ИСТИНА

The purpose of the article is to explore the role of blockchain, quantum technologies and computers in building up cybersecurity and cyber immunity in Russia. The theoretical and methodological framework for the article includes FATF and the Bank of Russia documents, as well as the works of Russian scientists A.S. Petrenko, M.P. Voronov, V.P. Chasovskikh and foreign authors T. Veblen, K. Schwab, N. Davis, J. Robinson, etc. Interdisciplinary approach, institutional and economic, statistical methods, as well as content analysis, are employed in the preparation of the article. The aims of the research include: to uncover the blockchain use peculiarities in the Russian financial sector from the digital rouble perspective; to assess the degree of cryptocurrency mining institutionalization in Russia; to define the specifics of blockchain platforms and ecosystems in the Russian financial sector; to identify the blockchain technology use features in Russian financial sector and worldwide in view of countering cybercrime; to assess the degree of cybersecurity and cyber immunity institutions development in the national and global financial sector; to identify cybersecurity institutions of the Russian financial system with focus on cryptocurrencies; to clarify the cyber immunity definition from institutional perspective. The results, representing the novelty of the study, are as follows. First, the blockchain use specifics in the Russian financial sector is in the creation of fudiciary (or fiat) digital money - the digital rouble, rather than cryptocurrencies as private quasi-money. On July 11, 2023, the Russian State Duma passed the bill on digital rouble, an electronic version of rouble. Not replacing cash and non-cash, it will be an additional form of money, represented in digital code. The Bank of Russia will be the digital rouble issuer. Secondly, cryptocurrency mining in Russia is not institutionalized, but de facto takes place. The Russian digital coins and tokens market is regulated by the Federal Law dd 31.07.2020 No. 259-FZ “On Digital Financial Assets”. In Russia, an individual intending to engage permanently in cryptocurrency mining, is obliged to register as entrepreneur or to incorporate a legal entity. Currently, any individual engaged into cryptocurrency mining, provided the one pays for the electricity used, until then is considered to have the clean record. Third, feature of Sber’s blockchain platform compatible with the Ethereum ecosystem, is defined, that consists in developing its own smart contracts and issuing its own tokens. Fourth, based on the analysis results of blockchain use in the global and Russian financial sector, the assertion on ‘equality’ of all blockchain transaction parties, formulated in K. Schwab’s “Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution”, is disproved. It contradicts the practice at least due to unequal allocation of resources and market power (following the concept of J. Robinson) among various actors. For example, one of the global financial market leaders, JP Morgan, launched the cryptocurrency JPM Coin in 2019 for the clients’ settlements (including 80% of Fortune 500 companies), has far more market influence than individuals and small businesses. Fifth, some financial sector cybersecurity infrastructure components are defined: for instance, the draft bill No. 237585-8 dd 17.11.2022 with amendments to the Federal Law dd 31.07.2020 No. 259-FZ on digital financial assets considering the regulation of mining, the mechanism minimizing the cryptocurrency-related money laundering risks. Simultaneously, the analysis of blockchain as fintech use practice in Russia highlighted that its’ impact on the cybersecurity institutional infrastructure in the Russian digital economy needs further clarification. Russian financial regulators (Bank of Russia and Rosfinmonitoring) face the challenge of elaborating substantive approach to detecting illegal cryptocurrency transactions typologies (in fact, patterns of opportunistic behavior). Sixth, providing the insight into the gap in existing theoretical and practical concepts of digital (cyber) immunity as an institutional “inoculation” for cybersecurity is important both for the theory and managerial practice. Little focus is placed on the peculiarities of digital technologies as new specific institutions, as well as on institutions (according to T. Veblen) as patterns of thinking and acting. The example is ChatGPT artificial intelligence implemented in the Internet, which, in its turn, is a meta-institution. Nor do the already existing concepts reflect the patterns of human behavior, different from formal institutions. Cyber immunity is defined as a system of interrelated institutions: digital technologies as institutions, i.e. technological knowledge, skills, and abilities as the basis for technological rules (algorithms of actions), formal rules, and patterns of thinking and acting. The latter are able to reduce transaction costs connected with the actors’ opportunistic behavior and ensure stable, constructive and effective functioning of the digital economy.