Regulation
Ripple CTO Defends Craig Wright In Satoshi Trial But With A Twist
In a surprising twist amid the ongoing legal battles involving Craig Steven Wright, Ripple’s Chief Technology Officer, David Schwartz, has defended his legal team’s arguments. Schwartz recently offered a shocking take on Wright’s controversial claims of being Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. The latest statement is poles apart from the Ripple CTO’s previous statements wherein he vehemently criticized Wright.
Ripple CTO On Craig Wright’s Arguments In Satoshi Trial
The conversation began when Hodlonaut, a prominent figure in the crypto community, took to X to highlight a peculiar argument from Wright’s legal team. He stated, “Craig Wright’s lawyers fight for his ‘human right’ to continue ‘identifying’ as Satoshi and asserting that he is.” Moreover, this statement sparked a range of reactions, including a notable response from Schwartz.
Schwartz acknowledged the legal complexity of Wright’s assertions. The Ripple CTO stated, “I hate to say this, but I think they’re right. Craig’s claims that he is Satoshi in conversations don’t fall into any category of speech that the government can prohibit or punish. They’re not fraud. They’re not defamatory.”
This perspective emphasizes the legal distinction between casual claims and fraudulent actions. Furthermore, it suggests that mere assertions of identity in informal contexts may not constitute illegal behavior. However, Schwartz’s defense was not without its caution.
A user questioned whether Wright’s claims amounted to fraud if he sought financial benefit by impersonating Satoshi. Hence, Schwartz clarified his stance stating, “That is fraud.” Nevertheless, the Ripple CTO continued defending the arguments made by Wright’s defense.
Schwartz added, “But him claiming to be Satoshi in casual conversations where he’s not specifically trying to get something of monetary value is not fraud. An injunction preventing him from using any claim to be Satoshi to obtain something of value would be fine.”
In addition, the Ripple CTO further elaborated on the limitations of judicial intervention in such cases. He emphasized that courts are not arbiters of historical truth. Schwartz stated, “Courts don’t get to decide historical questions and then prohibit people from disagreeing with the court’s conclusions.”
The Ripple CTO added, “However, they can issue injunctions prohibiting defamation, fraud, jury tampering, and so on. Claims in conversations don’t fall into any of those categories.”
Also Read: Craig Steven Wright’s Attorney Denies COPA Injunction In Satoshi Nakamoto Case
Update On June 7 Hearing In COPA Vs. CSW Case
COPA’s draft order proposes that Wright “shall not pursue proceedings.” The order aims to prevent him from claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto in any global legal setting. However, Wright’s legal team, led by Craig Orr KC, sought to change “pursue” to “commence” to allow Wright to defend himself.
Nevertheless, COPA’s Hough KC argued this amendment could create a loophole, allowing friendly parties to sue Wright and revisit the issue. Orr KC invoked Wright’s free speech rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, stating that Wright should be able to claim he is Satoshi. Thereafter, Hough KC countered that the court had found Wright lied about being Satoshi.
The draft order wouldn’t prevent Wright from making such claims privately but restricts public assertions. COPA also seeks to compel Wright to post the court’s findings on various platforms (Twitter, Slack, etc.) for six months. They also suggested referring Wright and others for potential criminal proceedings due to alleged perjury and document forgery.
Orr KC argued that the court’s findings were already widely publicized and accused COPA of seeking revenge and humiliation, claiming COPA had not suffered direct harm. He described COPA’s relief requests as “very wide-ranging, novel, and unprecedented.”
Also Read: Ripple Sparks Speculations With 150M XRP Transfer, What’s Next For XRP Price?
The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
Polymarket Faces French Ban After Massive Bets On US Election Results
Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market, is likely to be prohibited by France’s gambling regulator, the ANJ, after a huge amount of bets were placed on the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Since the global audience engaged in prediction platforms, Polymarket experienced a record jump, with $450 million expected to be distributed to users following the victory of Donald Trump.
This increase of betting volume and large stakes has become a matter of concern for the French regulator because the platform offers unlicensed gambling services.
$450 Million in Payouts Expected After U.S. Election Bets
Prediction markets, which are expected to increase their payout to election bettors to around $450m following Donald Trump’s projected win, are attracting increasing attention.
Although conventional polls pointed to a closer contest, prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi recorded a steep rise in Trump’s chances in the last few days, indicating a strong divergence with poll-based expectations.
Among the active users of Polymarket, a French trader called “Theo” made a $26 million bet on Trump’s win and won $49 million. This big bet made Polymarket popular, as the French authorities paid attention to the platform and its popularity among French residents, which led to concerns about the compliance of the platform with French gambling legislation.
France’s ANJ Considers Blocking Access to Polymarket
The ANJ has claimed that Polymarket is involved in gambling which is only allowed in France by licensed operators. According to local media, the regulator has the power to ban access to unlicensed gambling sites and is expected to restrict access to Polymarket soon.
An ANJ insider said: “Polymarket is just betting on something that is completely uncertain, which is exactly what gambling is.”
If put in place, the ban would prevent the usage of the application in France, despite the fact that users can still try to avoid the restriction by connecting to VPN. The ANJ could also try to influence media outlets and directories to stop advertising or linking to Polymarket and, thus, limit its audiences even more.
