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
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
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
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
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
