Bitcoin and property rights: ¿is it a corporal or immaterial asset (original) (raw)

Property Rights in Money (and Cryptocurrencies)

There is a common core of principles that governs all property rights, whether they relate to tangible or intangible goods. The classical principles of property law are applicable to the property law of intangibles. However, classical property law is also specifically designed to deal with physical objects, which raises the question of the extent to which the regulatory complexes of property law can or must be adapted when dealing with incorporeal goods. This is a challenge that can be observed in the discussion on property rights in data. This modern problem has received much attention, while a very similar and classical problem of property law has not been taken into much consideration in this context. The legal tension between a physical storage medium and the incorporeal good contained in it has dominated the property law discussion on money for decades. In fact, the question of whether classical property law is capable of dealing with the assignment of an incorporeal good is an old one, and much experience has been gained in the national property law systems with regard to money. The examination of this classical problem of property law also seems to be an appropriate starting point for the evaluation of newer legislation on property rights in cryptocurrencies. The new discussion on property rights in data and the old discussion on property rights in money have a strong point of contact when it comes to assigning absolute rights to cryptocurrencies.

BITCOIN AS A PARALLEL CURRENCY – AN ECONOMIC VISION AND MULTIPLE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The existence of monetary instruments complementary to those so-called “official” ones is not a recent phenomenon. Throughout history, many have been the forms and occasions in which complementary currencies were put in circulation. Recently, however, these instruments merged with technology, reaching almost unlimited potential and bringing to light consequences which we do not yet know how to estimate. This dissertation’s objective is to analyze a specific case of highly technological complementary currency: the Bitcoin. This should constitute a clearer approach directed to jurists, since most of the vocabulary involving cryptocurrencies involves IT and economical concepts. The study proposes a discussion as to what does it mean to regard the Bitcoin as a complementary currency – even though the discussion as to whether it is or not a currency at all constitutes only one of the possible approaches. I also explore which are the regulatory options adopted by different jurisdictions that have been forced to take a position regarding virtual currencies in general and Bitcoin in particular. As I will present, the terminology chosen by countries while regulating the Bitcoin results in its inclusion under different law categories and, as a direct consequence, the legal implications vary according to the terminology first embraced. The main treatment given to Bitcoin translates in taxation, in which we can clearly notice the concern from each State to classify the instrument according to the specific regulation one wants to invoke. From the survey carried out here, 62 jurisdictions have already taken a position towards the Bitcoin. With more and more attention from international regulatory agencies – such as the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – the Bitcoin increases its potential and its limitations, especially regarding the challenges faced by an efficient regulation. The conclusion of this dissertation reinforces the notion that the juridical treatment given to new phenomena is not homogeneous, that is, Law does not have one right way to deal with situations found in the world of facts. Also, regarding the Bitcoin as a parallel currency may help regulators to better understand and regulate this cryptocurrency.

BITCOINS, A NEW FRONTIER OF MONEY

Innovations bring forth potential revolutions in a variety of fields, including the legal one. The advent of the Internet posed a threat to the traditional legal framework, challenging the sustainability of the established legal institutes and regulations worldwide. Nonetheless, after an initial phase of 'legal inertia', legal systems resorted to regulate the innovations of the digital era through the existing legal instruments. Over the past years, the virtual world has given rise to a new conceptualization of money and currency exchanges, fostered by the ongoing progress in the field of Information Communication and Technology (ICT). Cash payments seem to be obsolete, supplanted by mobile payment systems, electronic money and the flourishing category of virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies, whose most debated example is represented by Bitcoin. Presently, another regulatory challenge lies ahead: identifying the proper legal framework-if any-applicable to cryptocurrencies. So, the essay aims at analyzing the main features characterizing these innovative 'currencies', the risks inherent in their architecture as well as the benefits they offer, with a specific focus on the case of Bitcoins.

Bitcoin as a digital commodity

New Political Economy, 2022

The paper demonstrates that Bitcoin is not money but rather a digital commodity that has value but no value-added. We show that both the production of and the speculation with Bitcoin draw from the existing global pool of value-added. By extending the Classical Political Economy approach and the New Interpretation of the labour theory of value to the domain of digital commodities, the paper argues that Bitcoin mining is an automated reproduction process that requires no direct (living) labour and thus creates no new value. Bitcoin, in this regard, is not 'digital gold'. Between sectors, Bitcoin mining redistributes wealth and value-added already in existence, while Bitcoin miners with more computational power compete to appropriate the mining profits within the blockchain. The Bitcoin blockchain then creates rivalry in both the ownership and the use of the digital commodity through non-legal means. Our approach can be further expanded to the larger domain of automated digital commodities that are reproducible without the expenditure of direct, living labour.

Why Bitcoins Have Value, and Why Governments Are Sceptical

The aim of this thesis is to provide a holistic analysis and an economic understanding of Bitcoin, answering two key questions: (i) Why do bitcoins have value? (ii) Why and how will governments seek to regulate the use of bitcoin? To answer these questions, the thesis begins with a discussion of money itself, developing a framework of different types of monies in terms of their uses and properties that will form the basis of the analysis. Based on the technical properties of Bitcoin the framework developed above is then applied to identify bitcoin as a digital commodity money. Following this identification, potential uses of bitcoin supporting its value will be discussed, drawing particular attention to Bitcoin s resilience to regulation. In addition, real world examples of other commodity monies will be used to support the claim that bitcoin may circulate without use value and state backing. Governments tend to seek economic control through controlling money, and it will be argued that there are good reasons to expect governments to be hostile towards widespread use of bitcoin. This is to be expected, as use of bitcoin undermines governments capacity to control money.