BTC $77,587.24 +0.66%
ETH $2,295.21 +1.75%
BNB $696.46 -0.55%
XRP $1.28 +3.16%
SOL $93.33 +0.78%
TRX $0.3227 +1.32%
DOGE $0.0752 +1.84%
ADA $0.1897 +0.52%
BCH $275.86 +0.74%
LINK $11.11 +0.19%
HYPE $86.31 +2.85%
AAVE $127.40 +0.28%
SUI $0.8947 +1.92%
XLM $0.1636 -1.23%
ZEC $1,214.33 +2.31%
AAPL $331.57 -1.60%
AMZN $248.74 -0.83%
GOOGL $280.61 -0.64%
MSFT $517.35 -0.58%
META $623.66 +2.03%
NVDA $208.46 +0.93%
TSLA $397.40 -2.92%
SNDK $1,115.58 -0.33%
INTC $60.90 -1.79%
SPCX $141.66 +1.06%
MU $854.53 +0.03%
AMD $492.16 +0.96%
BTC $77,587.24 +0.66%
ETH $2,295.21 +1.75%
BNB $696.46 -0.55%
XRP $1.28 +3.16%
SOL $93.33 +0.78%
TRX $0.3227 +1.32%
DOGE $0.0752 +1.84%
ADA $0.1897 +0.52%
BCH $275.86 +0.74%
LINK $11.11 +0.19%
HYPE $86.31 +2.85%
AAVE $127.40 +0.28%
SUI $0.8947 +1.92%
XLM $0.1636 -1.23%
ZEC $1,214.33 +2.31%
AAPL $331.57 -1.60%
AMZN $248.74 -0.83%
GOOGL $280.61 -0.64%
MSFT $517.35 -0.58%
META $623.66 +2.03%
NVDA $208.46 +0.93%
TSLA $397.40 -2.92%
SNDK $1,115.58 -0.33%
INTC $60.90 -1.79%
SPCX $141.66 +1.06%
MU $854.53 +0.03%
AMD $492.16 +0.96%

cati

All
Article
Flash

The legal team of Sun Yuchen filed a sanctions application against WLFI, stating that it only disclosed the shareholder's UAE citizenship months after the lawsuit

Sun Yuchen posted on platform X that his lawyer has applied for sanctions against World Liberty Financial (WLFI) because the company disclosed the UAE citizenship of its shareholders months after he filed the lawsuit.Sun Yuchen stated that he signed a token purchase agreement to buy $30 million of WLFI in November 2024, later increasing the total investment to $45 million, and filed a lawsuit against WLFI in April this year, accusing it of fraudulently inducing investment and illegally freezing his tokens. According to his token purchase agreement, the case can be filed in federal or state court in California, and he chose federal court.Sun Yuchen claimed that the disclosure documents submitted by WLFI at the beginning of the case only listed one entity of WLFI, registered in Florida, and then filed a motion for mandatory arbitration; during the August hearing, the court hinted that it did not recognize the arbitration claim and ruled that some demands would remain for public trial. Less than a week later, WLFI suddenly "corrected" the disclosure documents, increasing the number of members in the ownership chain from 1 to 22, and claimed to have citizenship in Florida, Delaware, Puerto Rico, and the UAE, thereby arguing that the federal court has no jurisdiction because both parties have foreign entities.Sun Yuchen pointed out that WLFI claims it "is not an offshore organization," is "a company that pays taxes in the United States," and "when selling tokens, it poses as a U.S. company, only to discover its UAE identity when trying to escape the U.S. federal court." He stated that after the sanctions motion is ruled on in federal court, he will refile the lawsuit in California state court.

first_img SEC Updates Token Classification FAQ: Adapting to DUNA Entities, Clarifying Issues of Functionality and Decentralization Boundaries, etc

a16z Chief Legal Counsel Miles Jennings posted on X that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released new FAQs that further clarify its token classification framework. He pointed out that Question 1.4 clearly states that systems can maintain decentralized governance and use legal entities such as DUNA; Question 1.5 distinguishes between licensed and unlicensed systems; and Question 1.6 clarifies the difference between "functional" and "decentralized."The SEC's Division of Corporation Finance updated the relevant Q&A on November 2. The response to Question 1.4 states that participants in a widely governed functional crypto system, if not interconnected and without formal or informal collaborative arrangements other than participating in that governance system, typically do not constitute a group of persons or entities defined as "centralized parties"; even if they do form such a group, they must still possess operational, economic, or voting control to meet the definition of "centralized parties." This conclusion also applies to cases where the governance system belongs to an organization, association, or foundation, and participation is based on holding native crypto assets.The response to Question 1.5 states that centralized party oversight of participants refers to the authority to control access to the system at the protocol, validator, or user level, such as unilaterally granting or restricting access, deciding on upgrade voting procedures, controlling who can participate in consensus, or modifying rule code, revoking transactions, and access. The response to Question 1.6 states that "functional" refers to native crypto assets being usable according to the system's programmed purposes, while "decentralized" refers to the system operating autonomously without any person, entity, or group having operational, economic, or voting control; the two are distinct concepts. The above responses represent the views of the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance and do not constitute SEC rules or statements.

first_img The vulnerability bounty platform Immunefi has launched Credits, and over 700 researchers have received allocations

The blockchain vulnerability bounty platform Immunefi announced the launch of Immunefi Credits. Since the submission fee mechanism was initiated, researchers will receive an equivalent amount of Credits for effective reports, covering valid discoveries, valid reports of duplicate submissions, privately known issues, and situations where the mediation results are favorable to the researchers. The platform stated that over 700 researchers have already received Credits without needing to apply separately, and the amount can be viewed on the Credits page associated with the console balance.Immunefi stated that starting today, Credits can be used to pay for submission reports, mediation, account verification, and other fees within the platform, and will be used for related services once Immunefi Studio is open to the public. One Credit is worth 1 US dollar and can be purchased with USDC. Credits do not replace vulnerability bounties or audit competition rewards; valid discoveries will still receive rewards according to the original rules, and additionally receive Credits equivalent to the submission fees. The Credits issued retroactively will be valid for 12 months from today, and thereafter each Credit will be valid for 12 months from the date of crediting, bound to the account, and non-transferable or redeemable.Eligible situations also include valid discoveries already paid in vulnerability bounties or confirmed in audit competitions, duplicates of valid reports by others, privately known issues and their duplicates, as well as mediation fees when mediation is won. Publicly known issues, invalid reports, out-of-scope submissions, policy violations, duplicates of rejected reports, and duplicates of self-reports are not counted. Account verification fees can earn equivalent Credits when there is a valid report after verification and the accuracy rate reaches at least 25%. The fee mechanism has been applicable to vulnerability bounties since March 24 and to audit competitions since April 10, with relevant verifications currently conducted approximately every two weeks.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.