Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract for the exchange of cryptocurrency units with traditional currencies

In my earlier post, I have argued that a contract for "the provision of services" within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I-bis Regulation should be interpreted as covering both a contract for the exchange of cryptocurrency units and traditional currencies and a contract for the storage of cryptocurrency units. On that reading, the Regulation would give jurisdiction to the courts for the place of provision of the services (For the text of Article 7(1), see my earlier post). This post will consider where that place is in the context of such contracts.
The first thing to note is that this question will not give rise to the same difficulty of localisation as the choice of law for proprietary issues (as to the latter, see my earlier post). This is because the provision of services can be localised in the physical world even if the services deal with cryptocurrencies. Thus, the exchange of cryptocurrency units with traditional currencies does not take place solely on the blockchain. It also involves a transfer of the traditional currency between the account of the user and that of the service provider. Indeed, all necessary operations will have to be conducted at physical location(s). The storage of cryptocurrency units, too, will necessitate crucial operations at physical location(s) such as the safe keeping of the private keys in cold storage.
In the language of Article 7(1)(b), the place of provision of the services is the place "where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided." Interpreting the equivalent phrase for contracts for the sale of goods, the CJEU held that it should be understood to refer to the actual place of performance only where it was impossible to determine it on the basis of the contractual terms (Electrosteel Europe v Edil Centro (Case C-87/10) (2011)). It is hard to see why the same interpretation should not be applied to contracts for the provision of services. In the context of a contract for the exchange of cryptocurrency units with traditional currencies and a contract for the storage of cryptocurrency units, the physical location effecting the necessary operations described above may be indicated in the contract. The mentioning of the place of incorporation of the service provider or its postal contact address may not be sufficient.
Where the services are provided in several Member States, Article 7(1)(b) is to be understood to refer to the place of the main provision of services as it appears from the contractual terms or, in the absence of such terms, the actual performance of the contract. This is the interpretation taken by the CJEU in Wood Floor Solutions v Silva Trade (C-19/09) (2010). That case was concerned with a commercial agency contract and the CJEU added that where the place of the main provision of services could not be identified by either way, it should be deemed to be the place of the agent's domicile. Unlike an agency contract, which may involve various obligations, neither a contract for the exchange of cryptocurrency units with traditional currencies nor a contract for the storage of cryptocurrency units would be likely to cause difficulties in identifying the main provision of services.

Finally, it should be noted that those contracts are likely to contain a choice-of-court agreement. If it is valid and effective under Article 26, it obviates the need to address all the complicated issues of interpretation arising under Article 7(1). A choice-of-court agreement is indeed generally concluded to avoid legal uncertainty. The User Agreement of Coinbase, for example, contains a choice-of-court clause in favour of the English courts. It should further be noted that special rules set forth in Section 4 of the Regulation are applicable if the contract is a consumer contract falling within the scope of their application.