The thing about crypto ownership - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
Web3与加密金融

The thing about crypto ownership

Will digital assets be defined as ‘third category’?
00:00

Mystery: Marvel’s “The Thing”

The Thing is one of the more mysterious characters in the Marvel universe. Seemingly agglomerated from giant cheese puffs, he is visibly less human than his Spandex-encased compadres. Similar ambiguity surrounds crypto assets. These are recognised as “things” by UK law. This means they exist beyond the fevered imaginings of crypto bros. But what kind of things are they, exactly?

The Law Commission, a statutory review body, posed that question in a report this week. The answers are crucial to the ownership rights of would-be investors. These not only matter if you dabble in cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, currently trading at under half its peak value of almost $69,000. Stocks and bonds may eventually become digital assets, exploiting the purported advantages of distributed ledger technology.

We tend to assume we have enforceable title to assets we buy and sell. There is not much point paying for something you may not actually own. But unwitting investors can come a cropper when property rights turn out to be shaky. A decade ago, for example, UK shareholders in Bumi, an Indonesian coal group listed in London, found that it lacked control of some mines supposedly belonging to it. Shares hit rock bottom.

Doubts perennially overhang US-listed equities of many Chinese groups with intermediate holding companies. It is unclear whether these securities provide genuine partial ownership of businesses in China. That is one of several reasons never to overpay for these stocks.

Ownership of crypto assets can be just as uncertain. Blame the conduct of unregulated platforms such as FTX in allegedly misusing client funds. The added difficulty — for example when pursuing reimbursement — is the legal ambiguity of crypto assets.

They are not physical “things in possession” such as cars or houses. Nor are they “things in action”, ownable solely via legal contracts like stocks and bonds. They are created digitally rather than through physical or legal processes.

The Law Commission therefore wants legislation to define bitcoin and its ilk as “third category things”. It also proposes that laws governing collateral, in loan transactions for example, should be extended to embrace crypto assets fully.

Many-splendoured case law should progressively normalise ownership of digital assets, the body believes.

The proposals are “good for consumer protection”, according to Dion Seymour of specialist tax advisory firm Andersen LLP: “Courts will spend less time arguing whether digital assets are possessions that investors can go after. ”

But it is a moot question whether you should hold digital assets, even with solid ownership rights. Lex’s view is that cryptocurrencies have no utility except for speculation, secretive transactions or as badges of nonconformist ideology. We see the bitcoin price as an indicator of speculative exuberance, nothing else.

Non-fungible tokens, which certificate ownership of online art among other things, are status symbols. A Birkin handbag has the same function but you can also tote your keys and phone around in it.

There may be better use cases for other digital assets that deploy distributed ledger technology. One example could be tokenising stocks and bonds so they are cheaper to deal in. Central bank digital currencies might be another. But the glacial pace of development and adoption suggests these remain solutions in search of a problem, whatever their ownership status.

Renewable tech: the seductive urge to demerge

Spinning out a business by getting it a separate stock market listing can electrify a company’s own share price. That may be the hope behind Renault’s plan to float Ampere, its independent electric vehicle manufacturer. Yet Renault’s long-term future depends on switching out of combustion engine vehicles. So why sell any of its EV business?

The energy transition could place a number of legacy businesses into run-off. Some can afford to retain new ventures with high growth potential in-house as insurance policies. Others lack the required capital. A third group believes a partial demerger — in which shares in a separately-listed offshoot are distributed to investors — will create new currency for anticipated M&A.

Consider the possibilities. Renault sold 228,000 EVs and hybrids in Europe last year. That placed the French carmaker third in market share.

An initial public offering of Ampere could raise €1bn-€2bn from share sales. But is the transaction really necessary? Renault wants to accelerate growth. It has enough available cash to cover Ampere’s needs for years, some €4bn-€5bn thinks Dan Roeska at Bernstein,

Germany’s Thyssenkrupp is in a different boat. It would like to float its hydrogen unit Nucera. The parent does not have the capital to give the business a decent push.

Nucera has electrolyser production capacity of 1GW a year, Lex estimates. That is high. But profits may take time to materialise and competition can only intensify.

The parent wants to simplify its structure and decarbonise other capital intensive businesses including steel. It could use any funds raised. Thyssenkrupp’s joint venture share in Nucera could be worth €2bn.

A successful IPO can, meanwhile, offer a smaller division a chance to grow independently. Competing for capital is tough within a conglomerate. Finance directors favour divisions with quick returns on investment.

Italian energy group Eni expects its renewables business Plenitude to grow partly via acquisitions and thinks a share currency will help. So far the markets have not warmed to the idea of a spin-off. Eni may try again. TotalEnergies and BP — both with in-house renewables units — will watch with interest.

We have omitted one reason for spinning off energy transition businesses: corporate happenstance. Managerial ambition and activity for the sake of it are real factors. They would appear to apply at Renault more than strategic logic. Ampere may ultimately be worth more to its parent as a division than via a demerger.

Lex is the FT’s concise daily investment column. Expert writers in four global financial centres provide informed, timely opinions on capital trends and big businesses. Click to explore

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

华尔街误读了特朗普

美国金融和商界巨头开始意识到,他们误读了特朗普总统第二任期的优先事项。

CNN希望建立数字订阅业务

18个月前被任命为首席执行官以扭转CNN局面的马克•汤普森计划推出一套数字订阅服务,以遏制有线电视的长期衰落。

Lex专栏:华尔街交易巨头努力避免被噪音干扰

大型银行的负责人也不清楚特朗普多变的政策正在带来“好的”还是“坏的”波动。

教授们就哈佛经费削减起诉特朗普政府

教师、学生和工作人员对特朗普加强对高等教育机构的攻击报以回击。

“应该在这里制造”:俄亥俄州对特朗普关税动荡不以为然

俄亥俄州的企业表示,特朗普的措施将促进美国制造业的发展。

特朗普乱局促使加拿大和丹麦顶级养老基金对美国降温

关税和领土扩张言论引发市场不稳定和地缘政治紧张局势,养老金基金开始考虑应对策略。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×