1. "Virtual currency" exists in the form of a series of data, so early "virtual currency" crimes were identified as data crimes.
2. In theory, blockchain can still be cracked, but the current computer computing power is not yet capable of cracking it.
3. It is impossible for China to recognize "virtual currency" issued by private entities. If it recognizes it in terms of criminal penalties, it is actually endorsing the issuance of "virtual currency" by private entities.
4. It is now very clear that price determination agencies can no longer make price determination opinions for "virtual currency", so under such circumstances, there is no way to set the price of "virtual currency" in terms of price determination.
5. The Supreme Court has clearly defined 'virtual currency' as a type of property that has property attributes in terms of criminal penalties. 'Virtual currency' crimes have shifted from data crimes to financial crimes since the beginning.
6. The criminal court of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court believes that 'virtual currency' has property attributes.
7. The civil court of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court believes that investment in 'virtual currency' is a speculative behavior and does not hold the same status as legal currency. Therefore, it does not possess legal value attributes and circulation attributes and thus does not belong to online virtual property.
8. The Guangdong High Court believes that 'virtual currency' has property attributes, but some 'virtual currencies' possess property attributes.
9. The state defines the acts of stealing and robbing 'drugs' as criminal behavior, not because 'drugs' are considered property, but because the spread of 'drugs' is harmful. So, is defining the acts of stealing and robbing 'virtual currency' as criminal behavior also due to its risk of spread? Or is it more appropriate to understand it as a type of property? There is controversy in legal theory.
