美SEC诉讼“大刀”挥向Uniswap

On Wednesday, the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a warning that it is the initiator of the decentralized trading agreement, but the head agreement of the field. Since it was launched five and a half years ago, its trading volume has exceeded one trillion dollars, accounting for the total trading volume of the decentralized trading market. The warning was issued in the form of a notice. The representative will send an informal reminder to the involved enterprises before the formal lawsuit is filed, providing the enterprises with the last opportunity to refute the allegations. Of course, receiving the notice does not mean one. In short, this is the last defense opportunity. The recipient can provide evidence and arguments to try to persuade him not to take action. If he decides to continue, he will file a formal lawsuit and issue a civil lawsuit order. However, in general, this process is just a formality. It is said that the agency has been investigating the cryptocurrency industry for a long time and is seeking a comprehensive crackdown. In an interview, a spokesman for the agency said that the US Securities and Exchange Commission does not comment. Whether there is a possible investigation has not yet been known about the specific nature of the charges. Although the company has constructed an agreement with the same name, it is not the core controller of the agreement. Judging from the previous lawsuits against high-profile cryptocurrency companies, it is more likely to illegally provide unregistered securities to the public or not register as a broker or a compliance exchange. At the press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Chief Operating Officer Mary Catherine Reid and Chief Legal Officer Ma Wena were also confirmed. Murray told reporters that the contents of the notice focused on whether the original tokens, as unregistered securities brokers and unregistered stock exchanges, were implicated as the potential security in the notice, and the time of litigation was quite subtle. At a time when the cryptocurrency industry was complaining, the industry generally believed that it was too arbitrary to deal with the problems in the cryptocurrency field and took enforcement action without clear rules, without considering the uniqueness of cryptocurrency based on blockchain and decentralization. Chairman refuted this. The current securities law is clear that the cryptocurrency industry seeks special treatment, but fails to abide by the law. The White House, especially the senators of the powerful ally Democratic Party, also agrees with this view. Of course, historically, the conflict between the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the cryptocurrency industry is very high. There have been many high-profile lawsuits and typical cases. The focus of litigation is on the jurisdiction of digital assets and how the Supreme Court's annual test of securities definition should be applied to cryptocurrency lawsuits. Both of them are in progress, and the results are mixed. At one time, both sides had the upper hand. However, in recent years, the ruling shows that as a regulatory agency, they still have a relatively leading advantage in law. However, in this lawsuit, due to the uniqueness of technology and the legal victory in the class action lawsuit last year, it is still unpredictable. In a sense, since the outbreak in the summer of 2008, it has become a crucial segment of the encryption market, and the most important agreement has completed the mainstream transaction of more than one trillion US dollars. The financial community is also paying more and more attention to its underlying technology, so the litigation results between the United States and the United States have a far-reaching impact. Unlike traditional brokers or cryptocurrency exchanges, there is no central institution as a counterparty and no institution to match buyers and sellers for transactions. On the contrary, they rely on automated agreements that are purely supervised by codes, which set basic requirements such as trading rules and collateral. In some cases, the founder wrote the original underlying code that provided the basis for the agreement, and the company is the user. It provides an interface for trading some encrypted tokens. The protocol itself is open source and has been cited by many other projects in the field. Based on the open source code, users can directly participate in market transactions without any intermediaries on the premise of self-preservation. This particularity is particularly important for the defense. In fact, there have been relatively rich litigation experience as early as June, when American law firms announced the initiation of a securities class action lawsuit and accused defendants of violating the securities law to use digital tokens on the platform. In this case, the plaintiff used the car as a metaphor to think that the mechanism actually created an out-of-control and dangerous self-driving vehicle, and also responded by arguing that the technology he developed was neutral, and other third parties used the technology to operate the enterprise without control. The judge obviously recognized this view. The case ended on the day of the year, and the court documents of the Southern District Court of new york in the United States showed that the platform had. There is no transaction between the plaintiff, who is able to operate legally in many cases, and the platform and the agreement. The current securities law does not seem to cover the responsibility of the agreement itself for using it to defraud others. The judge believes that the plaintiff was hurt by the fraudulent token issuer, and they used the core contract to rob the fund and created the platform to defraud the token issuer. At least according to the US securities law, this does not mean that it is responsible for the fraud and the resulting damage, but just last month. Although the judge refused to dismiss the accusation that the company provided illegal securities, the ruling that the decentralized wallet provided could not be regarded as a broker within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission also provided a strong example, because it was mainly operated through wallets, but it is worth noting that the ruling did not include the display interface that the company had the right to control, which had highlighted the tokens that were later recognized as securities by the United States in the past, citing the law view on the whole. There are still many challenges in the litigation of the industry. First, the transaction based on the agreement is difficult to apply to the securities law. In the previous case, the presiding judge made it clear that because of the neutrality of the enterprise, the transaction is not applicable to the securities law, and it is best for Congress to decide whether the securities are available or not. Secondly, compared with many cryptocurrencies that can be directly traded, the applications and wallets involved in the open source agreement do not conform to the legal definition of the stock exchange or broker according to the original rules. The management token is only a single functional token, which does not conform to the legal definition of any type of securities, including the definition of investment contract. In addition, since the incident, the developer himself has been walking on thin ice. According to the news, the team operation has taken a completely compliant route. All American executives are completely in line with the US law's employee recruitment and welfare policies and the legal route of separating open source agreements from development entities. Perhaps it is precisely because of this that the founder clearly expressed his confidence in the legality of products provided by enterprises and believed that the company is on the right side of history, but he also did not clearly express the rules. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=53604