Category: Cryptocurrency News

A US bankruptcy court has authorized liquidators of defunct crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC) to increase their claim against collapsed crypto exchange FTX from $120 million to $1.53 billion.Chief Judge John Dorsey rejected FTX’s debtors’ argument that the amended proof of claim (POC) from 3AC liquidators was untimely and an unjust attempt to slow the bankruptcy proceedings.In a March 13 ruling in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Dorsey opined that 3AC liquidators had provided sufficient notice of their claim and the possibility of amending it once they had analyzed all the available information. Any delay, he said, was caused by FTX’s failure to share relevant records promptly.Chief Judge John Dorsey has granted the motion by liquidators for defunct hedge fund Three Arrows Capital to increase their claim against FTX to $1.53 billion. Source:“The evidence suggests that the delay in filing the Amended Proof of Claim was, in large part, caused by the Debtors themselves,” Dorsey said.“The evidence also suggests that the Liquidators were diligent in attempting to obtain the information and that despite having the complete information in their possession, the Debtors repeatedly delayed giving it to them.”3AC liquidators initially filed a $120 million claim in FTX’s bankruptcy case in June 2023. They later expanded it in November 2024, alleging claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.The liquidators alleged FTX held $1.53 billion in the hedge fund assets that were liquidated to settle $1.33 billion in liabilities in 2022.They argued that the transactions were avoidable, caused harm to 3AC creditors and that FTX debtors had delayed providing the information that would have uncovered the liquidation.FTX debtors objected to the amended claim, saying that the original POC was insufficient to inform them about the nature and amount 3AC liquidators would be claiming and that it came too late and should be disallowed.Related: FTX filed for bankruptcy 2 years ago — What’s happening now?Before its collapse in June 2022, Three Arrows Capital was once one of the industry’s largest crypto hedge funds, with over $3 billion in assets.Its liquidators also pursued claims against collapsed crypto firm Terraform Labs through a $1.3 billion claim in Terra’s bankruptcy case.At the same time, FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in November 2022, has been undertaking its own recovery efforts to reclaim funds.In November last year, it filed a trio of lawsuits, one against SkyBridge Capital and its founder, Anthony Scaramucci, to recoup funds spent by former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried on sponsorship and investment deals. Another suit was filed against crypto exchange Binance and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, to recover $1.76 billion worth of cryptocurrency sent to the exchange as part of a July 2021 repurchase deal.Waves founder Aleksandr Ivanov is also in the crosshairs for $80 million worth of crypto sent to the Waves-based decentralized liquidity protocol by Alameda Research in 2022.Magazine: Crypto fans are obsessed with longevity and biohacking: Here’s why

A US bankruptcy court has authorized liquidators of defunct crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (3AC) to increase their claim against collapsed crypto exchange FTX from $120 million to $1.53 billion.Chief Judge John Dorsey rejected FTX’s debtors’ argument that the amended proof of claim (POC) from 3AC liquidators was untimely and an unjust attempt to slow the bankruptcy proceedings.In a March 13 ruling in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Dorsey opined that 3AC liquidators had provided sufficient notice of their claim and the possibility of amending it once they had analyzed all the available information. Any delay, he said, was caused by FTX’s failure to share relevant records promptly.Chief Judge John Dorsey has granted the motion by liquidators for defunct hedge fund Three Arrows Capital to increase their claim against FTX to $1.53 billion. Source:“The evidence suggests that the delay in filing the Amended Proof of Claim was, in large part, caused by the Debtors themselves,” Dorsey said.“The evidence also suggests that the Liquidators were diligent in attempting to obtain the information and that despite having the complete information in their possession, the Debtors repeatedly delayed giving it to them.”3AC liquidators initially filed a $120 million claim in FTX’s bankruptcy case in June 2023. They later expanded it in November 2024, alleging claims including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.The liquidators alleged FTX held $1.53 billion in the hedge fund assets that were liquidated to settle $1.33 billion in liabilities in 2022.They argued that the transactions were avoidable, caused harm to 3AC creditors and that FTX debtors had delayed providing the information that would have uncovered the liquidation.FTX debtors objected to the amended claim, saying that the original POC was insufficient to inform them about the nature and amount 3AC liquidators would be claiming and that it came too late and should be disallowed.Related: FTX filed for bankruptcy 2 years ago — What’s happening now?Before its collapse in June 2022, Three Arrows Capital was once one of the industry’s largest crypto hedge funds, with over $3 billion in assets.Its liquidators also pursued claims against collapsed crypto firm Terraform Labs through a $1.3 billion claim in Terra’s bankruptcy case.At the same time, FTX, which filed for bankruptcy in November 2022, has been undertaking its own recovery efforts to reclaim funds.In November last year, it filed a trio of lawsuits, one against SkyBridge Capital and its founder, Anthony Scaramucci, to recoup funds spent by former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried on sponsorship and investment deals. Another suit was filed against crypto exchange Binance and its former CEO, Changpeng Zhao, to recover $1.76 billion worth of cryptocurrency sent to the exchange as part of a July 2021 repurchase deal.Waves founder Aleksandr Ivanov is also in the crosshairs for $80 million worth of crypto sent to the Waves-based decentralized liquidity protocol by Alameda Research in 2022.Magazine: Crypto fans are obsessed with longevity and biohacking: Here’s why

