Nowadays, it is almost impossible to imagine an effective legal system that is not somehow inspired by nominalistic ideas. However, the principle of monetary nominalism is not necessary in correlation with other higher principles, such as the principle of fairness, for example. Thus, legislators build and implement corrective instruments in legal acts, most of the time allowing legal subjects to choose and adapt those instruments to best fit their economic interests. In that context, (foreign) currency clauses are probably the most frequently used instrument. Those norms, when implemented in contract, prevent the negative effects of domestic currency depreciation through the denomination of the amount of debt in foreign currency. Whether we regard them as currency or not, cryptocurrencies are increasingly becoming an important part of our digitalized economic world. So, unless the legislature strictly limits or abolishes the freedom of will (the principle of party autonomy) in contract law by banning cryptocurrencies, contracting parties can hedge against domestic currency depreciation by pegging the amount of debt to the exchange rate of one of thousands of existing cryptocurrencies. If parties choose to make such an agreement, it is most likely that they will peg the amount of debt to the Bitcoin exchange rate. If parties choose to make such an agreement, it is most likely that they will peg the amount of debt to the Bitcoin exchange rate. In this paper, the author analyzes (crypto)currency clauses nominated in Bitcoin and their effects on contract relations in the legal system of the Republic of Serbia. This research heavy relies on the advantages of the normative and the comparative method, and various techniques of the analytical method.