Code, Law and Capital / Question
Can claims that digital assets make remittances cheap, inclusive and monetarily resilient be sustained across six African and Latin American legal orders once payment rails and private remedies are examined?
Public governing question · Discussion materials pending
Global Edition · Chapter 29: Africa and Latin America: Monetary Choice, Market Development and Legal Protection
Recorded jurisdiction: Africa and Latin America
Proposition
A discussion proposition has not yet been published for this record. The question and any proposed answer will be identified separately.
Supporting sources
A discussion dossier with the passages relied upon and their relevance to the inquiry remains to be prepared.
Source contribution requirements →Competing arguments
No reviewed competing arguments have yet been published on this page. Contributions will need to identify the claim addressed and the evidence on which a different conclusion rests.
Attributed responses
No responses have been published. The contribution process is not yet open.
Response requirements and availability →Author clarification
No clarification has been issued for this discussion. Editorial review of a contribution does not constitute adoption of its position by the Author.
Other records in this book or edition
- When a digital-asset arrangement executes as programmed, how can a legal order identify who holds the right, which authority may act, and who bears the loss?
- How does a recorded event acquire authority over persons who did not write or operate the record, and what does that history teach about tokens and distributed ledgers?
- How can a digital-asset arrangement be described, before any legal label is applied, in terms of asset, activity, actor, infrastructure and control?