INTRODUCTION

To accurately define the concept and its essence, all adjacent concepts that have a certain degree of similarity in at least one of the properties, signs or functions must be in correlation to achieve consistency. In relation to digital currency, these include the following: digital financial assets, digital rights, electronic money, non-cash funds, cash, money substitutes, information and some others. For a comparative analysis of these categories, both the legal definition of digital currency and the author's own definition of the concept of "digital currency" proposed by the author will be used.

In accordance with the author's approach, digital currency is understood as a digital object intended for payment functions, contained in the form of a set of electronic data (digital code or designation) in an information network that operates on the basis of distributed ledger technology Relations.

THE RATIO OF "DIGITAL CURRENCY" TO "DIGITAL FINANCIAL ASSET "

According to Federal Law No. 259-FZ of July 31, 2020 "On Digital Financial Assets, Digital Currency and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter referred to as the DFA Law), digital financial assets defined as digital rights, including monetary claims, the possibility of exercising rights under equity securities, the rights to participate in the capital of a non-public joint-stock company, the rights to demand the transfer of equity securities issued in accordance with the procedure established by the law on DFAs, for the issuing, accounting and circulation by creating (changing) entries in the information system based on a distributed registry, as well as in other information systems. Consequently, digital financial assets as a type of digital rights imply the legal nature of such assets, which entails the existence of relative legal relations between the owner of the digital financial asset and the person issuing this asset. The concept of digital currency in the law on DFA includes as a qualifying feature that indicates the opposite: in relation to a digital currency, there should not be anyone obliged to the owner of such a digital currency. However, the law establishes entities ("information system operator" and/or "information system node") who have obligations to the owner of the digital currency. In addition, these entities must monitor the issuance and circulation of digital currency for compliance with the rules of the information system. Therefore, it is impossible to distinguish between digital currencies and digital financial assets based on the presence or absence of an entity’s obligation to the owner of its assets.

At the same time, it is impossible to combine these assets into one group based on the existing framework of an information system operating on the basis of a distributed registry. Despite the fact that such a feature is established in relation to digital financial assets, in essence, it is optional, since the law on DFAs establishes an exception that allows other objects created in "other information systems" to be classified as digital financial assets. Turning to the concept of "digital currency" in force in the law on DFA, such a feature is not directly defined there, although it flows from the initial meaning that the information system (in which the digital currency has been created and operated) as a general rule must meet the requirements of decentralization (there should not be anyone obliged to the owner of the digital currency). Decentralization, in turn, is possible only with the use of a distributed ledger and only within the framework of a peer-to-peer network.

And finally, it is impossible to clearly correlate these two objects based on the attribution to one or another object of civil rights. The Law on DFAs directly establishes the civil law characteristics of a digital financial asset as a type of digital right, which in turn is one of the property rights. However, it is not possible to clearly define the position of "digital currency" from the content of the definition of "digital currency" in the existing system of objects of civil rights. At the same time, the law on DFAs and numerous bills that arose after the adoption of this law, recognise "digital currency" as "property". At the same time, the definition of "digital currency" as "property" is vague, since there is no such legal term within the civil legislation framework, but there are only separate provisions on such equating for the purposes of legislation in a particular area, primarily in taxation.Thus, the legal characteristics of digital currency within the framework of the system of objects of civil rights are not defined and it is not yet possible to correlate the "digital currency" with the "digital financial asset" on this basis with reliable accuracy.

Recently, amendments and additions have been made to the legislation regulating digital financial assets. However, they did not touch upon the definition of "digital financial assets", but only slightly changed certain aspects of legal regulation in this area. Despite the fact that the normatively fixed definitions of digital financial assets have not been adjusted, a ban on accepting digital financial assets as a counter-provision for goods or services was included in the legal means that form the legal regime of this object.