Safe Bank

The aim of this study is to identify behavioral and decision-making factors that determine interest in high-risk assets, with particular emphasis on cryptoassets. The analysis covers demographic variables (age, gender, education), prior investment experience, knowledge sources, and product comprehensibility. In February 2025, a two-stage CAWI survey was conducted: a random-quota poll (N = 3500) and a targeted study of investors and individuals interested in cryptoassets (N = 940). Regression and correlation analyses indicated that industry conferences and fintech events are significantly associated with investment interest, especially among older respondents and women. Gender differences were also observed in responses to webinars and online training. The results highlight the need to diversify financial education strategies. A limitation of the study is that all of the respondents came from a single country, which may restrict the generalizability of the results to populations in different cultural and social contexts. Furthermore, the data were collected over a relatively short period, which may limit the study’s ability to capture dynamic changes in the phenomenon under investigation.

The paper aims to investigate the impact of price volatility and regulatory assessment of cryptocurrencies on risk to financial markets, based on bitcoin (BTC) and ether (ETH) examples. The research hypothesis is that cryptocurrencies, due to their high volatility, pose a risk to financial markets. An empirical analysis was conducted using GARCH(1,1) econometric models to examine the conditional volatility of cryptocurrency prices and their comparison with traditional financial assets, such as the EUR/USD, USD/PLN currency pairs and the S&P500 and WIG20 stock market indices. The results confirm that BTC and ETH exhibit significantly higher price volatility than traditional financial instruments. Furthermore, the values of the Value at Risk (VaR) measure for the analysed cryptocurrencies are significantly higher compared to traditional financial instruments. An element of the study also includes an analysis of selected legal regulations, including dedicated to the cryptocurrency market, and an assessment of the role of these acts in the context of risk mitigation for financial markets.

This article examines the types of crypto-asset risks that EU banks can prudently take under the transitional regulatory regime introduced by Article 501d of CRR3 and supplemented by the EBA’s draft regulatory technical standards (RTS). The analysis is grounded in the evolving EU legal framework, particularly MiCAR and CRR3, and considers how banks may engage with crypto-assets through custody, payments and trading, and issuance. It also reviews industry responses to the draft RTS and highlights key accounting challenges, especially the tension between fair value and cost models under IFRS. It concludes that while crypto offers strategic and technological opportunities for banks—particularly in custody and tokenized finance—their ability to scale such activities remains heavily constrained by prudential rules and regulatory uncertainty.

Crypto-assets are the subject of considerable controversy, both in terms of their valuation (valuation methods) and the numerous risks they pose to investors. The crypto-asset market is unfortunately known for speculation, high price volatility, manipulation, and sophisticated marketing techniques. Providing advice under such conditions therefore entails significant and multifaceted risk. For this reason, the service of crypto-asset advisory may and should attract attention—particularly in relation to the mechanisms for protecting clients using this service and the potential civil liability of entities providing it.

The Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCAR) introduces a legal framework for the provision of crypto-asset advisory services. Once MiCAR becomes applicable, offering such a service will require obtaining a license issued by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), after first convincing the supervisory authority that the legal requirements—especially those aimed at client protection—are met. These requirements, along with the specific nature of the advisory subject (i.e., crypto-assets), call for deeper reflection on the proposed, expected, theoretical, and practical dimensions of this service.

However, in order to have a meaningful and informed discussion about crypto-asset advisory services, it is necessary to compare this service with investment advisory services as defined in Directive 2014/65/EU (MiFID II). Investment advice under MiFID II has a long-standing tradition—one that not only should, but must, be drawn upon. This comparison will help illustrate the specific nature of crypto-asset advisory and lead to the identification of the key obligations associated with its provision. Highlighting the key issues in crypto-asset advisory should help us understand what lies ahead for financial market participants in just a few months.

One of the crypto-assets services that has been regulated by the European Union Regulation 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR) is the service of providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients. The aim of the article is to discuss the key issues related to the provision of this service, with particular emphasis on the regulatory requirements that the EU legislator has imposed on crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) to ensure a high level of client protection, as well as the stability and integrity of crypto-asset markets. According to the authors, despite the shortcomings of the EU solutions adopted in MiCAR, the regulatory direction taken by the EU legislator should be considered appropriate. The final assessment of the achievement of the objectives behind the establishment of MiCAR regulations in this area will, however, depend on future market trends, supervisory activities, and the actions of national legislative bodies of EU member states.

Due to the (un)expected delays of the Polish government in the work of adapting national law to the EU MiCA Regulation, despite the fact that this act is already fully applicable throughout the European Union as of December 30, 2024, in mid-2025 it is still not possible to make a reliable legal or business assessment of the first months of functioning of the EU and Polish market in the new regulatory framework of crypto-asset services. However, it should be emphasized that the scale of complexity of legal issues impacted by the emergence of MiCAR in the EU financial market goes far beyond the strictly local – e.g. Polish specifics. One can even conclude that at the level of EU legislative work, it was either underestimated or not fully noticed, how widely the MiCAR regulation will affect the "traditional" financial market. The purpose of this article is to indicate precisely such an example of regulatory interplay at the EU level, where crypto-asset laws affect the payment service regulations, both those already in force as well as pending adoption, i.e. respectively (i) the PSD2 and EMD2 directives, and (ii) the PSR regulation and the PSD3 directive, which are currently at the final stage of the EU legislative process.

The article examines the possible legal qualification for providing custody and administration of crypto-assets and providing transfer services for crypto-assets on behalf of clients, concerning e-money tokens within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in crypto-assets, as payment services within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market.

The article examines whether the specified services fall within the scope of the payment services, and analyses the potential implications of this. The study uses a legal-dogmatic approach based on the interpretation of legal acts, case law, and the domestic and foreign academia.

The results show that the recognition of these services as payment services would entail dual regulatory requirements - for both crypto asset providers and payment service providers. This issue is crucial for the stability of the financial market and the effectiveness of the supervision of its participants.

The aim of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) is, inter alia, to ensure market integrity and protect investors from market abuse, such as manipulation and insider trading. The provisions of Title VI of MiCA form the foundation of the EU regime for counteracting abuse in the crypto-asset market, defining key concepts and regulatory obligations. The article attempts to assess the adequacy, effectiveness, and proportionality of anti-abuse mechanisms in light of the specific nature of the market in question. A formal-dogmatic research method was applied, consisting of an analysis of the legal text in the context of academic literature and the guidelines of international institutions. The results of the study indicate that although the regulation includes provisions prohibiting abuse in the crypto-asset market, significant concerns may arise due to the lack of direct reference to abuses involving derivatives not traded on an organised market, as well as the omission of detailed rules on investment recommendations. The absence of a duty to report managerial transactions on the crypto-assets market can, in turn, be considered a proportionate solution.

The goal of this paper is to investigate whether programmable central bank digital currency (PCBDC) qualifies as money under different ontological theories of money. This study shows that according to the state theory, it qualifies as money, under the institutional theory, it has the potential to be money, and from the perspective of the credit theory, it is money but with important caveats. This paper refers to current debates regarding CBDCs, and by using the perspective offered by various ontological theories of money it sheds a new light on these issues.