Thread by @propelforward

Appeal of summary judgment entered in favor of Coinbase in Archer v. @coinbase case regarding #bitcoin and @bitcoingold fork; complaint alleged conversion, negligence & breach of contract related to non-recognition of BitcoinGold fork; all claims dismissed on summary judgment/1

includes discussion about what a holder of someone else's cryptocurrency actually has- is it "ownership" "posession" or "control"? What rights are delegated to another under ? here it's a contract interp. issue. what rights were delegated to Coinbase?

the contract argument advanced is that if there's no agreement as to interpretation by the parties of their agreement, and parol evidence is admitted to help understand the meaning/intent, then it is not ripe for adjudication on summary judgment and has to go to the jury.

aruges that "Storing private keys" suggests Coinbase is holding keys for benefit of users, argues that "support" terms do not warn that users will lose out on forks.

Conversion argument is also interesting. Does the existence of a fork mean you actually have a right to the new asset? Does conversion occur by inaction vs. action? Argument equates key control w/control/dominion over the assets, before any act was taken to claim the forked asset

would be interesting to see this argument squared with the IRS guidance that explains when an asset created by a network fork is taxable income...