@npub1prvw...sgee
The Federal Court of Australia has sided with fintech firm Block Earner in an appeal against a ruling that found it was required to hold a financial services license for its now-discontinued crypto-related products. Block Earner’s crypto-linked fixed-yield earning product is not a financial product, or a managed investment scheme, and is not a derivative under the Corporations Act, Justices David O’Callaghan, Wendy Abraham and Catherine Button said in an April 22 judgment. The trio said Block Earner’s yield product couldn’t be classed as an investment or financial product because users loaned crypto under fixed terms for interest payments and didn’t pool contributions to generate further benefits. The terms and conditions framed it as a loan, and users had no exposure to the firm’s business outside of the agreed interest rate, they added.A court has dismissed the legal proceedings against Block Earner and ordered Australia's financial regulator to pay costs. Source: ASICThe Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), which first brought the case, has been ordered by the court to pay costs for the proceedings, including appeals. The regulator said in an April 22 press release that it is currently “considering this decision.”Block Earner’s chief commercial officer, James Coombes, told Cointelegraph the court decision brings clarity that crypto assets shouldn’t be treated differently from other asset classes when applying existing laws. “Our product was simply defined as one where customers would lend their assets to us for a fixed return, there was no share in the upside of the pool of assets and as such no Managed Investment Scheme existed,” he said. “The fact that it included crypto assets should not alter that simple definition, and I believe this case forms a bedrock for ambitious brands around Australia to build from.”An ASIC spokesperson declined further comment.Earner product won’t make a return Despite the win in court, Block Earner will not be reviving its Earner product after axing it when legal proceedings began, but Coombes said that “crypto-backed loans products remain the core focus of the company.”“Regulation going forward is not an easy task, and we empathise with the regulators on this point,” Coombes added. “We hope a collaborative process can bring about positive change.” Related: Australia outlines crypto regulation plan, promises action on debankingASIC launched civil legal proceedings in November 2022, arguing that Block Earner needed an Australian Financial Services License to offer its three crypto-linked fixed-yield earning products.In February 2024, an Australian court initially found the fintech firm would need a financial services license to operate its crypto yield-bearing products. Another June 2024 ruling released Block Earner from any financial penalties because it had “acted honestly” and pursued its legal opinions before launching the products, which ASIC appealed.Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered
The Federal Court of Australia has sided with fintech firm Block Earner in an appeal against a ruling that found it was required to hold a financial services license for its now-discontinued crypto-related products. Block Earner’s crypto-linked fixed-yield earning product is not a financial product, or a managed investment scheme, and is not a derivative under the Corporations Act, Justices David O’Callaghan, Wendy Abraham and Catherine Button said in an April 22 judgment. The trio said Block Earner’s yield product couldn’t be classed as an investment or financial product because users loaned crypto under fixed terms for interest payments and didn’t pool contributions to generate further benefits. The terms and conditions framed it as a loan, and users had no exposure to the firm’s business outside of the agreed interest rate, they added.A court has dismissed the legal proceedings against Block Earner and ordered Australia's financial regulator to pay costs. Source: ASICThe Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), which first brought the case, has been ordered by the court to pay costs for the proceedings, including appeals. The regulator said in an April 22 press release that it is currently “considering this decision.”Block Earner’s chief commercial officer, James Coombes, told Cointelegraph the court decision brings clarity that crypto assets shouldn’t be treated differently from other asset classes when applying existing laws. “Our product was simply defined as one where customers would lend their assets to us for a fixed return, there was no share in the upside of the pool of assets and as such no Managed Investment Scheme existed,” he said. “The fact that it included crypto assets should not alter that simple definition, and I believe this case forms a bedrock for ambitious brands around Australia to build from.”An ASIC spokesperson declined further comment.Earner product won’t make a return Despite the win in court, Block Earner will not be reviving its Earner product after axing it when legal proceedings began, but Coombes said that “crypto-backed loans products remain the core focus of the company.”“Regulation going forward is not an easy task, and we empathise with the regulators on this point,” Coombes added. “We hope a collaborative process can bring about positive change.” Related: Australia outlines crypto regulation plan, promises action on debankingASIC launched civil legal proceedings in November 2022, arguing that Block Earner needed an Australian Financial Services License to offer its three crypto-linked fixed-yield earning products.In February 2024, an Australian court initially found the fintech firm would need a financial services license to operate its crypto yield-bearing products. Another June 2024 ruling released Block Earner from any financial penalties because it had “acted honestly” and pursued its legal opinions before launching the products, which ASIC appealed.Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered
Cointelegraph
Australiaโs top court sides with Block Earner, dismisses ASIC appeal
An Australian court has ruled in favor of fintech firm Block Earner, overturning a previous court decision that found it was offering a financial p...
