Disputes relating to cryptoassets have proliferated in recent years, along with the rise of the cryptoasset market. Some of these can be resolved using traditional principles of contract, tort or trust law, but proprietary issues raise particular conundrums. While cryptoassets have generally been accepted to be property, that is merely the starting point. To properly resolve proprietary disputes, it is necessary to provide a reasoned and robust explanation for why particular rules of title originally developed in the context of tangible property should apply. In turn, two foundational questions must be answered. First, what is the subject-matter of the property right in cryptoassets? And secondly, what is the proprietary effect of a blockchain transaction? These issues have received relatively little attention in the literature, which has focused on whether cryptoassets are property at all, and existing contributions (including the Law Commission's recent Consultation Paper on Digital Assets) which do engage these issues are far from reaching consensus. This paper critically examines those views and puts forward its own reasoned approach for the application of traditional rules of title to cryptoassets.

近年来，随着加密资产市场的兴起，与加密资产相关的争议激增。其中一些问题可以使用合同法、侵权法或信托法的传统原则来解决，但专有问题会带来特殊的难题。虽然加密资产通常被认为是财产，但这仅仅是起点。为了妥善解决所有权纠纷，有必要对为什么最初在有形财产背景下制定的特定所有权规则应适用提供合理而有力的解释。反过来，必须回答两个基本问题。首先，加密资产的产权客体是什么？其次，区块链交易的专有效应是什么？这些问题在文献中受到的关注相对较少，其重点是加密资产是否属于财产，而涉及这些问题的现有贡献（包括法律委员会最近的数字资产咨询文件）还远未达成共识。本文批判性地审视了这些观点，并提出了自己合理的方法来将传统所有权规则应用于加密资产。