Welcome to the Ethereum Daily General Discussion on r/ethereum https://imgur.com/3y7vezP Bookmarking this link will always bring you to the current daily: https://old.reddit.com/r/ethereum/about/sticky/?num=2 Please use this thread to discuss Ethereum topics, news, events, and even price! Price discussion posted elsewhere in the subreddit will continue to be removed. As always, be constructive. – Subreddit Rules Want…
Read more

Key Takeaways: Bitcoin briefly touched $82,056 after the U.S. CPI report that showed cooling inflation, sparking expectations of rate cuts. The rally was short-lived, though, as investor enthusiasm was tempered by escalating trade war tensions between the U.S. and China. BNB and Dogecoin outperformed Bitcoin, rising over 5% as money poured into altcoins. Bitcoin’s future…
Read more

Key Takeaways: Substantial Investment: In the series B funding round, Mesh was able to raise $82 million which brings the total capital raised to over $120 million. Innovative Funding Method: A remarkable part of the investment was made using stablecoin PayPal USD (PYUSD), marking the use of stablecoins in venture funding as a reality. Global…
Read more

An African payment infrastructure provider is piloting the Africa Currency Marketplace, which seeks to enable countries to settle trades with local currencies. PAPSS Fees to Be Market-Driven The Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS), a payment infrastructure provider backed by 15 central banks, is reportedly piloting a currency platform to enable countries to settle trades […]

A Texas federal judge has entered a default judgment against Bancor DAO, which operated the decentralized finance platform Bancor, after it failed to respond to an online summons. Judge Robert Pitman issued the judgment after Bancor DAO did not appear to defend itself following a summons that was posted on the DAO’s forum in January 2024.“Defendant Bancor DAO has failed to answer or otherwise defend itself within the time allowed, and that plaintiffs have demonstrated that failure,” wrote district court clerk Philip Delvin on March 13.The class action involves investors who claim they lost tens of millions of dollars due to the exchange’s failure to warn about liquidity issues during a 2022 withdrawal spike.Clerk’s entry of default against Bancor. Source: Law360According to the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in May 2023, Bancor deceived investors about its impermanent loss protection mechanism for liquidity providers and also claimed its token was an unregistered security. They said Bancor’s ILP operated at a deficit and tried to cover by launching a new product, v3, which promised “some of the most competitive returns anywhere […] without asking users to take on any risk.”Impermanent losses occur within DeFi automated market maker models when liquidity providers deposit assets into a pool, and one of the tokens loses value against another in the pool. Bancor paused impermanent loss protection, citing “hostile” market conditions in June 2022.The plaintiffs also argued that Bancor DAO is an “unincorporated general partnership” consisting of vBNT tokenholders and could be sued in that capacity, according to Law360.The case was previously dismissed entirely because the protocol developers were not based in the United States, but was reopened in December.The plaintiffs said that the DeFi platform “does not appear to be registered in any jurisdiction and has no physical office location, mailing address, officers, directors, or appointed agents.”Bancor is an onchain liquidity protocol that enables automated, decentralized exchange across blockchains. It has $38 million in total value locked, a figure that is down 98% since its peak in May 2021, according to DeFillama.Related: Lawsuits could be catastrophic for DAOs if denied ‘limited liability’The ruling follows precedent from a similar case where the Commodity Futures Trading Commission won a default judgment against Ooki DAO.A California federal judge also ruled in November that DAOs and their governing members can be sued in cases involving unregistered securities.Magazine: Mystery celeb memecoin scam factory, HK firm dumps Bitcoin: Asia Express

A Texas federal judge has entered a default judgment against Bancor DAO, which operated the decentralized finance platform Bancor, after it failed to respond to an online summons. Judge Robert Pitman issued the judgment after Bancor DAO did not appear to defend itself following a summons that was posted on the DAO’s forum in January 2024.“Defendant Bancor DAO has failed to answer or otherwise defend itself within the time allowed, and that plaintiffs have demonstrated that failure,” wrote district court clerk Philip Delvin on March 13.The class action involves investors who claim they lost tens of millions of dollars due to the exchange’s failure to warn about liquidity issues during a 2022 withdrawal spike.Clerk’s entry of default against Bancor. Source: Law360According to the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in May 2023, Bancor deceived investors about its impermanent loss protection mechanism for liquidity providers and also claimed its token was an unregistered security. They said Bancor’s ILP operated at a deficit and tried to cover by launching a new product, v3, which promised “some of the most competitive returns anywhere […] without asking users to take on any risk.”Impermanent losses occur within DeFi automated market maker models when liquidity providers deposit assets into a pool, and one of the tokens loses value against another in the pool. Bancor paused impermanent loss protection, citing “hostile” market conditions in June 2022.The plaintiffs also argued that Bancor DAO is an “unincorporated general partnership” consisting of vBNT tokenholders and could be sued in that capacity, according to Law360.The case was previously dismissed entirely because the protocol developers were not based in the United States, but was reopened in December.The plaintiffs said that the DeFi platform “does not appear to be registered in any jurisdiction and has no physical office location, mailing address, officers, directors, or appointed agents.”Bancor is an onchain liquidity protocol that enables automated, decentralized exchange across blockchains. It has $38 million in total value locked, a figure that is down 98% since its peak in May 2021, according to DeFillama.Related: Lawsuits could be catastrophic for DAOs if denied ‘limited liability’The ruling follows precedent from a similar case where the Commodity Futures Trading Commission won a default judgment against Ooki DAO.A California federal judge also ruled in November that DAOs and their governing members can be sued in cases involving unregistered securities.Magazine: Mystery celeb memecoin scam factory, HK firm dumps Bitcoin: Asia Express