Former SEC Chair Jay Clayton confirmed that he has been appointed as the interim US Attorney for the Southern District of New York after the Democratic Party’s Senate leader used a “blue slip” to block a vote confirming Clayton’s position.The appointment comes a little over five months after US President Donald Trump nominated Clayton to take on the role. He replaces Damian Williams, who played a major role in the conviction of former FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and other high-profile crypto cases.Clayton said on April 22 his top priorities would be to protect public safety, ensure the integrity of the US financial system, defend national security interests and combat fraud, particularly against the elderly and most vulnerable.The temporary nature of Clayton’s appointment resulted from Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s use of a blue slip to block Clayton’s confirmation on April 16, effectively preventing a Senate vote and official confirmation of his position. Blue slips can be used by senators to block US attorney or district court judicial nominees in their home states. Clayton is allowed to serve as interim US attorney for up to 120 days without Senate confirmation. After that, he will need to be approved in a Senate vote or receive a temporary extension of his interim status from Manhattan’s federal court.Trump criticized Schumer’s move in an April 17 Truth Social post, pointing out that Clayton received bipartisan support in the Senate and that Clayton complied with all requests asked of him.Source: Donald TrumpThe interim status of Clayton’s position will last until around Aug. 20. The role will see him as the top law enforcement officer for New York’s Southern District, encompassing the counties of New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess and Sullivan.The Southern District of New York is the oldest federal court district in the US, and its location in the country’s financial epicenter means it often handles high-profile cases involving white-collar crime.Clayton has shared mostly positive views on cryptoClayton served as SEC chair between May 4, 2017, and Dec. 23, 2020, and brought 56 cases against crypto firms during his tenure.Related: Oregon AG lawsuit against Coinbase calls XRP unregistered securityHe stated in a December 2021 CNBC interview that he’s a “huge believer in crypto technology,” adding that “the efficiency benefits in the financial system and otherwise from tokenization are immense.”Clayton has also praised Bitcoin (BTC) as a prominent store of value, but didn’t allow Bitcoin exchange-traded products during his time as SEC chair.The first US Bitcoin investment product was approved in 2021 under former SEC Chair Gary Gensler.Magazine: XRP win leaves Ripple and industry with no crypto legal precedent set
A Solana address with over 1 million tokens is sitting on over $153 million in profit after a four-year staking play on the crypto asset. Blockchain analytics firm Lookonchain flagged the wallet address of a whale that staked nearly 1 million Solana (SOL) tokens in 2021. At the time of the staking, Solana tokens were worth around $27, which means the trader spent about $27 million to execute the staking play. Four years later, the whale’s total staked Solana holdings reached 1.29 million. With Solana appreciating to about $140, the whale’s holdings increased in value to about $180 million. On April 22, the whale started offloading a portion of the token stash to cash out on the gains. Lookonchain reported that the whale had already unstaked 100,000 SOL tokens (about $14 million) and sent them to Binance. Sending tokens to crypto exchanges often indicates an intent to sell. Even though the trader already took millions in SOL tokens, Lookonchain said the whale still has 1.19 million Solana, worth around $166 million. Since the trader spent $27 million on the play, the total unrealized profit for the address is about $153 million. Source: LookonchainSolana whales turn $37 million to $200 million in four-year playThe Solana whale’s unstaking and token offloading follow another Solana staking play that involved hundreds of millions earlier in April. On April 4, Arkham Intelligence data showed that four wallets that staked $37 million in tokens in 2021 had their tokens unlocked, meaning they can unstake and sell them. The blockchain intelligence platform called the event “the largest single-day unlock of staked SOL.”During the unlock, the tokens were worth over $206 million. After the tokens were unlocked, about $50 million in tokens were sold. Related: Babylon total value locked drops 32% as wallets unstake $1.2B in BitcoinSolana briefly flips Ethereum in staking market capAs many whales turn to Solana for staking plays, the network briefly flipped Ethereum in the staking market cap. On April 20, the blockchain overtook Ethereum regarding staked token value after reaching over $53 billion. However, the event was short-lived as Ethereum easily recovered the top spot. While the event may seem bullish, community members were split on whether Solana overtaking Ethereum is bullish or bearish for the network. Magazine: Uni students crypto ‘grooming’ scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express
A little-known VOXEL trading pair on cryptocurrency exchange Bitget suddenly clocked over $12 billion in volume on April 20, dwarfing the metrics of the same contract on Binance.The activity centered on VOXEL/USDT perpetual futures, where traders reported instant order fills — an anomaly many described as a bug that allowed savvy traders to rack up outsized profits by exploiting unusual price behavior.The atypical metrics drew Bitget’s attention. In the fallout of its early investigation, the exchange suspended accounts suspected of market manipulation and rolled back irregular trades that occurred throughout the day. Traders who copped losses during that period were offered compensation.Bitget’s response and remediation plan may have prevented lasting investor damage, but the episode is the latest in a series of cases that raise questions about how exchanges handle market makers, internal systems and user safeguards. While Bitget promotes