Update 26 11 2021 for the Law Commission’s advice to the UK Government on smart legal contracts see here. It includes a section on jurisdiction and applicable law.
Update 02 April 2021 for a review of the EC consultation on the issues see Matthias Lehmann here.
Update 13 October 2020 for the New Zealand view holding that that a cryptocurrency constitutes property at common law and is therefore capable of being held on trust, see  NZHC 728 Ruscoe v Cryptopia Limited (in Liquidation) and see here and here.
Update 27 May 2020 for the French view on the nature of Bitcoin, see the decision of the courts at Nanterre of February 2020.
Update 21 January 2020 for the cryptoassets issue, see AA v Persons Unknown & Ors, Re Bitcoin  EWHC 3556.
Happy 2020 reading, all!
At the back of my mind I have a number of interesting examples of the English Courts and English law’s awareness of the relevance of courts and substantive law in regulatory competition. I post them here together by way of illustration.
Sir Vos’ speech on how English law on cryptoassets should develop so as to boost the confidence of would-be parties to ‘smart’ legal contracts; a further analysis of same by the UK jurisdiction taskforce’, and Outer Temple’s reaction to ditto.
Also however RPC’s review of Davey v Money  EWHC 997 (Ch), in which Snowden J declined to cap a litigation funder’s liability for adverse costs at the amount of funding provided: essentially adding a potential risk to be considered by third-party litigation funders and illustrating that attractive as England may be as a forum for litigation, the sector is not a free for all.
Finally, the English courts are not of course alone in the realisation of the issues: witness this 2017 report by the French Supreme Court: ‘”Le juge et la mondialisation”.