Cryptocurrencies

Subscribe to Cryptocurrencies

In what appears to be an issue of first impression, a California district court ruled that various defendants allegedly holding governance tokens to the bZx DAO (or “Decentralized Autonomous Organization”), a protocol for tokenized margin trading and lending, could be deemed to be members of a “general partnership” under California law under the facts outlined in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and thus potentially joint and severally liable for negligence related to a phishing attack that resulted in the loss of users’ cryptocurrency. (Sarcuni v. bZx DAO, No. 22-618 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2023)). The ruling is significant given that this is purportedly the first court to substantively consider the legal status of a DAO under state law (albeit in a ruling on a motion to dismiss); interestingly, in a prior settlement the defendant bZeroX, LLC and its founders reached with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in 2022 over claims that bZeroX and its founders unlawfully offered leveraged and margined retail commodity transactions in digital assets, the order expressly considered the bZx DAO (and its successor Ooki DAO, which is co-defendant in the instant action) as an “unincorporated association” under federal law. (In re bZeroX, LLC, CFTC No. 22-31 (Sept. 22, 2022)).

A DAO is a decentralized autonomous organization where token holders can vote on governance decisions of the DAO. DAOs don’t typically operate within a formal corporate structure, opting instead to distribute governance rights among persons who hold a specific governance token. The entire raison d’être of a DAO is to take advantage of web3 technologies and operate without a traditional corporate formation to make decisions without a central authority or usual top-down management structure. While DAOs are emerging as a viable structure in DeFi space, this ruling shows that their non-traditional makeup may not necessarily be a shield from real world liability.  Plaintiffs’ theory that the DAO members are part of a general partnership means that anyone holding governance tokens at the relevant time would be jointly and severally liable for the torts of the DAO.  To be sure, even though existing structures do not fit the novel web3 organizational primitive that is a DAO, nothing prevented the bZx DAO (or its successor Ooki DAO), from creating a so-called “legal wrapper” or real-world corporate entity to shield individual members from liability and limit potential creditors to monetary recovery from the DAO’s treasury only.

Crypto firm bankruptcies and resulting disruption in the crypto ecosystem will continue to exacerbate liquidity and regulatory concerns in this space.  Since all participants supporting the crypto ecosystem are at risk, managing that risk is critical.

Fund managers should be prepared on multiple fronts.

Read the full post written by…

Binance is the latest major crypto industry player to be sued by a U.S. regulator.  On March 27, 2023, the CFTC announced that it had filed a civil enforcement action against Binance Holdings Limited (and related legal entities) (collectively, “Binance”), its CEO, Changpeng Zhao (“Zhao”), and its former chief compliance officer, Samuel Lim (“Lim”), for violating the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. (CFTC v. Zhao, No. 23-01887 (N.D. Ill. Filed Mar. 27, 2023)).  The CFTC, among other things, alleges that Binance allowed U.S. customers to make use of their centralized digital asset trading platform without Binance first properly registering with the CFTC and also allegedly failed to implement an effective anti-money laundering (“AML”) program as required under applicable law. The complaint states that Binance has “never been registered with the CFTC in any capacity.” The CFTC is seeking disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations.

A recent guilty plea in U.S. v. Wahi in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a crypto insider trading case, sets up an interesting situation where the defendants — who have already pled guilty to wire fraud — are challenging the SEC’s parallel civil charges…

When it rains, it pours.  On January 23, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services announced that it had issued certain Guidance on Custodial Structures for Customer Protection in the Event of Insolvency in which it emphasized the importance of sound custody and disclosure practices to protect customers in the event of an insolvency or similar proceeding.  This month, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) followed suit.

On February 15, 2023, the SEC proposed amendments to the Custody Rule under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which, among other changes, expands the current custody rule’s application to a broader array of client assets under the rule managed by registered investment advisers and clarifies certain aspects of the existing rule (see more digestible SEC Fact Sheet here).

The SEC’s proposed amendments are aimed at reducing the risk of loss of client assets by expanding the types of assets covered by the rule beyond “funds and securities” that will be subject to custodial safeguards and helping ensure assets are properly segregated. The proposed amendment would also impose certain reporting and compliance requirements on investment advisers, including requiring them to provide information about their practices in safeguarding client assets. Notably, if the amended rule is adopted after the 60-day comment period, which is not certain, then crypto assets will undoubtedly be affected. In a statement discussing the proposed amendments, SEC Chair Gary Gensler noted that the rule “covers a significant amount of crypto assets” and that “most crypto assets are likely to be funds or crypto asset securities covered by the current rule.”

