找回密码
 立即注册
首页 黑乌鸦事件 查看内容
  • QQ空间

EOS ICO投资者对Block.one提起集体诉讼,称其借虚假误导性信息哄抬币价

2020-5-19 15:31

 

据The Block报道,在与美国证券交易委员会(SEC)达成和解后的几个月,Block.one就其EOS代币销售再次遭到指控。

 

5月18日,Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC和Johnny Hong在美国纽约南区地方法院对该公司提起集体诉讼。其首席执行官Brendan Blumer、首席技术官Daniel Larimer、密码学家和Block.One前合伙人Ian Grigg以及前顾问Brock Pierce也在被告之列。

原告声称,Block.one向投资者提供有关EOS的虚假和误导性信息,以通过未经注册的证券销售筹集数十亿美元。根据诉讼,原告Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC和Hong称,在ICO后,他们在二级市场上购买了EOS代币。据悉,此次ICO为Block.one带来约40亿美元收入。

 

原告在指控中称:

为提高EOS代币需求和增加销售利润,被告对EOS作出重大虚假和误导性陈述,违反了证券法,从而人为地抬高了EOS价格,损害了不明真相的投资者利益。

 

截止目前,Block.one尚未对此事发表评论。

Pierce,Blumer和Larimer于2017年成立了Block.one,计划推一个去中心化的区块链。随后,他们为EOS进行了首次代币发行(ICO)。该代币最初为ERC-20形式,后来可以在EOS网络上转换为代币。美国证券交易委员会对此次为期一年的销售提出质疑,称其未符合注册证券发行条件。几个月前,Block.one向SEC支付了2400万美元的罚款并达成和解。

 

在最新的指控中,原告以Block.one与SEC争端为基础,始终用“EOS证券”描述该公司代币。事实上,美国证交会去年秋天发出的《停止和终止令》中,将EOS ICO视为未注册的证券出售。

 

原告辩称,Block.one通过向美国投资者“积极”销售EOS来推高EOS价格,该公司坚持认为EOS区块链将胜过现有区块链。诉讼称,被告甚至告诉准投资者,EOS代表“类固醇以太坊”(Ethereum on Steroids)。

 

然而,原告表示,Block.One的表现不及其他区块链,既不披露重大内部分歧,也没有充分分散权力,误导了投资者。原告详细列举了几个例子,指称Pierce,Blumer,Larimer和Grigg的表述未能反映EOS的实际情况。

 

指控中写道:

与被告虚假陈述相反,EOS区块链高度集中,并不优于其他已有区块链。

 

Just months after settling with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Block.one is on the receiving end of legal action once again for allegations surrounding its EOS token sale.

Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC and Johnny Hong filed a class action complaint against the company Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Along with Block.One, its CEO Brendan Blumer, CTO Daniel Larimer, cryptographer and previous Block.one partner Ian Grigg and previous adviser Brock Pierce are all listed as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege that Block.one provided investors with false and misleading information about EOS in an effort to raise billions in an allegedly unregistered securities sale. According to the complaint, Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund LLC and Hong claim to have purchased tokens on a secondary market after the sale, which, as reported at the time, brought in an estimated $4 billion. 

"To drive the demand for and increase profit from the sales of EOS Securities, Defendants further violated the securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements about EOS, which artificially inflated the prices for the EOS Securities and damaged unsuspecting investors," read the complaint.

Block.one was not immediately available for comment when reached.

Pierce, Blumer and Larimer founded Block.one in 2017 with plans to launch a blockchain that would prioritize decentralization in its architecture. They later launched an initial coin offering (ICO) for the EOS token, which was originally in the form of an ERC-20 token that could later be swapped for tokens on the native EOS network. The SEC eventually took issue with the year-long sale, alleging that it qualified as an unregistered securities offering. Block.one subsequently paid a $24 million penalty to the agency.

In this new complaint, the plaintiffs lean on Block.one's past squabbles with the SEC, using the title "EOS Securities" for the company's token throughout. Indeed, in last fall's Cease-and-Desist Order from the SEC, the regulator indicated that it viewed the EOS sale as an unregistered securities sale. 

Plaintiffs contended that Block.one drove the price of EOS by "aggressively" marketing it to U.S. investors and insisting that the EOS blockchain would outperform existing blockchains. The complaint alleges that defendants even told prospective investors that EOS stood for "Ethereum on steroids."

However, the complaint alleges that by not outperforming other blockchains, not disclosing significant internal disagreements and failing to decentralize sufficiently, Block.one misled investors. The complaint details several instances where it alleges Pierce, Blumer, Larimer and Grigg made statements that failed to reflect how EOS was actually performing. 

"Contrary to Defendants' false statements, as was slowly revealed throughout the Class  Period, the EOS Blockchain was highly centralized and was not superior to the other blockchains already in use," read the complaint.

 

原作者: Aislinn Keely 来自: the block