Comparative Non-government-based Cryptocurrencies Policy between Thailand and Argentina

The objective in this study were to study the state of the art of Non-government-based cryptocurrency public policy in Thailand, to study the state of the art of Non-governmentbased cryptocurrency public policy in Argentina, to compare non-government-based cryptocurrency public policy between Thailand and Argentina, and to discuss implications for both Thailand and Argentina. Documentary research was employed in this study. The findings showed that Thailand and Argentina used a set of policy instruments and blockchain as a financial innovation in order to promote their political equilibriums. The comparison of non-government-based cryptocurrency public policy between Thailand and Argentina was conducted in four issues – scope, policy instrument, distribution, and restraints and innovation. In addition, both countries used both active and passive measures in order to maintain the stability of their political systems.


Introduction
consensus or proofing techniques such as Proof-of-Work (PoW), Proofof-Stake (PoS), and Delegated Proofof-Stake (DPoS). Its supply and value is determined by its users. On contrary to the first type, government-backed money is determined its supply and value by central bank, e.g. eDinar" or "Digicash" or "BitDinar" of Tunisia, "Petro" or "Petromoneda" of Venezuela, and "eCFA" or "CFA frac" of Senegal (Cifuentes, 2019;Gohwong, 2018aGohwong, , 2018bGohwong, , 2019. For Thailand and Argentina, Thailand has its estimated 3,629,713 crypto users, 5.20% of Total Thai population whereas the estimated crypto users in Argentina is 1,327,067 users, 2.94% of total Argentine population. With Z-score comparison, the gap of estimated crypto users between both countries is that Thailand (with .71 S.D.) had more estimated crypto users than Argentina (with -.71 S.D.). However, both countries have the similarity that many people of each country flock to buy the nongovernment virtual money (Narktong, 2021;TripleA, 2021bTripleA, , 2021a. In addition, they both have the same non-government-based cryptocurrency policy through a set of laws in order to monitor and control this potential threats against their conventional economies. Furthermore, there is an interesting relationship between them through the trade of these borderless money from a comparative report for the regulatory framework of cryptocurrencies in Argentina of the Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad de Buenos Aires (School of Economics, Buenos Aires' University in English) by Marcos Zocaro, an Argentine tax consultant, university professor and researcher at the Center for Studies in Tax Administration of the aforementioned university. He clearly gives an example in his work that someone from Buenos Aires can buy Bitcoin from another person in Thailand (QuirÓs, 2020;Zocaro, 2020).
Due to the above mentioned relationship between two countries in diplomacy and trade, and their similarities in crypto money booming and public policy, the paper's objective are therefore to study the state of the art of Non-governmentbased cryptocurrency public policy in Thailand, to study the state of the art of Non-government-based cryptocurrency public policy in Argentina, to compare nongovernment-based cryptocurrency public policy between Thailand and Argentina, and to discuss implications for both Thailand and Argentina.

The Political System Model of David Easton
David Easton applies the system theory into political science in 1953 by creating a political system model with components -inputs (demands and support), a political model as a black box, outputs (e.g., public policy, actions or inactions of a government), and feedback. According to this model, government must catch the change in demand of its people at first. Then it makes outputs. After that, feedback in form of supports, such as voting, is needed by government in order to maintain equilibrium for the survival of the political system (Easton, 1965, pp. vii, 8, 25-33).

Public Policy
Public policy is the course of action or inaction of government in public service provision (e.g., central bank policy rate (CBPR), telecommunication, data governance in the public sector, transportation, environment, and marriage) (Dye, 2013). For correcting market and government failures, generic policies are employed as follows: freeing, facilitating, and simulating markets -freeing markets (e.g., deregulation, legalization, Privatization), facilitating markets (e.g., allocation through property rights, new marketable goods), and simulating markets (e.g. auctions), using subsidies and taxes to alter incentives -supply-side taxes (e.g., output taxes, tariffs), supply-side subsidies (matching grants, tax expenditures or business deductions and credits), demand-side taxes (e.g., commodity taxes and user fees), and demand-side subsidies (in-kind subsidies, vouchers, tax expenditures or personal deductions and credits), establishing rules (e.g., frameworks, regulations), supplying goods through nonmarket mechanismdirect supply by government bureaus, independent agencies by government corporations and special districts, and contracting out (e.g., direct contracting out and indirect contracting out), and providing insurance and cushions insurance -insurance (e.g., mandatory insurance, subsidized insurance) and cushions (e.g., stockpiling, transitional assistance (buy-outs, grandfathering), and cash grants) (Weimer & Vining, 2011, pp. 209-235).