Custody is a safekeeping activity by a financial institution involving storing, protecting, and securing assets separately from those of other customers or the investment firm itself. TradFi investment advisers are typically required to maintain customer funds and securities with a qualified financial firm (i.e., a custodian).  Most assets are intangible assets held “on account” with a broker-dealer (i.e., stocks and bonds, which are rarely held in certificate form), though some assets may consist of physical certificates, cash, or other tangible assets.  On the other hand, crypto custody consists primarily of bookkeeping because there is no physical asset and no centralized ownership record for a digital asset: the blockchain records wallet activity and balances.  While there is the option for self-custody of crypto assets, a crypto investor may allow a custodian or crypto exchange to hold their private keys for them, enabling the custodian to use the wallet to transact. This arrangement potentially opens up a range of risks, including the risk of hacking, insolvency risk, or malfeasance involving the commingling of investors’ cryptoassets with those of other investors or institutional assets.

The organizers of an initial coin offering (ICO) recently won dismissal of an investor’s fraud claims by establishing that their public risk disclosures negated the investor’s claims of reliance on alleged misstatements.  The project, a video service provider’s ICO, was governed by a purchase agreement called a “Simple Agreement for Future Tokens” (“SAFT”).   The plaintiff investor later lost his entire investment as the token collapsed, allegedly due to the provider’s decision to scrap its initial plans for a decentralized platform and move to a permissioned blockchain (and also the provider’s choice to seek additional capital via a “Regulation A” public offering).  The New York court found that even if certain representations made by the issuer regarding the prospect of a decentralized network were actionable, the Plaintiff had not plausibly alleged  “reasonable reliance” on such representations in signing the SAFT. (Rostami v. Open Props, Inc., No. 22-03326 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2023)).

Demand for virtual currency services, including custody services, has soared in the past several years.  Like their counterparts in traditional finance, these custodians are stewards of retail and institutional customer funds and serve an important and valuable function.  However, as evidenced by a number of headline-grabbing failures during the lingering crypto winter, inadequate disclosures and poor custodial practices can seriously harm retail and institutional customers alike.  For many virtual currency customers, this recognition – in an industry built on the pillars of trust and transparency – was realized too late.  Recent disclosures emerging from notable bankruptcies involving crypto companies have led to allegations of fraud and mismanagement in connection with custodial services.  These allegations strike at the very core of the custodial relationship, and have had repercussions throughout the crypto industry.

Seemingly in direct response to these developments, on January 23, 2023, the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) issued industry guidance to Virtual Currency Entities (“VCEs”) who act as custodians (“VCE Custodians”).  Entitled “Guidance on Custodial Structures for Customer Protection in the Event of Insolvency” (the “Guidance”), the Department emphasized the “paramount importance of equitable and beneficial interests always remaining with the customer” and reminded covered institutions of their obligations in connection with “sound custody and disclosure practices in the event of an insolvency” or similar proceeding.

The Guidance comes on the heels of developments in two high-profile insolvency proceedings: (1) the FTX proceedings, where, among others, the SEC has alleged co-founder Samuel Bankman-Fried concealed the diversion of FTX customer funds to the co-founder’s private crypto hedge fund, and (2) the Celsius proceedings, where the chief judge for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision holding that Celsius’ Terms of Use made clear that customer deposits into Earn Accounts became Celsius’ property at the time of deposit, such that the digital assets now constitute property of the debtors’ bankruptcy estate.  In Celsius, customers argued that the deposits in the Earn Accounts were held by Celsius as a custodian, but the court found that the plain language of the Terms of Use made clear that ownership interest had passed to the debtors.

This past month, a California district court granted a motion to compel arbitration of various claims by customers of cryptocurrency exchange platform, Coinbase Global, Inc. (“Coinbase”), finding that Coinbase’s User Agreement, which contains a broad arbitration provision, including a delegation clause that delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  (Donovan v. Coinbase Global, Inc., No. 22-02826 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023)). Unlike some electronic contracting disputes, which turn on whether the user had adequate notice of the terms and manifested consent to such terms (a ruling which often involves an examination of a site or app’s screen display and whether the user is reasonably presented with notice that completing a transaction will bind the user to terms of service), the account holders in this case did not dispute that they had agreed to the User Agreement, rather they argued that the arbitration provision and delegation clauses were unconscionable and unenforceable.