Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Law
Cryptoassets, introduced in the wake of the Great Recession (2007-2009), have proven to be very divisive. Embraced by some as part of a revolutionary future, they are derided by others as the misconceived fever dream of naïve technologists who don’t understand how the real world works. Despite a recent meltdown in the cryptoasset markets, or perhaps because of it, the courts will increasingly have to resolve disputes over cryptoassets. An important question that has dramatic implications on how such disputes are resolved is, “Should cryptoassets be considered property?” In this bifurcated contribution, two contrasting positions are taken. “The Case for Cryptoassets as Property” presents the case for classifying cryptoassets as property, arguing that it greatly simplifies dispute resolution. “Better Left to the Legislature?”, on the other hand, disputes the capacity of the courts to do so. It is our shared hope that, through this adversarial process, we shine a clearer light on the arguments that judges and other lawmakers ought to consider as they face the coming deluge of disputes.
View the book chapter on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4354364.
Co-authors: Peter Watt and Kelvin Low
in Law at the Cutting Edge: Essays in Honour of Sarah Worthington, edited by Sinéad Agnew and Marcus Smith (Bloomsbury Publishing, April 2024), Chapter 14, pp. 281 – 299.