Seeds of Wisdom RV and Economic Updates Wednesday Evening 11-20-24

21/11/2024

Good Evening ,

A NEW FRONTIER: COURT AUTHORIZES SERVICE OF PROCESS THROUGH NFT AIRDROP

In a landmark decision highlighting the unique aspects of blockchain technology, an S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Judge ruled in favor of Celsius’s motion for alternative service, whereby Celsius sought to provide legal service by airdopping non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to anonymous defendants’ digital asset wallets.

Judge Approves Celsius’s NFT Airdrop for Legal Service
In the wake of the cryptocurrency exchange’s insolvency, its bankruptcy estate filed suit seeking to void allegedly fraudulent transfers and recover additional funds for its creditors.

Due to the pseudonymous nature of the technology, however, Celsius has thus far been unable to identify the owners of the wallets connected to the relevant transfers.

As a result, the Litigation Administrator designed a novel solution for an alternative method of service. Celsius proposed to airdrop NFTs that include a hyperlink to a website containing the complaint and other relevant legal documents to the wallet addresses in question.

To ensure the NFTs are properly served, Celsius will have FTI Consulting confirm the wallets receive the NFTs on-chain, and record the exact date and time the NFTs are opened. FTI will also monitor website traffic to ensure the links are opened by actual humans rather than automated bots.

Furthermore, FTI Consulting confirmed that it traced the transfers to the wallets in question, that the wallets have been active since the transfers, and that the same individuals likely remain in control of the wallets.

Alternative methods of service are generally permitted if the statutory methods of service are “impracticable.” According to New York case law, service is typically impracticable when the plaintiff is unable to locate either a business or home address for the defendant despite diligent efforts to do so.

Alternative methods must also satisfy constitutional due process requirements, which requires service to be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to give notice to interested parties of the nature of the action against them.

Recognizing that the anonymity of the wallet owners deemed traditional service impracticable, the Court was satisfied the defendants were likely to receive the summons and complaint via the hyperlink in the NFT since the NFT was being sent to the exact wallets used by the defendants to receive the funds at issue, and the activity could be traced on-chain.

Judge Glenn concluded the NFT airdrop was “the best possible way” to apprise the defendants of the actions against them, and praised Celsius on its “innovative” solution. In terms of service, email addresses pioneered the way for the internet. Wallet addresses just paved the way for blockchain.

This case highlights one of the many challenges of adopting new technology into society, and exemplifies how blockchain technology continues to disrupt the status quo. Luckily, the industry has taken the initiative to craft novel solutions that allow for its implementation into everyday life.

As attorneys operating exclusively in the digital asset space, we understand the importance of staying up to date on the latest developments and helping clients stay informed whenever the legal landscape shifts.

Whether you are an investor, entrepreneur, or business involved in cryptocurrency, our team is here to provide the legal counsel needed to maneuver this complex landscape. If you believe we can be of assistance, schedule a consultation here.

@ Newshounds News™

Source: Bitcoin News

~~~~~~~~~

SHANGHAI JUDGE SAYS CRYPTOCURRENCY IS A COMMODITY, LEGAL TO OWN

Shanghai Judge Sun Jie calls virtual currency a commodity with property attributes in a commentary on a 2017 business dispute.

A judge in the People’s Court of Songjiang District in Shanghai, China has released an article on the court’s WeChat account about the legality of issuing virtual currency in China. She was commenting on a business dispute dating to 2017, but her opinion sheds light on cryptocurrency’s murky legal status in China.

A virtual commodity with property attributes
An agricultural development company signed a “Blockchain Incubation Agreement” with an investment management company to produce a white paper as the basis for the issuance of a cryptocurrency, paying 300,000 yuan (about $44,400 at the time) for the service.

A year later, no token had been produced, and the investment company said the agricultural company should develop an app before the token could be issued. Instead, the agricultural company sued to recover the money it had paid.

The court ruled that the agreement between the companies envisioned illegal activities, for which both sides were at fault. It ordered the investment company to return 250,000 yuan.

Judge Sun Jie wrote that virtual currency does not have the status of fiat currency, but is rather a virtual commodity with “property attributes.” She stated:

“Although it is not illegal for individuals to simply hold virtual currency, commercial entities cannot participate in virtual currency investment transactions or even issue tokens on their own.”

How banned is crypto in China?
The judge went on to give a lengthy warning about the potential ills of cryptocurrency. For example:

“Virtual currency trading speculation activities such as Bitcoin will not only disrupt the economic and financial order, but also may become a payment and settlement tool for illegal and criminal activities, breeding money laundering, illegal fund-raising, fraud, pyramid schemes and other illegal and criminal activities.”

By “blindly participating in virtual currency transactions,” individuals and enterprises may not have the full protection of the law, the judge concluded. The article reproduces Article 153 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, as it is the relevant legislation to the case.

China ordered virtual currency exchanges to close down in 2017. In 2021, the People’s Bank of China and 10 Chinese government agencies joined forces to tighten control over transactions with virtual currencies. Nonetheless, ownership of crypto was never prohibited.

@ Newshounds News™