Aug 2026· Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences· Vol 287, pp. 174-179· 0 citations
TL;DR
This paper identifies a threefold paradigm mismatch between decentralized finance and traditional financial regulation, giving rise to multiple regulatory challenges such as difficulties in holding entities accountable, ambiguity in defining regulatory targets, ineffective regulatory rules, and obstacles to cross-border enforcement.
Abstract
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) refers to an open financial ecosystem built on blockchain technology that does not require the participation of centralized institutions. The technology and operational mechanisms it employs represent a significant "paradigm mismatch" with the current financial regulatory framework. This paper examines the comprehensive impact of DeFi on existing financial regulation from multiple perspectives, including the blurring of regulatory authority and a lack of accountability; the difficulty in identifying regulatory targets and the ambiguity in determining their nature; the ineffectiveness of regulatory rules and the absence of relevant provisions; overlapping jurisdictions, and difficulties in enforcement. Through a comparative study of regulatory experiences in the United States, Europe, and other regions, this paper proposes solutions such as shifting the existing regulatory philosophy toward functional regulation, embedding compliance requirements into the underlying technology at the institutional level, and strengthening international cooperation at the operational level, while also discussing the specific context in China. This paper identifies a threefold paradigm mismatch between decentralized finance and traditional financial regulation, giving rise to multiple regulatory challenges such as difficulties in holding entities accountable, ambiguity in defining regulatory targets, ineffective regulatory rules, and obstacles to cross-border enforcement. A comparison of regulatory practices in the U.S. and Europe reveals that it is difficult for any single country to independently manage the risks associated with globalized DeFi.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is transforming the financial services industry through blockchain technology, smart contracts, and decentralized protocols. By eliminating intermediaries such as banks and brokers, DeFi enables transparent, efficient, and accessible financial transactions. The ecosystem includes decentralized exchanges, lending and borrowing platforms, liquidity pools, yield farming, and tokenized assets, which have significantly influenced global financial markets.This study examines the structure of the DeFi ecosystem and its market implications using a conceptual and analytical approach. The findings highlight key benefits such as improved financial inclusion, reduced transaction costs, enhanced transparency, faster transaction processing, and increased financial innovation. Smart contracts automate financial operations, while decentralized exchanges and liquidity pools create new models for asset trading and liquidity provision. Despite these advantages, DeFi faces several challenges, including cryptocurrency price volatility, smart contract vulnerabilities, cybersecurity threats, governance issues, and regulatory uncertainty. The interconnected nature of DeFi protocols may also create systemic risks that can affect the broader ecosystem. The study concludes that DeFi represents a major advancement in financial technology by bridging traditional finance and blockchain-based systems. However, sustainable growth requires stronger security mechanisms, transparent governance frameworks, and adaptive regulatory policies. Hybrid models combining decentralized innovation with effective regulation are likely to shape the future of financial services.
Rakesh Chandra· International Journal of Com...· 0 citations
In the context of large-scale geopolitical transformation, ensuring national economic sovereignty objectively dictates the need to diversify financial flows and implement alternative capital formation mechanisms. Partnership financing, grounded in ethical principles and equitable risk-sharing, is positioned as a strategic driver of investment activity in priority segments of the real economy, stimulating both technological imports and domestic production. In this regard, the present study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory experiment on introducing Sharia-compliant instruments and to identify the factors limiting their subsequent federal scaling. The methodological framework of the work comprised an empirical analysis of statistical data for the period from 2023 to 2024, a comparative legal examination of the provisions of Federal Law No. 417-FZ, and a systematic approach to assessing the macroeconomic and regulatory environment with the engagement of expert evaluations. In the course of the study, the quantitative and qualitative market dynamics in the pilot regions were monitored, institutional barriers were classified, and a concept for overcoming existing regulatory contradictions was developed in order to create a transparent ecosystem. Empirical verification revealed that, despite the confident quantitative expansion of partnership operations in the four participating constituent entities, the emerging segment faces profound systemic imbalances. The persistence of double taxation, the fragmentation of enforcement practices, an acute shortage of specialised human competencies, and the de facto absence of a takaful market are identified as critical growth inhibitors, necessitating urgent corrective measures. Based on the analysis conducted, a well-founded conclusion is drawn regarding the inevitability of transitioning from isolated experimentation to the design of a comprehensive federal infrastructure. The roadmap for mitigating legal and tax risks proposed in the study not only enriches the theoretical doctrine of adapting partnership finance to the Russian legal system but also serves as an applied guide for legislative optimisation, ensuring sustainable growth of this sector.
