Cryptocurrencies and Conflict of Laws

Abstract

Technological features of cryptocurrencies have been raising a number of challenges for lawyers, in particular those practicing Private International Law (PIL), in that (i), cryptocurrencies are intangible, (ii) they exhibit a wide range of different features that, to add further complexity, evolve in parallel with technological developments, (iii) the identity of cryptocurrency users – i.e., everyone who is involved in the process of creation and transfer of cryptocurrencies – is, at minimum, not easy to trace, since it is protected through pseudonyms or, even, full anonymity, (iv) cryptocurrencies are set for more than one usage, i.e., both as a payment instrument and a form of investment (albeit a very risky one!). Even more relevant, (v) cryptocurrencies have an intrinsically cross-border reach, since they are based on decentralised distributed ledgers, potentially spanned all over the world, with no connections to any particular state, allowing value to be transferred between users across borders at a very high speed, not conditional on the location of the transferor and the transferee. Finally, (vi) it is extremely difficult to impose legal restrictions on their circulation, including territorial restrictions, not only because of the decentralised nature of said ledgers, but also because of their inherent autonomy vis-à-vis the law. The aforementioned characteristics of cryptocurrencies and, in particular, their intrinsic cross-border reach prompt the question of their PIL regime and, namely, (i) the need to identify, among the existing PIL rules, those which are applicable to transactions involving cryptocurrencies, both as payment instruments and as (possible) store of value, and to investigate whether those rules are suitable for framing them, either in terms of legal characterisation (“pure” cryptocurrencies neither represent nor give a claim against an issuer) or of connecting factors and other techniques to establish the applicable law. Following the partly negative answer to the first question, the chapter explores the many legislative options for differentiated PIL rules on cryptocurrencies, in comparison not only to traditional assets, but also to other crypto assets. Finally, the paper calls for a comprehensive conflict-of-laws regime for proprietary effects of transactions over cryptocurrencies, based on the elective situs and some requirements in terms of objective connection of the selected law, coupled with a fall-back rule, which should provide different sub-rules for permissioned and permissionless systems