This article examines contracts between crypto-asset service
providers (CASPs) and their customers. The recent collapses of major
crypto-platforms, like Celsius and FTX, highlight both the importance and
limitations of such contracts. In this article, I examine the role of digital
contracts or ‘crypto-contracts’ in the resolution of conflicts in crypto
insolvencies, and question whether (exclusive) reliance on these contracts is
optimal from the perspective of foreseeability, fairness and protection of
customer rights. I demonstrate that contracts with crypto-platforms tend to be
long, complex, ambiguous and subject to frequent unilateral modifications. They
often create uncertainty about the rights of customers in deposited
crypto-assets (personal v. proprietary). This is their first limitation. The
second limitation relates to potential interference of property law. Even if a
contract grants certain proprietary rights to customers, property law may
attach additional requirements for their creation and protection, such as asset
segregation, and lead to the loss or transfer of ownership in a situation of
commingling. Finally, the third limitation comes from the fact that the
promises of contract and property law may be of little help where a CASP
breaches the contract and reuses (disposes of) customer assets without consent.
Together, these limitations constitute compelling policy justifications for
interference with contractual relations. Insolvency of cryptoplatforms brings
to light complex legal problems, which require a balanced and multi-dimensional
approach. This approach should complement contractual arrangements with
relevant rules from different areas of law, including consumer, property and
administrative (regulatory) law.