In the absence of “actual issuers” of the “scam tokens,” the plaintiffs argued that Uniswap facilitated the trades at issue by “providing a marketplace and facilities for bringing together buyers and sellers of securities” for a transaction fee, “hoping that this Court might overlook the fact that the current state of cryptocurrency regulation leaves them without recourse, at least as to the specific claims alleged in this suit.”
Related posts
-
Ether (ETH) Spot Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) to Attract $15B of Net Inflows in First 18 Months: Bitwise
“Some investors may have bought a bitcoin ETP and stopped there, thinking their crypto exposure was... -
Ether (ETH) Spot ETFs Could See Demand From Same Sources as Bitcoin (BTC) Versions, But on Lower Scale: Bernstein
“ETH should not see as much spot ETH conversion due to the lack of an ETH... -
Julian Assange Reaches Plea Deal With U.S. DoJ
As CoinDesk reported at the time, Assange said that Wikileaks initially refrained from accepting bitcoin to...