Abstract
This paper argues that cryptocurrency, including cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, should be understood as qualified property. We build up support for this claim in three stages: first, we outline the diversity of cryptocurrencies, a diversity which is underappreciated in the current literature. We then outline the importance of theoretical presuppositions which operate in the ‘cryptocurrencies as property’ debate. This is followed by a detailed critique of established positions. We explore the shortcomings of three commonly-held views in the debate: that cryptocurrencies are property, belonging to a third category of personal property beyond the choses in possession/choses in action distinction; that cryptocurrencies are property and belong to the category of choses in action; and, lastly, that cryptocurrencies are not property at all. We then develop a new analysis of property in cryptocurrencies, taking into account both the variety of cryptocurrencies which exist and capturing the doctrine operating currently in property law, including its theoretical underpinnings. Through understanding rights in property as relative, and property itself as a scale, we avoid the shortcomings of other popular accounts whose shortcomings we identify, and show that cryptocurrencies are a form of choses in possession – namely, qualified property.