Maria Eleni Giannike’s articles from Psarakis & Kefalas Law Firm are most popular:
The rapid growth and widespread adoption of crypto-assets have raised the question of whether they can function as instruments of security within the modern financial environment. Although they do not fall within traditional categories of assets, their classification as intangible assets allows for their functional use as collateral. While the European regulatory framework — particularly MiCAR — enhances their institutional credibility, the absence of specific regulation under Greek law and their price volatility raise legitimate concerns.
Crypto-assets constitute one of the principal applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT). They include traditional cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin and Ethereum), stablecoins (which typically peg their value to a single currency — such as USDT and USDC to the US dollar), NFTs (non-fungible tokens), and others.
Given the exponential increase in their circulation and use, the European Union introduced, as early as 2014, a broad regulatory framework concerning certain crypto-assets — namely those classified as financial instruments (see Directive 2014/65/EU – MiFID II). The most significant legislative development, however, came with the adoption of three Regulations (commonly referred to as DLTR, DORA and MiCAR), which together form the EU’s digital finance framework.
As mentioned above, the legislative initiative concerning crypto-assets began at EU level in 2014. MiFID II (Directive 2014/65/EU on Markets in Financial Instruments) regulates crypto-assets that qualify as financial instruments and was incorporated into the Greek legal order by Law 4514/2018. Crypto-assets that qualify as “electronic money” fall under the regime of the second Electronic Money Directive (EMD2 – Directive 2009/110/EC), which was incorporated into Greek law by Law 4021/2011.
Nevertheless, the most important legislative intervention was the adoption of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR), which establishes rules for the authorization and prudential supervision of issuers and crypto-asset service providers, as well as provisions protecting crypto-asset users. Indicatively, it imposes transparency requirements for the public offering of crypto-assets and their admission to trading on platforms. The necessary national rules for the implementation of the Regulation were introduced in Greece through Law 5193/2025.
In light of these provisions and the broader trend of moving away from traditional finance (TradiFi), a legitimate question arises as to how close we are to equating crypto-assets with “traditional” assets — particularly with regard to the ability of their holders to use them as collateral.
The possibility of using crypto-assets as collateral presupposes, first and foremost, their legal characterization as objects capable of economic exploitation. Under Greek civil law, the establishment of a security right is traditionally linked to the existence of a thing or right that may constitute the object of ownership or another real right (Articles 1209 et seq. of the Greek Civil Code regarding pledge, and 1257 et seq. regarding mortgage). Crypto-assets do not fall within the classical categories of either money or movable property; they are intangible digital units of value existing exclusively on distributed ledgers.
Despite the absence of explicit legislative provision, contemporary legal doctrine tends to classify them as intangible assets — that is, rights with economic value and transferability.
From this perspective, the use of crypto-assets as security does not take the form of a classic pledge over movable property but functionally resembles a pledge over a claim or other intangible right (Article 1247 of the Greek Civil Code). Accordingly, the “traditional” delivery associated with real security may, in this case, be achieved through the transfer of tokens to a digital wallet under the control of the creditor or a third-party custodian, thereby ensuring exclusive disposal rights in the event of default of the principal obligation.
Consequently, three main models emerge through which the pledging of a token could operate:
The regulatory environment of the European Union — especially following the adoption of MiCAR — introduces critical elements affecting the functional reliability of crypto-assets as collateral. The classification of crypto-assets into asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), e-money tokens (EMTs), and utility tokens contributes to assessing their stability and valuation — factors that are decisive in evaluating their creditworthiness. In particular, stablecoins, due to their linkage to a specific reference currency, demonstrate reduced volatility and functionally approximate traditional security instruments.
Undoubtedly, the use of crypto-assets as collateral is accompanied by certain legal gaps and uncertainties. First, Greek law does not provide for a specific regime of real rights over digital assets. Second, the high volatility of certain categories of crypto-assets requires contractual mechanisms for value adjustment, such as over-collateralisation or the activation of additional coverage in the event of a decline in market price. Finally, this form of security is not associated with a corresponding enforcement mechanism comparable to traditional real rights; therefore, liquidation presupposes contractual provisions granting either an immediate right of disposal or sale of the crypto-assets without prior judicial action.
In conclusion, the full assimilation of crypto-assets with traditional assets presupposes the establishment of a clearly defined regime governing the creation, publicity, and protection of the relevant security interests. While crypto-assets can already function as collateral at a practical level, their solid legal foundation — and thus their full legal protection — remains under development.
Read more on Mondaq Business Briefing
