6 Comments
User's avatar
Erich Winkler's avatar

Very interesting read! I am glad governments all over the world have stopped avoiding this topic.

Technology Law's avatar

Avoidance was never a neutral position, it simply deferred hard legal questions while markets continued to grow regardless.

Neural Foundry's avatar

Brilliant breakdown of how property status shifts collateralization from a legal gray area to something banks can actually price. The insight about developing economies using English law as a reference for crypto-backed financing is spot on. I've sat through enough deal structuring calls where digital asset collateral just hit a wall becuase enforcement pathways were too murky. This Act doesnt solve everything but it removes the foundational blocker that kept crypto out of serious credit instrumnets.

Technology Law's avatar

Thank you for this perspective. The point about pricing risk is exactly where property status does its real work. Once enforcement pathways are intelligible, digital assets stop being conceptually interesting and start becoming legally legible with real world applications. That distinction matters far more to credit than technological design ever could.

Turing's avatar

Finally, but was there a really a need for a legislation since the common law was doing a fine job of shaping the law already? Also, what happens in the case of a crypto asset not held in the UK (e.g., in a country that does not recognise crypto as property), but a buyer is in the UK. Which law will be the governing law?