By Kelvin FK Low and Timothy Chan (National University of Singapore)
Note: This post is the eighth post in a series of posts on bankruptcies of cryptocurrency companies and the emerging issues they pose. Previous posts in the series include:
1. The FTX Bankruptcy: First Week Motions, Jurisdictional Squabbling, and Other Unusual Developments, by Megan McDermott
2. Quantifying Cryptocurrency Claims in Bankruptcy: Does the Dollar Still Reign Supreme?, by Ingrid Bagby, Michele Maman, Anthony Greene, and Marc Veilleux
3. The Public and the Private of the FTX Bankruptcy, by Diane Lourdes Dick and Christopher K. Odinet
4. Staking, Yield Farming, Liquidity Mining, Crypto Lending – What are the Customer’s Risks?, by Matthias Lehmann et al. (University of Vienna)
5. The Treatment of Cryptocurrency Assets in Bankruptcy, by Steven O. Weise, Wai L. Choy, and Vincent Indelicato
6. FTX Bankruptcy – A Failure of Centralized Governance in the Name of Decentralized Cryptocurrencies, by Vivian Fang
7. Roundup: Celsius Network LLC, by Jessica Graham
This series is being managed by the Bankruptcy Roundtable and Xiao Ma, SJD at Harvard Law School, xma [at] sjd [dot] law [dot] harvard [dot] edu.
Check the HLS Bankruptcy Roundtable periodically for additional contributing posts by academics and practitioners from institutions across the country.
The difference between owning (i.e. having property rights in something) and being owed (i.e. having a right against a person by way of obligation) is at its most stark in bankruptcy. In the wake of multiple bankruptcies of crypto entities last year, the question of whether customers of these entities owned or were merely owed has come into sharp focus, especially when the entity has been engaged in what the industry has coined CeFi (centralized finance), which involves the lending and borrowing of crypto assets. In theory, the same questions are engaged in a DeFi (decentralized finance) transaction, where one of the roles is substituted by a peer (often pseudonymous) rather than a centralized intermediary. Determining whether property in “loaned” crypto assets belongs to a failed borrower (whether centralized intermediary or peer) who simply owes an obligation to the lender or remains with the lender throughout involves a question of characterization. Two recent motions in the Celsius litigation are instructive of how this characterization is undertaken by the courts and although the case involves CeFi rather than DeFi, there is no reason why the same reasoning does not extend to DeFi as well.
The arrangement mirrors exactly the traditional position relating to interest-bearing bank accounts, established since the mid-19th century in the common law world to entail an obligation owing to customers rather than ownership of money by customers. Cases like Thompson v Riggs 72 U.S. 663 (1866) and Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002 decided that absent any special conditions, money deposited with a bank became the property of the bank, with the customer obtaining a claim to the return of the same amount of money (plus interest) on demand. The obligation is fungible (the bank need not return the same coins and notes deposited) and forms the basis for borrowing short and lending long that is the backbone of modern banking. This characterization is necessary because money, unlike some other property, does not have any inherent utility except by way of alienation. A bank uses deposited money as it pleases (usually by extending loans itself), makes what profit it can, and pays back to its customer the principal and agreed interest. How could a bank generate profits off the money were it otherwise?
However, most crypto assets are not suitable for non-fungible loans since, like money, they can only be enjoyed through alienation. As Warren Buffett famously explained in a CNBC interview, “If you said … for a 1% interest in all the farmland in the United States, pay our group $25 billion, I’ll write you a check this afternoon,” Buffett said. ”[For] $25 billion I now own 1% of the farmland. [If] you offer me 1% of all the apartment houses in the country and you want another $25 billion, I’ll write you a check, it’s very simple. Now if you told me you own all of the bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25 I wouldn’t take it because what would I do with it? I’d have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn’t going to do anything. The apartments are going to produce rent and the farms are going to produce food.” Without treading on the controversial question of whether all or most crypto assets are thus Ponzi schemes, the point holds that simply holding crypto assets doesn’t generate any returns so, unless a loan of crypto assets is characterized in the same way as a loan of money, it is difficult to see what the point of the loan is (from the borrower’s point of view) and how the borrower is supposed to generate the profits in order to pay the lender the interest it has promised. As a result, it is unsurprising that the court found that the customers had clearly made a “loan” of the fungible rather than non-fungible variety, where ownership of the property passed to Celsius in return for an obligation to return an equivalent sum plus interest.