Access to finance is often a vital tool for a company to make investments which in turn leads to increased generation of income. In 2022, the amount of lending to non-financial companies increased by around 13 %. Banks' traditional lending channels have recently been challenged by DeFi. Within DeFi, no central intermediary is used, the security provided is cryptocurrencies and the transaction history is public. The most common cryptocurrency used in DeFi is bitcoin. At the time of writing, bitcoin has a market capitalization of approximately $521 million. The use of DeFi has grown rapidly in 2022 as cryptocurrencies worth just under $110 billion were pledged in DeFi as collateral for credit. The EBA has previously warned about the risks of cryptocurrencies. Despite warnings, neither case law nor any clear legislation regarding cryptocurrencies and creditors protection has thus been created. Though, there is a proposal from EU that will create a uniform regulation for cryptocurrencies that are not currently covered by the EU's existing regulatory framework for financial services, the so-called MiCA regulation. In Swedish legislation, there is an ongoing investigation on how to handle cryptocurrencies. However, neither the proposals at EU-level nor national level deal with substantive legal aspects such as creditors protection. The purpose of the thesis is to present a proposal for what bitcoin as property is classified as according to Swedish law and to identify the most appropriate legal aspect when bitcoins are used within DeFi. Based on the purpose, the following questions arise (i) What type of property should the cryptocurrency bitcoin be legally classified as? (ii) How can creditor protection be achieved when a transaction with bitcoin is made? (iii) How can creditor protection be achieved when bitcoin is used as collateral? In this thesis, the legal dogmatic method and law analogies will be used to answer the questions. The conclusions are that bitcoin should first be seen as a financial instrument according to MiFID II and creditor protection in the case of acquired ownership of bitcoins can basically never be achieved. Creditor protection in case of retained ownership can be achieved with analogous application of RVL and using registration as an element of property rights. When bitcoin is used as collateral, creditor protection can be achieved through the property right element of registration or tradition. In the case of three-party escrow, notification of transfer of claim must be made to the person who holds the pledged property in accordance with the 1936 Pawn Law.

C’est le droit des entreprises en difficulté qui a permis de mettre en évidence la complexité que pouvait revêtir la détermination de la date de naissance des créances. Or, celle-ci apparaît fondamentale en droit privé. Constituant le critère d’application de certains mécanismes juridiques, elle incarne l’existence de la créance et représente dès lors un enjeu pour toute règle de droit ayant celle-ci pour objet ou pour condition. Deux courants doctrinaux s’opposent, la thèse classique fixe la date de naissance au stade de la formation du contrat, tandis que des thèses modernes la fixent au stade de l’exécution du contrat. La thèse matérialiste, fondée sur le droit des entreprises en difficultés, fait naître la créance de prix au fur et à mesure de l’exécution de la contre-prestation. La thèse périodique, reposant sur une réflexion doctrinale quant aux contrats à exécution successive, fait renaître toutes les créances du contrat à chaque période contractuelle. L’examen des thèses moderne à l’aune des mécanismes juridique qui ne peuvent qu’incarner la véritable date de naissance de l’authentique créance aboutit à leur invalidité. La thèse classique se trouve donc à nouveau consacrée. Mais la résistance que lui oppose le droit des entreprises en difficulté ne peut reposer sur la technique d’une fiction juridique, car d’autres manifestations du même phénomène peuvent être mises en évidence en dehors de ce domaine. Un changement de paradigme s’impose donc pour résoudre le hiatus. Derrière ce phénomène persistant se cache en réalité une autre vision, une autre conception de la créance, la créance économique qui vient s’articuler avec la créance juridique dans le système de droit privé pour le compléter. La dualité des dates de naissance recèle donc en son sein une dualité du concept de créance lui-même, la créance juridique classique et la créance économique. La créance économique n’est pas un droit subjectif personnel. Elle n’est pas la créance juridique. Elle n’est pas autonome de la créance juridique et ne doit pas être confondue avec une créance née d’un cas d’enrichissement sans cause. La créance économique représente la valeur produite par le contrat au fur et à mesure de l’exécution de sa prestation caractéristique. Elle permet de corriger l’application ordinaire du concept de créance juridique par en assurant la fonction de corrélation des produits et des charges d’un bien ou d’une activité. Ses domaines d’application sont divers. Outre son utilisation dans les droits comptable et fiscal, la créance économique permet la détermination de la quotité cédée dans le cadre d’une cession de contrat, la détermination du gage constitué par un patrimoine d’affectation dans le cadre de la communauté légale, de l’EIRL ou encore de la fiducie, ainsi que la détermination du passif exempté de la discipline d’une procédure collective. Dans ces domaines, ce n’est donc pas la date de naissance de la créance juridique qui s’applique, mais la date de naissance de la créance économique. La cohérence du système de droit privé se trouve donc ainsi restaurée quant à la date de naissance de la créance. / It is the laws governing companies experiencing difficulties which have revealed the complexity of determining the dates of the origination of the claims. And yet this appears to be fundamental in private law. As it constitutes the criterion for implementing certain legal mechanisms, it epitomizes the existence of the claim and hence represents a challenge for any rule of law in which the existence of this claim is a goal or condition. There are two conflicting doctrinal currents: the traditional approach sets the date of origination at the stage of the formation of the contract, while modern approaches situate it at the stage of the execution of the contract. The materialistic approach, based on the law governing companies experiencing difficulties, staggers the origination of the price debt over the period of the execution of the service. The periodical approach, which relies on a doctrinal reflection on successive execution contracts, is that of the re-origination of all the claims under the contract at each contractual period. An examination of the modern approaches, under the auspices of the legal mechanisms which can only epitomize the true date of origination of the authentic claim leads to the invalidity thereof. The traditional approach is therefore once again consecrated. But the resistance constituted by the laws governing companies in difficulty cannot rely on the technique of legal fiction, because other manifestations of the same phenomenon can be identified outside this domain. Therefore, a change of paradigm is in order if the hiatus is to be resolved. Behind this persistent phenomenon lies in fact another vision, another concept of the claim: the economic claim which, interwoven with the legal claim in the private law system, supplements it. The duality of the dates of origination therefore conceals in its bosom the duality of the very concept of a claim, the traditional legal claim and the economic claim. The economic claim is not a subjective personal right. It is not a legal claim. It is not autonomous of the legal claim and must not be confused with a claim originating in a case of unwarranted enrichment. The economic claim represents the value produced by the contract as the service which characterizes it is provided. It permits the rectification of the ordinary application of the concept of legal claim by ensuring the function of correlating the proceeds with the costs of a commodity or an activity. Its domains of application are varied. In addition to its use in accounting and fiscal law, the economic claim permits the determination of the portion transferred in the context of the transfer of a contract, the determination of the collateral consisting in a special-purpose fund in the context of a legal joint estate, a limited liability individual contractor or a trust, as well as the determination of the liabilities which escape the discipline of collective proceedings. In these domains, it is therefore not the date of origination of the legal claim which applies, but the date of origination of the economic claim. The coherence of the private law system is therefore restored as concerns the date of the origination of the claim.