Whatever you think about Bitcoin and whatever else it is, it is not money.
Yet potential property claims of prior owners could hinder the use of stablecoins as digital money.
From: Stablecoins should be treated as currency.
xxx
Are stablecoins money? Well, I’m tending towards thinking that they are even though I am not a lawyer or economist.
Businesses covered by MiCA, or crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), include:
Custodial wallets
Exchanges for crypto to crypto transactions or crypto to fiat transactions
Crypto-trading platforms
Crypto-asset advising firms and crypto-portfolio managers
In terms of assets applicability, MiCA covers three types of assets:
Asset-referenced tokens (including stablecoins backed by commodities, or one or several currencies)
E-money tokens (stablecoins backed by a single fiat currency)
Other tokens, including utility tokens
MiCA will only apply to NFTs (non-fungible tokens) if the NFT has characteristics that make it similar to one of the assets that MiCA definitely applies to. For example, MiCA rules might apply to an NFT that is like a utility token or a financial instrument. When working on NFT’s token legal design, it will also be important to remember that simply assigning a unique identifier to a token is not an indicator of non-fungibility. Under MiCA, non-fungible tokens issued in large series could be considered fungible and therefore require an authorization. Most likely, this will influence projects that fractionalize NFTs.
From The EU Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation Explained.
What do they mean by fungible and non-fungible here and why are they talking about them. Well, remember that 2014 IRS Ruling about Bitcoins being a commodity, so that traders would have to track the buying and selling price of each individual Bitcoin in order to assess their tax liability? No? Here’s a reminder: “the real lesson from the IRS Bitcoin ruling is that for a currency-or any payment system-to work, its units must be completely fungible”.
Now, “fungible” (from the Latin “to enjoy” via Medieval Latin phrases such as “fungi vice”, meaning “to take the place of”) is one of my favourite adjectives. It means that all the units are the same and can be substituted one for another. You owe me a quarter. It doesn’t matter _which_ quarter that you give me. Any will do. Any quarter can substitute for any other quarter because they are all the same. This isn’t true of Bitcoins. They are all different and their history can be tracked through the blockchain which is, as we are often reminded, and immutable public record of all transactions. As my good friend Marc Hochstein observe about this some time ago, blockchain’s openness could turn out to be a bug (even for law-abiding citizens).
The lack of fungibility has major implications for digital assets. In England, the High Court (in the decision of AA v Persons Unknown & Ors, Re Bitcoin [2019]) has ruled that crypto assets such as Bitcoin are considered to be ‘property’ capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction against a cryptographic exchange, which was indeed granted. You can see what is going to happen here: the exchange will be required to identify who owns the stolen coins and the owner will then be the subject of legal action to recover them. This owner might be entirely innocent about the origin of the coins and will say that they did not know that the Bitcoins they bought are the proceeds of a ransonware attack and may ask to the keep them. But, J.P. Koning pointed out, this is just not how property law works.
However you come into possession of stolen property, a judge can still order you to return it to the rightful owner. Here is one example, randomly chosen from my archives, that will illustrate the point. Jonathan Fredricks, a 16-year-old Dallas-area teen saved up $10,000 over the course of a year working at Chick-Fil-A and bought 2016 Mazda CX-5 from James Steelman. But it wasn’t Mr. Steelman’s car to sell, as he had stopped making the payments on it. The dealer repoed the car five months later and the teenager was left without either car or his money.
This issue of whether a digital asset is fungible or not is crucial. In a parallel but useful set of discussions, the ISDA considered the issue of fungibility in the context of voluntary carbon credits which could be tokenised. To aid liquidity, two or more VCCs should be interchangeable for the purposes of satisfying VCC transfer obligations between traders, even if the VCCs themselves were uniquely generated in relation to specific projects. Fungibility is therefore not a feature of the asset itself but a matter of context. As ISDA points out by way of example, banknotes are fungible to satisfy payment obligations, but are not fungible for tracing purposes since every banknote has a unique serial number. Therefore, a unique “serial number” does not preclude a digital asset token from being fungible and the issue is whether and in what circumstances different tokens will be treated as interchangeable.
Taking all of these perspectives on board,