The draft is full of barely digested information. Your linking style suggests that, offering as link anchors long paraphrases of individual documents providing basic explanations.

The best route to improvement is to assimilate this information, leaving most of the details behind, telling the reader what she needs to know in order to understand your own idea, which needs to be more prominent. It's hard in this draft to find your own individual contribution, as the conclusion shows. All that effort to learn results in nothing more definite than "maybe society can reach an agreement" and "it is worth [?] to analyze this kind of technology."

What is the idea you have formed for yourself after doing this reading? Put it at the top of the next draft. Show clearly how it emerges from the details, without subjecting the reader to the profusion of low-quality information about "cryptocurrencies" that floats out there. Give the reader some actual sense of how law treats the existing collectibles markets, from bitcoin to the ethanol tax credit, and why—as you mention but do not discuss—all of this is a pimple on the backside of a flea on the tail of an elephant when it comes to how the world's rich actually achieve financial secrecy and licensed tax-evasion. Then you can offer a conclusion which furthers the reader's understanding of your own idea—whatever that may be—and gives her a chance to take her own thinking further.