Post
Anyone have any views about the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill?
Appears to be enabling crypto to be both used and regulated. Is it the follow on that matters rather than this bill? Or just a bad idea to start to institutionalise "digital property"? #crypto @davidgerard
https: //bills.parliament.uk/bills/3766
@jim i need to read through this properly for you, but crypto of various sorts has been treated as property for a while, i.e. own the keys, own the crypto; someone else holds them, they have a liability to you. Codifying that is fine.
but also the real impetus would be the FCA being pressured to allow the most craven crypto shit by this and the previous government, against all reasonabe financial regulation.
anyway i'll look at it properly later
A clarification that property which is not obviously a thing in action or a thing in possession can still be property, as confirmed by the courts.
@jim @davidgerard
IANAEL so I may be missing an arcane point of English property law, but it looks to me to be a statement that would not make any changes to current Scots law on incorporeal moveable property.
(Scotland is of course excluded from this bill, that may be why)
It doesn't go anywhere near as much as the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill, which proposes to change "digital assets" from incorporeal to corporeal moveables (about which "ah hae ma doots")
@jim @davidgerard @HighlandLawyer Agree that it’s linked to an arcane English Law point - don’t think it does much other than confirm the existence of a 3rd category of property in England. That clarification probably clears some hurdles for follow-on legislation, but I don’t think it’s has much of an effect in itself.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