Comparative public policy
Comparative public policy is the investigation of how, why, and to what responses of different systems and institutions, usually governments or countries, to a similar or different public problem (Heidenheimer, Heclo, & Adams, 1990, pp. 3-6;Rose, 1973;Wong, 2016, p. 1). There are a variety of framework for comparison of public policy. In this paper, the Heidenheimer, Heclo, and Adams's choices and Dodds' policy instruments are employed as the analytical framework as follows: scope, policy instrument, distribution, and restraints and innovation (Dodds, 2013, pp. 34, 37;Heidenheimer et al., 1990, pp. 15-17).

Research Methodology
Documentary research with secondary data from various sources such as textbooks and laws was employed in this study. The framework and tools for analysis and discussion were based on Heidenheimer, Heclo, and Adams's choices, Dodds' policy instruments, Easton's political system model, and Weimer and Vining's generic policies.

Non-government-based cryptocurrency public policy in Thailand
For Thailand, nongovernment-based cryptocurrencies, also known as private digital currency -given by Bank of Thailand (BOT), are continuously considered a set of controlled potential threats by BOT since 2013 with the rejection of legal buying and selling proposal by Bitcoin Co. Ltd. in Yingluck Shinawatra's government. These nongovernment-based cryptocurrencies are not legal tender as valid payment for any monetary debt according to a circular letter of BOT in 2018 and BOT Press Release No. 49/2021 on 8 July 2021, titled "Caution on Using Digital Assets as Means of Payment for Goods and Services." The main reasons are dysfunction of money with high vitality in price, difficulties in litigation and liability, and information security -oriented problems (e.g. cyber theft, and money laundering).
Therefore, non-governmentbased cryptocurrencies are limited only for profit -oriented investment in a small amount, seven legalized currencies from 5,702 currencies by the allowance of Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as follows: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Stellar, and Ethereum Classic. In addition, there are a set of laws and regulations for supervising all affairs in these seven currencies as follows: Bank of Thailand Act (1942) with its amendment in 1944, 1962, 1985, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2016, 2017, 2018 for BOT's authority in the issue and management of "notes of the government" in Article 8  In addition, the tax payment on non-government cryptocurrencies -based capital gains and benefits according to Article3 and 4 in the Emergency Decree on the Amendment of the Revenue Code (No.19) (2018) has two key issues as follows: (1) "profit share or any other similar benefits from holding or possessing digital tokens" and "benefits from the transfer (or buying and selling) of non-governmentbased cryptocurrencies or digital tokens which their values are more than the owners' invested money" are two subjects for tax payment; and (2) The individual investors must pay tax at 15% withholding tax on capital gains and benefits from digital asset. It is not a final tax. After withholding tax payment, the individual investors must include these capital gains and benefits as income, excluded the aforementioned 15% withholding tax, in their personal income tax return filing. In addition, according to Article 20, that amended Article 41 in Act Promulgating the Revenue Code (1938), in the Revenue Code Amendment Act (No. 8) (1951), the individual investors must pay tax on non-government cryptocurrenciesbased capital gains and benefits if, in the past tax year, the individual has income under Article 40, stay in Thailand at least 180 days for a period or several periods, and bring that income into Thailand (Bank of Thailand, 1942;CoinMarketCap, 2021;Gohwong, 2018a).
However, the above measures are not long-term mechanisms of BOT.
BOT has invented a government-based cryptocurrency, also known as Central Bank Digital Currency / CBDC, with two typeswholesale CBDC, called "Inthanon or TokenBaht", and retail CBDC. Banking Corporation Limited, HSBC). The blockchain of this wholesale CBDC uses Proof-of-Authority (PoA), which is a consensus system based on the reputation of the Validator Node. For retail CBDC, it is issued by BOT for general people as a new alternative payment to the conventional payment channels in their daily lives. Now it is using Proofof-Concept (PoC) for feasibility study. In addition, BOT will release it in the second quarter next year as the BOT's fighting brand for regaining customer base and market share from competitors, non-government-based cryptocurrencies. It will drive out non-government-based cryptocurrencies from Thai financial market (Banchongduang, 2021;Bank of Thailand, 2021, pp. 4-5;Bank of Thailand, SCG, & Digital Ventures, 2021, pp. 4-5, 11;Gohwong, 2018a, pp. 12-13)