With the deepening opening of China's financial market and the rapid iteration of financial technology, the financial industry is showing characteristics of mixed operation, digitalization, and cross-border development. The fragmented financial regulatory legal system, which is mainly based on single laws and supplemented by patch rules, is no longer suitable for the development needs of modern financial governance. For a long time, China's financial regulation has adopted a problem-oriented emergency legislation model, relying on a large number of "measures" and "notices" to respond to phased financial governance issues. Although this has the advantage of being flexible and adaptable to market changes, it has also caused drawbacks such as loose regulatory norms, confused value logic, frequent rule conflicts, and insufficient institutional connections, which can easily lead to governance problems such as regulatory gaps, regulatory arbitrage, and regulatory lag. Against this background, promoting the systematic construction of a financial regulatory law is a core measure to improve modern financial rule of law, prevent systemic financial risks, and promote the modernization of financial governance. Based on the current situation of China's financial rule of law construction, this paper systematically explains the practical necessity of the systematic construction of a financial regulatory law, deeply analyzes the four core theoretical cornerstones of financial security, financial fairness, financial efficiency, and financial consumer protection, and builds a systematic practical path from four dimensions: intrinsic value, external rules, implementation guarantees, and international cooperation. Combining the current pain points of financial governance, it proposes feasible improvement strategies. The aim is to shift the financial regulatory legal norms from a fragmented collection to an organic and unified system, and to build a modern financial regulatory legal system that is logically consistent, hierarchically clear, adaptable to innovation, and capable of preventing and controlling risks [10].
Xiaoyu Zhang· International Journal of Wor...· 0 citations
This study critically examines the harmonization of accounting policies and frameworks in
Nigeria, with particular emphasis on the adoption and implementation of International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS). It explores the key issues, challenges, and prospects associated with
aligning Nigeria’s financial reporting practices with globally accepted standards. The findings
reveal that while harmonization offers significant benefits such as improved transparency,
enhanced investor confidence, and greater access to international capital markets, the
implementation process is fraught with substantial challenges. These include a shortage of
technical expertise, high transition and compliance costs, weak regulatory oversight, legal and
institutional incompatibilities, and a general lack of awareness and education among
stakeholders. Despite these barriers, the study identifies promising prospects for Nigeria,
including increased global competitiveness and the potential for more consistent and reliable
financial reporting across sectors. The study concludes that achieving effective harmonization
requires a multifaceted approach involving investment in professional training, legal reforms,
stronger regulatory institutions, and widespread stakeholder sensitization
Ngwobia, Ebubechukwu Udo· INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOC...· 0 citations
One of the most serious and intractable problems faced by multinational corporations (MNCs) in modern global markets is policy uncertainty and shifts. This paper examines the strategic decision-making frameworks that companies adopt in response to uncertain policy environments shaped by regulatory shifts, geopolitical turbulence, and evolving trade structures. Drawing on a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed sources published between 2021 and 2026, contextualised against seminal pre-2021 theoretical foundations, the paper applies a documented quality appraisal and thematic synthesis protocol to integrate theoretical and empirical scholarship across the Real Options Theory, Institutional Theory, and Dynamic Capabilities frameworks. The central thesis is that no single adaptive stance is sufficient to drive an effective strategic response to policy uncertainty; rather, a combination of organizational flexibility, institutional intelligence, and political risk governance is required. The analysis identifies ongoing tensions between the drive for operational efficiency and the strategic value of reversibility, and between firm agency and the structural constraints imposed by institutions. By synthesizing emergent contributions on uncertainty governance and extending dynamic capabilities logic into the domain of political risk, the paper proposes an Integrated Uncertainty Governance (IUG) framework, presented in detail with its component mechanisms, interdependencies, and boundary conditions, and evaluated explicitly against Real Options Theory, Institutional Theory, and Dynamic Capabilities, as its central theoretical contribution. The paper concludes by outlining implications for theory, policy, and managerial practice, with particular attention to regional economic integration and investment climate reform, and identifying directions for future empirical research.
Afua Birago Amoah, J. Owusu, R. Amoah et al.· International journal of res...· 0 citations
Corporate governance in India is undergoing a paradigm shift from traditional shareholder primacy to a pluralistic accountability model, statutorily mandated by Section 166(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. This provision theoretically elevates the interests of stakeholders such as employees, communities, and the environment to the same legal footing as shareholder returns. However, a critical dichotomy exists between this statutory mandate and its practical enforcement; the lack of direct legal remedies for non-shareholders creates an enforcement gap that threatens to render the pluralist duty a "paper tiger". To understand how stakeholder protection is operationalized de facto, this paper analyses the existing regulatory infrastructure, emphasizing the shift toward mandatory, quantitative transparency through SEBI’s Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework. Additionally, it evaluates internal board-level institutional mechanisms and landmark judicial interventions, such as the Vedanta v. Orissa Mining Corp. judgment, which highlights the strategic and financial imperative of securing local community consent. The research concludes that while mandatory disclosure and judicial activism currently serve as the primary drivers of corporate accountability, statutory reforms such as expanding class-action standing to affected communities are necessary to close the enforcement gap and fully transform directors into genuine mediators of stakeholder interests.
Maryam Khalid, Kavya Chandel· ILE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