an open API and regularly touts its global market maker program, it has yet to disclose who was behind the April 20 activity or what technical factors led to it.The lack of incident-level detail has fueled speculations comparable to similar breakdowns on Binance — the world’s largest exchange by trading volume — that included the sudden price crashes of cryptocurrencies GoPlus (GPS) and MyShell (SHELL) in March. Binance kicked out an unnamed market maker it found responsible for manipulation, but the lack of disclosure added fuel to the crypto industry’s infamous rumor mongering.Bitget’s VOXEL/USDT perpetual futures volume exceeded that of all other top 10 markets combined on April 20. Source: Thành CryptoTraders VOXEL market maker bug, Bitget disagreesCrypto market participants pointed to rapid price fluctuations and what multiple Mandarin-language X accounts described as a bug in a “market maker” bot as the cause of VOXEL’s excessive volume.Traders claimed that VOXEL’s price flickered between several ranges, such as $0.125 and $0.138. Orders placed between those bands filled instantly due to the suspected bug, X user Dylan said, sharing screenshots and videos of profitable accounts. Perpetual futures contracts are typically matched through an order book, with each trade requiring a counterparty. But in this case, trades appeared to execute automatically and without delay.A machine-translated post shares how one trader profits hundreds of thousands of dollars with just $100 USDT in starting capital. Source: 0xDy_ethTraders who spotted the suspected bug early used high-leverage bets to boost their profits, X user Qingshui said, calling the strategy a “zero-cost exploit.” Like Dylan, Qingshui attributed the issue to a market maker bot misfiring and questioned why traders were blocked from accessing profits if the problem originated from Bitget’s side.Related: How Mantra’s OM token collapsed in 24 hours of chaosA third user, Hebi555, pointed the finger at Bitget’s market-making team for its poor performance. Xie Jiayin, Bitget’s head of Asia, clapped back, stating that the exchange works with over 1,000 market makers and institutional clients. He added that Bitget’s API is open to the public and emphasized that specific market maker identities could not be disclosed due to confidentiality agreements.In an April 20 response to Cointelegraph, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said that suspicious trades were between individual market participants, not the platform. Replying to Cointelegraph’s follow-up inquiry on April 21, Chen neither confirmed nor denied whether a market maker bot was involved, only reiterating that the trading was “between users.”“We are conducting a thorough review, and once the rollback is completed, trading and account restrictions will be lifted as appropriate. Bitget’s security infrastructure is designed to catch irregularities like this in real time — as it did in this case,” Chen said.Bitget’s VOXEL anomaly adds to crypto’s market manipulation mysteryConcerns over market manipulation in the cryptocurrency industry have been intensifying. In early March, the prices of two tokens, GPS and SHELL, crashed in tandem with their Binance listings. The exchange’s investigation found that the two tokens employed the same unnamed market maker. Binance banished the dubious trading firm from its platform and confiscated its proceeds to help fund compensation efforts for GPS and SHELL traders. Without a suspect to blame, social media users began pointing fingers at several market makers and trading firms. Those named denied any involvement.GSR was among the most frequently accused firms, but denied being the market maker removed by Binance. Source: GSRBinance then kicked out another unnamed market maker, this time for trading activities related to the Movement (MOVE) token. The MOVE token’s market maker on Binance was found to have associations with the market maker for GPS and SHELL.Related: Market maker deals are quietly killing crypto projectsA recent Cointelegraph report found that market makers are employing a loan-based model that is killing off small- and medium-cap projects. The loan model gives market makers access to a project’s tokens in exchange for liquidity provision. But instead, what often happens is that market makers dump the loaned tokens on the open market just to buy them back at a cheaper price, leaving the projects with damaged price charts.VOXEL was on Bitget, but exploits aren’t limited to CEXsBoth Bitget and Binance’s cases show that even the largest centralized exchanges (CEXs) aren’t immune to market manipulation or traders exploiting platforms for profits.But a recent case on decentralized exchange (DEX) Hyperliquid shows the issue isn’t confined to CEXs. In late March, a whale allegedly exploited the liquidation parameters on Hyperliquid, resulting in the delisting of the platform’s JELLY perpetual futures product. Hyperliquid then announced a compensation plan for affected users, similar to how Bitget responded to its own VOXEL drama.X user spotlights double standards in how exchanges respond to bugs. Source: Dotyyds1234Ironically, Bitget’s Chen had some strong words against Hyperliquid at the time, raising concerns about the network’s centralization. She compared the DEX to FTX, once a billion-dollar trading firm whose founder is now serving a 25-year prison sentence for multiple counts of fraud.“The way it handled the JELLY incident was immature, unethical, and unprofessional, triggering user losses and casting serious doubts over its integrity. Despite presenting itself as an innovative decentralized exchange with a bold vision, Hyperliquid operates more like an offshore CEX with no [Know-Your-Customer/Anti-Money Laundering], enabling illicit flows and bad actors,” she said.Bitget’s VOXEL episode may have been contained, and Hyperliquid’s users may be compensated, but the broader pattern is harder to ignore for traders. As platforms scramble to maintain trust, the industry’s vulnerability isn’t just the bugs or exploits, but the silence that follows them.Magazine: Uni students crypto ‘grooming’ scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express