Regulatory Concerns Over Market Manipulation
The high level of activity on Polymarket has led to speculations that the platform may be used for market manipulation. Two blockchain analysis firms, Chaos Labs and Inca Digital, recently revealed that there was potential wash trading within Polymarket’s U.S. presidential betting market where the same assets are bought and sold to simply create a fake market. This type of trading is rather manipulative and can lead to the distortion of signals on the market and mislead other participants.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission also has concerns about prediction markets and put forward a rule in May aiming at stricter regulation of such markets due to the potential for manipulation.
Although no final decision has been reached, regulatory actions could impact Polymarket’s ability to operate freely in other markets, including the U.S.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
FTX Co Founder Gary Wang Appeals For No Jail Time, Here’s Why
FTX co-founder Gary Wang has requested a federal judge not to send him to prison. He noted that he is testifying against the former business partner, Sam Bankman-Fried, someone he has known for a long time in a fraud case.
The lawyer for Wang submitted a sentencing memo in Manhattan federal court wherein he claimed that his client should not be incarcerated as he provided assistance to the prosecutors as well as his role in the scheme was comparatively less.
Wang, who pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy when FTX went bankrupt in 2022, is to receive his sentencing on the 20th of November.
FTX Co-Founder Gary Wang Appeals for No Jail Time
The defense counsel for FTX co-founder Gary Wang highlighted his client’s early cooperation with the federal prosecutors as one of the key reasons why the court should consider him for mercy. According to Graff, Wang was one of the first FTX executives to meet with the authorities and share information on the FTX and Alameda Research. Wang gave a testimony in the trial that led to the recent conviction of Bankman-Fried who was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Speaking at the trial, Wang described how he was ordered to change the code of FTX in order to enable Alameda Research to use the assets of the company’s clients, which is one of the key points of Bankman-Fried’s fraud.
FTX co-founder’s lawyer noted that his involvement in the fraud was less than some of the other former executives, including Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, and Nishad Singh, FTX’s former head of engineering. Wang, his lawyer said, did not start or operate the scheme and was not personally involved in the provision of false information to the investors.
“Gary was not involved in the scheme at its inception, was never provided with details of the scheme, and, in contrast to Bankman-Fried, Ellison and Singh, never engaged in any affirmative action of deception,” Graff wrote.
Sentencing Comparisons to Other Executives
Wang’s attorney argued that a prison sentence would create an “unwarranted sentencing disparity” with Nishad Singh, who avoided jail time after pleading guilty and cooperating with the government. Singh, who faced potential decades-long sentences, was ultimately sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release.
Ellison, another major cooperator, received a two-year prison sentence. FTX co-founder Gary Wang contended that Wang’s level of involvement was even lower than Singh’s, supporting a non-custodial sentence for Wang as well.
Graff also noted Wang’s personal circumstances, stating that Wang is expecting the birth of his first child shortly after his sentencing date. Wang’s attorney suggested that allowing him to remain with his family would align with the court’s treatment of other cooperators in the case.
“Gary wants nothing more than to be a good husband and father and to continue his work to facilitate FTX victims’ recovery,” Graff wrote.
Separately, the U.S. government is working to reclaim approximately $13.25 million in political donations made by FTX executives, including Bankman-Fried and Singh. Judge Lewis Kaplan however granted the government additional time to negotiate the return of these funds, extending discussions with the PACs until January 15, 2025.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Regulation
US SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken, Challenges Key Defenses
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a motion seeking judgment in its case against cryptocurrency exchange Kraken, focusing on defenses such as “fair notice” and the “major questions doctrine.”
This move, led by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s team, aims to limit further discovery into the agency’s regulatory policies, particularly those affecting the crypto sector. The timing of the filing has drawn attention, as some in the industry view it as a strategic attempt to shield the SEC’s methods from closer examination.
US SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken
The SEC’s motion seeks to dismiss defenses put forward by Kraken that include the fair notice defense and the major questions doctrine. The fair notice defense argues that Kraken did not receive adequate regulatory guidance regarding its crypto-related activities.
Meanwhile, the major questions doctrine suggests that regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, should not make major policy decisions without clear direction from Congress.
Subsequently, the US SEC’s motion appears intended to prevent further discovery into its policies, which Kraken and other crypto advocates have criticized as inconsistent and unclear. A similar motion was filed in Ripple case, where the US SEC failed to secure a judgment. Michael O’Connor, an attorney representing Kraken expects a similar outcome in the Kraken case, though Kraken has indicated that it has additional defenses should this motion proceed.
This Is A Breaking News, Please Check Back For More
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
-
Market22 hours ago
Celestia and GOAT investors turn to Poodlana to try and recoup losses
-
Market24 hours ago
Bitcoin Price Back On The Rise as Trump Leads the Pack: Rally to Continue?
-
Altcoin24 hours ago
Trade COW and CETUS with No Fees
-
Market23 hours ago
Why Solana Volume Could Be Key In Driving SOL Price Higher
-
Ethereum9 hours ago
Ethereum Analyst Sets $3,400 Target Once ETH Breaks Key Resistance – Details
-
Altcoin22 hours ago
Binance To Delist These Crypto in BTC Trading Pairs
-
Market21 hours ago
Best Solana Airdrops for Early Crypto Access
-
Market8 hours ago
Bitcoin Price Pushes Rally Further: Bulls in Full Force
✓ Share: