The first cryptocurrency was invested in 2008/09, but the Blockchain -Web3 concept is still in its infancy, and the cyber risk is constantly changing. Our cybersecurity should also be adapting to these changes to ensure security of personal data and continuation of business for organisations. This review paper starts with a comparison of existing cybersecurity standards and regulations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST ) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) - ISO27001, followed by a discussion on more specific and recent standards and regulations, such as the Markets in Crypto -Assets Regulation (MiCA ), Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and the International Organi sation of Securities Commissions (CPMI -IOSCO), and more general cryptography and post -quantum cryptography, in the context of cybersecurity. These topics are followed up by a review of recent technical reports on cyber risk/security and a discussion on cloud security questions. Comparison of Blockchain cyber risk is also performed on the recent EU standards on cyber security, including European Cybersecurity Certification Scheme (EUCS ) – cloud, and additional US standards – The National Vulnerability Database (NVD ) Common Vulnerability Sco ring System (CVSS ). The study includes a review o f Blockchain endpoint security, and new technologies e.g., IoT. The research methodology applied is a review and case study analysing secondary data on cybersecurity. The research significance is the integration of knowledge from the United States (US), the European Union (EU) , the United Kingdom (UK), and internationa l standards and frameworks on cybersecurity that can be alighted to new Blockchain projects . The results show that cybersecurity standards are not designed in close cooperation between the two major western blocks - US and EU. In addition, while the US is still leading in this area, the security standards for cryptocurrencies, internet -of-things, and blockchain technologies have not evolved as fast as the technologies have. The key finding from this study is that although the crypto market has grown into a multi -trillion industry, the crypto market has also lost over 70% since its peak, causing significant financial loss for individuals and cooperation’s. Despite this significant impact to individuals and society, cybersecurity standards and financial govern ance regulations are still in their infancy. Key words: Cyber Risk Assessment ; Cloud Cybersecurity Standards ; Financial Governance, DeFi, NIST; ISO27001; IoT; Blockchain Technologies , Metaverse, C ryptocurrencies. 1 1. Introduction to Cybersecurity , Regulations , and Standards for new and emerging Blockchain Technologies This article reviews the cybersecurity regulations and standards that are in existence in 2023, and derives conclusions on gaps in standards and regulations, and how these gaps can impact indivi duals and companies in terms of financial impact and socio -economic impact. With the emergence of new layer -2 Blockchains such as Arbitrum and Optimism , and many new layer -2 solutions expected to emerge as leaders in Blockchain projects in 2023 (e.g., ZKSync, StarkNet, Sui and Layer Zero ), we can expect this technology to predominate the Web3 development. The colla pse of many well -known Blockchain projects in 2022 (e.g., Terra Luna, FTX ) and the recent depegging of the USD Coin ( USDC ) has expose d some major risk in Blockchain Technologies, even Stablecoins. Another major concern in the increasing number of Blockchain projects, and the increased investment in these projects, despite the financial risks, is the cyber risk. In the past year, we have witnessed numerous cyber -attacks to Blockchain projects, some examples of cyber - attack breaches includ e: • Ronin Network — $625 million. • Wormhole Bridge — $325 million. • Nomad Bridge — $190 Million. • Beanstalk Farms — $182 million. • Wintermute — $162 million. 2 The review includes aspects related to technical attacks and non -technical attacks (e.g.., social engineering, insider threats). Some of the biggest cyber threats in Blockchain Technologies in 2023 are insider threats, ransomware, and phishing/social engineering attacks. These threats can take different forms and i nsider threats are not always malicious . Non-malicious examples include the use of default passwords, poo r data hygiene, server misconfigurations, etc. For this king of cyber threats , even the most secure cryptographic algorithm wo uld not be very helpful, because the risk is not placed in the communication, or in the device, the risk is in the implementation of cybersecurity for the blockchain system that is secured with cryptography. 1.1. Types of cyber attacks Even the most secure Blockchain systems, with the strongest cryptography , are vulnerable to malicious attacks when cybersecurity is badly implemented . The implementation exposes organisations to phishing attacks [1] and social engineering attacks [2]. These are also very effective tools for hackers, especially if privileged user gets phished and a hacker gets administrative access to critical systems. Ransomware is another example of cyber threat s [3], for Blockchain Technologies, and has proven very effective for cyber attackers . We can expect ransomware to continue to be heavily favourite tool for hackers , especially state sponsored hackers like the Lazar us Group . Such attacks are extremely difficult to detect, unless the attacker trips the suspicious activity monitoring systems, or the phished user reports the event. While continuous training and cyber education is considered as the best preventative measure [4], it is easy to fall for extremely well disguised social engineering attacks [5]–[8]. Hence, cybersecurity focus needs to be placed on the TCP/IP network , and on ‘ employee education, training, and awareness ’ [9]. While staff training and network security can help with avoiding some of the common vulnerabilities, organisations sh ould develop and maintain plans for delivering critical services with business resilience system integrated with artificial intelligence system s [10], [11] and anticipate that at some point, cyber -attack will create a system wide disruption , as we have w itnessed in Ukraine [12]. The article is statured with an introduction , literature review, technical review, comparison, lesson learned, discussion, and a conclusion sections. 2. Review 2.1. Literature review According to one recent study, Blockchain -based systems expose five major attack vectors , categorised as: ‘blockchain infrastructure, subsuming the P2P network, consensus mechanism, VM, and blockchain applications, including the application logic and walle ts’ [13]. Another recent study found that ‘that malleability attacks, 51% attacks, and wallet security attacks are the most common attacks’ on Blockchain projects [14]. Existing standards are used to attempt to assess the risk from these new technologies, including the ‘ISO 27001 and the General Data Protection Regulations ’ [15]. Although Blockchain -based systems open new attack vectors , Blockchain Technologies are also considered for cybersecurity management, some examples include to ‘to e xamine if a network has been compromised and to what extent’ [16], to secure the Internet -of-Things (IoT) [17], including the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) [18]. One emerging study 3 presents a ‘blockchain -based solutions for the cybersecurity of the main smart city applications, namely smart healthcare, smart transportation, smart agriculture, supply chain management, smart grid, and smart homes ’ [19]. Multiple research studies have been published recently conducing a systematic literature review and classification of blockchain for cybersecurity [20], or a comprehensive survey of blockchain enabled cyber security [21]. However, major concerns remain on ‘ several vulnerabilities associated with blockchain technology ’ [22], with the same study reporting that some of the most frequent and common vulnerabilities on blockchain networks include: • 51% or Majority Attack (in PoW -based blockchains like Bitcoin), • Routine attack (double coin spent), • BC Endpoint Vulnerabilities, • Attacks due to vulnerability in smart -contracts and their deployment, • Transaction Privacy Leakage, and, • Phishing Attacks. This study is focused on identifying so lutions from existing cybersecurity standards and regulations. The next section reviews techn ical reports on cybersecurity that can provide insights into the Blockchain security problem. 2.2. Review of technical reports on new Cybersecurity , Regulations, and Standards for new and emerging Blockchain Technologies To ensure coverage of the numerous technical publications on the topic of cyber risk, and to keep the volume of this review within a reasonable length, while eliminating potential bias, this section outline s how the technical papers are selected in this reviewed. • First, Google scholar was used. • Second, the Web of Science Core Collection was searched. • Third, Scopus was used. • Finally, multiple reciprocities were researched for the inclusion of missing technical papers. To ensure state -of-the-art is presented in the review, the search for literature include s only the most prominent records (selected by number of citations and quality of journals published) and most recent studies ( records from 2021 onwards ). Hence, the review and the results are influenced by the mos t cited records - published in top technical journals . The reputation of the journal publisher was strongly considered - only reputable publishers, e.g., Springer, IEEE, Elsevier. 2.3. The MiCA Crypto -Assets Regulation The Markets in Crypto -Assets Regulation (MiCA ) [23] is a new European Union ( EU) legislation designed to regulate crypto -asset -related activities carried on in the EU . The EU Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) endorsed the approved text for the Markets in C rypto -assets regulation (MiCA) on the 10th of October 2022 . In 2022, the collapse of multiple crypto projects (e.g., FTX, Alameda Research, Terra Luna) triggered the debate on regulating the crypto markets and how we can ensure a more diligent risk managem ent, including the management of counter -party risk between crypto market participants and projects. 4 MiCA divides cryptocurrencies into four categories: 1. Crypto assets that are rewarded for maintaining distributed ledger technology or validations of trans actions (e.g., Bitcoin) seem like they will be exempted from MiCA, because layer one assets are seen as commodities of their systems. 2. Utility tokens that are used for exchange of goods and services seem like will also be exempted from MiCA, 3. Asset-referenc e tokens (ART) , are money market accounts known as stable coins and although they include real government issued money (fiat money), they might also include treasury and other debt, and 4. Electronic money tokens (e -money or EMT ), are real government issued money, pegged by the value of one type of fiat currency and used for payment processing (e.g., Wise, Revolut, Alipay, WeChat Pay) MiCA provides: • important rules for the crypto industry, • market guidelines for crypto companies, requiring them to provide detailed information about their projects (e.g., if a crypto company is paying 10% yield, where are they getting that yield from), • it mandates stable coins issues to maintain sufficient liquidity in the form of deposits to prevent crashes like Terra UST. Regulations like MiCA might encourage big companies to get involved into crypto. The challenge for traders is that MiCA introduces a transaction value cap of 200m euros per day, for non -euro stable coins and most crypto traders tr ade USD not Euro. In fact, nobody trades Euros on the crypto markets. The provisional MiCA bill has caused Circle (USDC) to create the Euro Coin (EUROC) . In other words, EUROC is a coin designed in collaboration with the EU regulators and USDT seems to be doing the same. It also restricts stable coin issues on how many tokens they can issue if they are not denominated in Euros or other EU currencies. 2.4. Review of the NIST approach to cyber risk assessment The National Institute of Standards and Technology (N IST) Cybersecurity Framework - version 1.1 [24] is considered as the most wide -ranging approach for identity management that contains description of how to manage supply chain cybersecurity (e.g., it includes third party risk, Blockchain technologies, di gital currencies, and other risk categories which are not covered by ENISA and/or ISO ). Version 1.1 was created in close discussion with 1,200 participants. This included annual workshops, open reviews, and the Framework remains as a ‘living document’ , wit h regular updates constantly integrated and published – often as ‘Special Publications’ (SP). Since Version 1.1 was created in 2018, there has been numerous SP documents. According to NIST, some of the most common questions asked by practitioners are: ‘what is wrong with the way we have been doing’ , and ‘why is the additional expense necessa ry’ [25]. The answer is that NIST Cybersecurity Framework ‘provides a common language, regardless of if you are a CEO, or you just wal ked into a company as a new employee, it’s something that you can feasibly grasp’ . It offers the ‘ease of understanding, simplicity, in a 5 very complex topic’ . It helps ‘communicate risk in the way that everyone understands, from the server room to the boar d room’ [25]. NIST Cybersecurity Framework is organized in five categories : (1) identify , (2) protect , (3) detect , (4) respond , (5) recover [25]. Version 1.1 includes provisions on supply chain cybersecurity (e.g., third party and/or participants ). The framework provides 108 subcategories, and informative