Important decisions regarding the altcoin market came out of the Uniswap case, which the New York court was busy with. The judge who cleared Uniswap has included commodity status for this altcoin.
Commodity decision for this altcoin from 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 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.
Commodity verdict for Ethereum (ETH) from the same lawsuit
Even SEC chairman Gary Gensler currently refrains from calling ETH a security. However, Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York referred to ETH as a direct commodity. She also refused to “expand federal securities laws to cover ETH” in the Uniswap case, she said.
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. We, as Kriptokoin.com, have included the details of the legal struggle that started in June in this article.
Uniswap 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 stressed that the true owners of the “fraudulent tokens” could not be determined.
https://twitter.com/haydenzadams/status/1696991910370411003
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.
47465