A Texas federal judge has entered a default judgment against Bancor DAO, which operated the decentralized finance platform Bancor, after it failed to respond to an online summons. Judge Robert Pitman issued the judgment after Bancor DAO did not appear to defend itself following a summons that was posted on the DAO’s forum in January 2024.“Defendant Bancor DAO has failed to answer or otherwise defend itself within the time allowed, and that plaintiffs have demonstrated that failure,” wrote district court clerk Philip Delvin on March 13.The class action involves investors who claim they lost tens of millions of dollars due to the exchange’s failure to warn about liquidity issues during a 2022 withdrawal spike.Clerk’s entry of default against Bancor. Source: Law360According to the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in May 2023, Bancor deceived investors about its impermanent loss protection mechanism for liquidity providers and also claimed its token was an unregistered security. They said Bancor’s ILP operated at a deficit and tried to cover by launching a new product, v3, which promised “some of the most competitive returns anywhere […] without asking users to take on any risk.”Impermanent losses occur within DeFi automated market maker models when liquidity providers deposit assets into a pool, and one of the tokens loses value against another in the pool. Bancor paused impermanent loss protection, citing “hostile” market conditions in June 2022.The plaintiffs also argued that Bancor DAO is an “unincorporated general partnership” consisting of vBNT tokenholders and could be sued in that capacity, according to Law360.The case was previously dismissed entirely because the protocol developers were not based in the United States, but was reopened in December.The plaintiffs said that the DeFi platform “does not appear to be registered in any jurisdiction and has no physical office location, mailing address, officers, directors, or appointed agents.”Bancor is an onchain liquidity protocol that enables automated, decentralized exchange across blockchains. It has $38 million in total value locked, a figure that is down 98% since its peak in May 2021, according to DeFillama.Related: Lawsuits could be catastrophic for DAOs if denied ‘limited liability’The ruling follows precedent from a similar case where the Commodity Futures Trading Commission won a default judgment against Ooki DAO.A California federal judge also ruled in November that DAOs and their governing members can be sued in cases involving unregistered securities.Magazine: Mystery celeb memecoin scam factory, HK firm dumps Bitcoin: Asia Express

The Arkansas Cryptomining Association is suing two Arkansas state officials, arguing that they enforced an unconstitutional and discriminatory state rule prohibiting foreign-born American citizens from engaging in crypto-mining activities, among other things.The complaint was made against Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin and the director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission, Lawrence Bengal, on March 13 in the US District Court Eastern District of Arkansas. It follows a federal court ruling last November that temporarily barred Arkansas from preventing a naturalized US citizen of Chinese descent from operating a crypto mining business.The Arkansas state rules concerned are “Rule K” and “Act 174,” which prohibits foreign-party controlled businesses in the state.Director Connor L. Kempton of the Arkansas Cryptomining Association said the vagueness of Rule K and Act 174 gives the defendants arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement powers, enabling them to grant or deny permits at their own discretion.He said the application of Rule K and Act 174 is unconstitutional and can be discriminatory based on race, alienage and national origin, among other things.Excerpt from the ACA’s complaint filed against Bengal and Griffin. Source: Court document reviewed by CointelegraphKempton noted that these rules were enforced against crypto mining firm Jones Eagle LLC, which is run by Qimin “Jimmy” Chen, a naturalized US citizen of Chinese origin.Kempton specifically pointed to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution in arguing the illegality of Rule K and Act 174.Related: Russia bans crypto mining for 6 years in 10 regionsThe Equal Protection Clause similarly prohibits the US states from denying any person equal protection of the laws based on the person’s race, alienage or national origin. The crypto mining executive also argued that Rule K and Act 174 strip American citizens like Chen of due process rights under the 14th Amendment.Kempton also said the prohibitions and penalties imposed under Act 174 infringe on the federal government’s authority to investigate, review and take action on foreign investments.“Act 174 seeks to establish Arkansas’s own foreign policy, thereby intruding upon the federal government’s exclusive power to govern foreign affairs.”District Court Judge Kristine G. Baker said on Dec. 9 that the Arkansas state officials were barred from enforcing Act 174 against Jones Eagle until further notice.Magazine: Train AI agents to make better predictions… for token rewards