a functional view of money and finance as well. I completely on the opposite side of an institutional view of it. But that's normally how that's normally how it's taught according to the textbooks, right? So that's not represented in most of the textbook. No, I actually shared that and I share like the same idea as the need of regulation and strong regulation when it comes to this type of this kind of let's say area of finance and so on. I was just wondering if, as I said, this libertarian view kind of as proposed in that type of sense would kind of end up with a different come but you are saying that basically more than 60% do require any sort of regulation. So it means that even if you have a functional approach, you still want to have a regulation. So of course, yeah, people people ask us for it. And I mentioned in my abstract money and liability, yeah, asset and liability. But I didn't have time to explain this because there are two camps in understanding of money, metal camp and debt camp, you know, so in understanding in explanation, the origins of money. And there is a I will come back here to the end. I see also I didn't explain I see also initial coin offerings. This is in fact, kind of banking money in a crypto world based on cryptocurrencies kind of so as you know, you have in finance M zero M one M two, this is I would say M one or M two doesn't matter. So you and this wall develops. But I towards because you cannot have banking money without responsibility and liability, you know, and this world of crypto of crypto develops towards creation of banking money. This is first attempt, maybe not very, very successful attempt, ICO and decentralized finance. But you know, so it takes for banking money, it took several centuries. Yeah, of course, we are at the beginning of this, I think very interesting time, very, very interesting experiments. So this is why I because from the crypto, you can look back at the history of money. What is difference between crypto and shells crypto and first coins in ancient Greece. So I think from crypto, we can learn a lot. People can teach us a lot. This is my, this is why I'm interested in and we can speak about several use functional market view and also institutionally can speak about ideologies. Also, everything crossed here. Thank you. Thank you for the question and the discussion. And if any, any other questions, because from the audience, we have still about five minutes. Any other question for Jelko, who kindly is kind of willing to answer questions. I, I hope my, my idea at least was understandable and clear. Maybe too much understandable, nobody, nobody wants to oppose. I expected people from the crypto, crypto, all the enthusiasts, they will oppose. Okay. If there are no any more questions, I would like to thank you again for joining us this evening and talking to us about the cryptocurrency challenges has been a great pleasure to have you with us. Looking forward to have you again. I hope yes, will happen for sure. And maybe in person. So in a more normal type of setup. But thank you. That's been like really a wonderful talk. And thank you so much. Thank you for inviting me. I hope we will discuss again maybe next year. For sure, we will discuss and yeah, I would like to thank you on behalf of the college, the School of Business, and it's been a great pleasure. Thank you. I was excited. Thank you very much.