Non-government-based cryptocurrency public policy in Argentina
Argentina is a regional leader in the promotion of cryptocurrency in three functions of money of Aristotle -a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account (Aristotle, 1959)  Then the tax payment on nongovernment-based cryptocurrencies under the Ley 27430 de Modificación del Impuesto a las Ganancias 2017 are issues as follows: (1) they are considered as a taxable income by both Senate and House of Representatives of Argentina in Article 2, (2) they will become taxable incomes when their issuers are domiciled, established or located in Argentina in Article 5 for replacing Article 7 in the Income Tax Law 1997, (3) they will not be regarded as an exchange of goods. Therefore, they are subject to the specific rules established by this law for such goods in Article 36, (4) the tax for nongovernment-based cryptocurrencies selling will be charged as equal as the tax value assigned to them in the initial inventory corresponding to the year in which the sale is made. In addition, the acquisition of these cryptocurrencies in the year, the calculated cost will be the purchase price in the Article 39 as the amendment of the first of Article 63 in the Income Tax Law 1997, (5) the income from these virtual currencies is calculated by subtracting it from the sale value the cost of acquisition, manufacture, construction and the amount of the improvements made under Article 41 as the amendment of Article 65 in the Income Tax Law 1997, (6) the net profit of these digital currencies will be covered by the tax rate at 15% under Article 62 as the amendment of the third to sixth paragraphs of Article 90 in the Income Tax Law 1997, (7) these digital currencies at the market value are on the closing date of the fiscal year, as established by the regulations in Article 66 for the amendment of the first paragraph of subsection c) of Article 96 of the Income Tax Law 1977, and (8) the net profits of the same source and from the same type of operations of these digital currencies are calculated in the fiscal years or years in which the loss occurred or the next five years in accordance with the Código Civil y Comercial de la Nación 2015. In addition, losses of Argentine sources from these digital currencies may not be included in the net profits from foreign sources derived from the sale of investments and operations of the same type. This issue is under Article 73 as the amendment of Article 135 in the Income Tax Law 1997 (Ley 27430 de Modificación del Impuesto a las Ganancias 2017).
Last, Peso Digital, or Digital Peso in English, is the developing Argentine government-based cryptocurrency, also known as CBDC, since the financial innovation roundtable consortium in 2019, which the BCRA joined. It consists of a set of proposals from many parties such as "La Fundación Inclusión Productiva (The Productive Inclusion Foundation)" on December 2019, "Raúl Jalil's proposal of Catamarca province" with its key focus on the status of government-based cryptocurrency, issued by the BCRA, on February 2021, "Misiones Province with the Programa Misionero de Innovación Financiera con Tecnología Blockchain y Criptomoneda (Missionary Financial Innovation Program with Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Technology)" on July 2021, and "Cámara del Peso Digital", Chamber of Digital Peso in English, as an online community to issue Peso Digital without any monetary policies, backed by 100% Argentine Peso as the fiat currency that issued by the BCRA since 1991 (King, 2020;Rojas, 2002).

Discussion
The comparison of nongovernment-based cryptocurrency public policy between Thailand and Argentina is done in four issuesscope, policy instrument, distribution, and restraints and innovation, shown in Table 1.
First, Thai government and Argentine government have the same scope of non-government-based public policy. They both have issued their passive measures for coping with the emergence of nongovernment-based cryptocurrencies and crypto assets by using legalization, new marketable goods, output taxes, regulations, and direct supply by central bank. In addition, they both also have issue their active measures through their governmentbased cryptocurrencies, wholesale (Inthanon) and retail CBDC for Thailand whereas Peso Digital for Argentina, in order to regain their power to supply their fiat currencies and control the flow of their currencies.
Second, they both use the same policy instruments as follows: Last, for restraints and innovation, Thailand and Argentina issues their own CBDCs as stablecoins with blockchain technology in order to continue their own governmentbased cryptocurrecies' policies. Thai government issues both wholesale CBDC, also known as Project Inthanon, with Proof-of-Authority (PoA) and retail CBDC with Proof-on-Concept (PoC) in software development whereas Argentina is going to issue its own CBDC, also known as Argentine Peso Digital. In addition, they also use the aforementioned policy instruments (e.g., legalization, new marketable goods) in order to continuously monitor and control money supply and its flow of non-governmentbased cryptocurrencies.

Implications for both Thailand and Argentina
The above findings clearly show that Thai government and Argentine government use all aforementioned policy instruments and innovative CBDCs in order to change the public sector's setting for maintain the equilibrium of their political systems according to the political system model of David Easton (1965). The key reason is that both governments as key system administrators could not tolerate any law violations from any actors for long. They therefore use their own CBDCs as active measures in order to compete with non-government-based cryptocurrencies by convincing their people with their strengths in three functions of money -a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. In addition, they also employ all aforementioned policy instruments as passive tools for monitoring, controlling, and limiting the widespread use of these digital money and their effects on the stability of monetary systems of both countries.

Conclusion
This study's objectives were to investigate the non-governmentbased cryptocurrencies policy in Thailand and Argentina, to compare comparative non-government money policy between two countries and discuss implications to both countries by using documentary research. The findings revealed that Thailand and Argentina used a set of conventional policy instruments and an advanced technology like Blockchain to promote the survival of their political systems.