The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation has become a pressing matter amid various financial scandals related to cryptoassets. With several EU Member States in the process of adopting their own cryptoasset legislation, MiCA provides a harmonised approach for the European Single Market. Following a principle of “technology neutrality”, MiCA applies only to cryptoassets that are not covered by other EU financial law, except for e-money tokens (EMTs) to which both MiCA and the E-money Directive (EMD) apply. Hence, MiCA is a piece of “gap-filling” legislation that relies heavily on concepts from conventional EU financial law: cryptoassets similar to MiFID financial instruments and other “investment assets” are subjected to rules similar to those of MiFID and the Prospectus Regulation (PR), while cryptoassets similar to “banking assets” are subjected to rules similar to the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) and EMD. In sum, this creates a legal framework where the risks inherent in the different types of cryptoassets are accounted for and mitigated, but where the difficult question of classifying cryptoassets into legal categories becomes all-important.

I begin with those categories that involve neutral terminology. The inherent connection of neutral terms with the ground, the likeness of an image, has been indicated already. Interaction of other kinds does not have this characteristic. It is worth stressing that, in many ways, the more apparent the connection with the ground, the less interesting the interaction. This applies especially to explicit imagery, where, of course, the ground, or part of it, is usually made explicit as a matter of predictable organisation.

This chapter advances theoretical reasons to support symmetric interpretation. First, favoring symmetry accords with the Constitution’s character as a comparatively terse, “framework” document focused on establishing democratic procedures rather than definitive policies. Second, an ethic of symmetric interpretation accords with widely accepted features of judicial role-morality. Finally, symmetric interpretation accords with the framers’ own constitutional aspirations and interpretive methods. Multiple widely accepted theoretical considerations in constitutional law thus support preferring symmetric understandings when possible.

The crossing of the Rubicon was not the decisive moment it is typically held to be. The Senate had already issued what was in effect a declaration of war, yet Caesar paused after his entry into Italy and initiated discussion of a settlement which even Cicero thought would take effect. Even after Caesar resumed his march it remained unclear until Pompey’s actual embarkation at Brundisium whether there really was a war on.Despite a long scholarly tradition accepting the tendentious claims of Pompey’s side to represent "the Republic," prosopographical analysis shows that the Senate and the Roman nobility who held such authority therein were both deeply divided, while our sources are unanimous that the ordinary citizens of Rome and Italy, including many equites and local officials, were favorable to Caesar, or at least not disposed to cooperate with the Senate's Final Decree. Cicero himself had not tried very hard to join Pompey in his dash to Brundisium, misled (he said) by his belief that a settlement would come about. Even after Pompey's departure from Italy he was far from resolved upon taking his side, not because of innate indecision but the deep ambiguities of the political situation.