Important decisions regarding the altcoin market emerged from the Uniswap case, in which the New York court was busy. The judge who cleared Uniswap included commodity status for this altcoin.
A commodity decision was made for this altcoin from the Uniswap case
Last year, Uniswap faced a class action lawsuit over “fraud cryptos” published in the protocol. The New York court dismissed the class action claim Wednesday, declaring BTC and ETH as commodities. A lawsuit filed in April 2022 by a group of investors against Uniswap and its creator, Hayden Adams, alleged that the DeFi altcoin platform violated US securities laws by not registering as an exchange or broker-dealer, but by offering and soliciting securities on an unregistered exchange.
The lawsuit aimed to hold Uniswap liable to investors who lost money due to “fraudulent tokens” traded in the protocol. The tokens named in the lawsuit include Ethereum (ERC-20) tokens EthereumMax (EMAX) and Bezoge (BEZOGE). One of the other red members of the list at Alphawolf Finance (AWF).
However, a New York court ruled on Wednesday that Uniswap was not the real culprit. The judge blamed the people behind the projects instead of the DeFi altcoin platform. He stated that the actual defendants in the case were not Uniswap, but the issuers of the “fraudulent tokens” in question.
A commodity decision was issued for Ethereum (ETH) from the same case
Even SEC chairman Gary Gensler is currently refraining from calling ETH a security. However, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York called ETH a straightforward commodity. She also dismissed the Uniswap case as “extending the federal securities laws to cover ETH.”
The court’s class action dismissal may affect future decentralized protocols and SEC lawsuits. Judge Polk Failla is also presiding over the SEC-Coinbase case. cryptokoin.comWe included the details of the legal struggle that started in June in this article.
Uniswap was cleared
Judge Polk Failla, in his ruling on Wednesday, stated that the decentralized nature of the Uniswap Protocol makes identifying fraudulent altcoin issuers “unknown and uncertain”, leaving no clear defendants in the case. Failla also emphasized that the real owners of the “scam tokens” could not be determined.
1/
Huge win, long live DeFi 🦄
One longtime fear of mine has been bad legal interpretation of our complex, technical industry
It’s highly motivating to see US courts hold up arguments I’ve felt deeply for years
Below are some of the most BASED (smart) court comments pic.twitter.com/lb7ZP4pD1C
— hayden.eth 🦄 (@haydenzadams) August 30, 2023
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims that Uniswap was like a self-driving car manufacturer. Allegations that the protocol and its founders created a system that allows fraudulent tokens have also been shelved. In summary, the court ruled in favor of the altcoin sector of the Uniswap case:
In fact, it’s more like a case of trying to hold an app like Venmo or Zelle responsible for a drug deal that uses the platform to facilitate the transfer of funds, rather than a manufacturing defect.
