Sleek Secures $5M seed funding to propel Web3 social networking offering

Terraform Labs civil trial proceeds with confidential filingsSingaporean blockchain development firm Terraform Labs, the creator of the failed Terra blockchain protocol, has reached an agreement on a protective order in their ongoing civil case with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).Photo by Thomas Habr on UnsplashData shielded from public disclosureThe decision, sanctioned by the U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York on Wednesday, ensures that materials marked as confidential by the involved parties will remain shielded from public disclosure. The court is obligated to seal any discovery filings labeled confidential ahead of the trial.Judge Rakoff conveyed his likelihood of denying requests to unseal these confidential documents, although the order did not delve into the specific rationale for maintaining their confidential status beyond citing “good cause.” The finalized agreement on this protective order took place on Dec. 18, with legal representatives from both the SEC and Terraform Labs, including co-founder Do Kwon, giving their consent. Kwon, presently detained in Montenegro, faces potential extradition to the United States or South Korea.Pivotal momentThe depegging of Terraform’s stablecoin TerraUSD (UST) from the U.S. dollar marked a turning point in the cryptocurrency sector. This event is believed to have significantly contributed to the crypto market downturn in 2022, as it had a knock-on effect on countless other crypto businesses and platforms that were over-exposed to the flawed algorithmic currency.That chain of events led to the SEC taking action after the fact. However, it has subsequently also pursued a much criticized “regulation by enforcement” policy relative to the crypto sector. To that end, the Commission has pending cases against Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken and Binance, among others.In February, the SEC accused Terraform Labs and Do Kwon of conducting a multi-billion dollar crypto asset securities fraud by offering and selling unregistered securities. As proceedings have unfolded, both Terraform and the SEC have traded unsuccessful attempts to obtain summary judgment.Far-reaching consequencesThe ongoing SEC vs. Terraform civil case carries potential far-reaching consequences in terms of legal precedents within the cryptocurrency sector. In a separate ruling in August, the court allowed Terra to issue subpoenas to FTX entities as part of FTX’s bankruptcy proceedings. Judge Rakoff, in November, accepted confidential materials from Jump Crypto Holdings for discovery in this case.Troubled crypto lender Genesis Trading has also been tangled up in the proceedings with the courts directing it to comply with a subpoena initiated by Terraform Labs. The outcome of this case is poised to offer essential legal guidance for numerous companies operating in the crypto space.The SEC’s regulatory approach toward cryptocurrency firms in the United States has been subject to considerable debate and criticism. The commission’s alleged “regulation by enforcement” strategy, especially in dealings with major players in the crypto industry, has drawn accusations.While many in the U.S. have been unhappy with “regulation by enforcement,” the upside is that over the longer haul, the courts will be able to eventually furnish the regulatory clarity that the SEC refuses to provide. The ongoing scrutiny of regulatory approaches and the outcomes of cases like Terraform Labs vs. SEC will undoubtedly shape the future legal landscape of the cryptocurrency industry.

Zipmex Thailand halts crypto trading citing SEC complianceTroubled cryptocurrency exchange Zipmex Thailand has recently announced the temporary suspension of digital asset trading until early next year.Photo by Anh Tuan To on UnsplashTrading and deposits suspendedThe decision, outlined by the firm in a Facebook post on Saturday, is attributed to the platform’s efforts in ensuring full compliance with the standards set by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).In the Facebook post, Zipmex Limited addressed its customers, stating:“Dear customers, Zipmex Limited would like to ensure the proper and compliant conduct of the company’s business operations in accordance with the criteria set by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).”The suspension of digital asset trading and deposits of all types became effective from Nov. 25.Withdrawals remain openDespite the suspension, customers will retain the ability to withdraw Thai baht and digital assets from their Trade Wallet through the website and mobile application until Jan. 31, 2024. However, for digital assets categorized as “Trade Only,” customers are instructed to contact Customer Support for withdrawal. Beyond Jan. 31, 2024, when the withdrawal feature through the website and mobile application is suspended, customers will need to seek assistance from Customer Support.Zipmex Thailand also emphasized that the withdrawal process for digital assets may take between seven to 14 days, requiring customers to provide supporting documents for identity and account ownership verification.As a cryptocurrency exchange headquartered in Singapore and operating in multiple countries, including Thailand, Australia and Indonesia, Zipmex has already fallen foul of Thailand’s SEC. Earlier this year, it was hit with penalties related to allegations of improper use of a digital asset custodian service and the redirection of customers to the Singapore-based exchange, Zipmex Pte, creating a conflict of interest.Financial difficultiesThe exchange has faced financial challenges, including difficulties in repaying creditors after losses incurred from exposure to crypto lenders Babel Finance and Genesis in 2022. A planned $100 million buyout earlier in the year fell through when the buyer, reportedly V Ventures, withdrew from the purchase.Zipmex’s troubles date back to last summer when the exchange halted withdrawals due to volatile market conditions and a liquidity crunch resulting from exposure to the troubled crypto lender Babel Finance. Despite facing financial difficulties, the exchange expressed its commitment to maintaining the integrity of its platform.In August of the same year, Bloomberg reported that Zipmex intended to meet with potential investors and Thailand’s financial regulator to discuss a recovery plan. By November, the platform was in advanced discussions with venture capital fund V Ventures for the sale of a majority stake.Earlier this year, the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission announced an investigation into whether Zipmex breached local rules in its offering of certain digital-asset products. In April, the company filed a request to extend the moratorium period to enable the firm to work towards restructuring. Later that month, it appeared that the V Ventures investment deal had fallen through. By July, the beleaguered firm had sued the investor for breach of contract.The ongoing challenges faced by Zipmex underscore the complex landscape and regulatory scrutiny surrounding cryptocurrency exchanges in various jurisdictions.

DeFiance Capital Secures Interim Victory in Dispute With 3ACSingapore’s DeFiance Capital, a Web3 and crypto investment firm, has notched up a small triumph in its ongoing $140 million legal clash with failed Singaporean crypto hedge fund, Three Arrows Capital (3AC).Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on UnsplashFavorable rulingAccording to a statement provided via a Medium blog post by DeFiance Capital Founder and CEO Arthur Cheong on Tuesday, the High Court of Singapore has delivered a favorable ruling for the firm, endorsing its preference for jurisdiction in Singapore, rather than the British Virgin Islands, which had been advocated by 3AC.The tussle between 3AC and DeFiance Capital centers around the ownership of certain assets. The liquidators appointed by the British Virgin Islands Court, from Teneo, assert that these assets essentially belong to 3AC’s creditors. However, DeFiance Capital argues vehemently that these assets must be partitioned and returned to its stakeholders.Struggle over assets and jurisdictionAt the heart of the matter are assets totaling $115 million, encompassing digital currencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which currently remain under the control of DeFiance Capital. Additionally, there are 69 SAFE (simple agreement for future equity)/SAFT (simple agreement for future tokens) agreements linked to 3AC. Although Teneo places the collective worth of these assets at roughly $141 million, DeFiance Capital’s estimation is more conservative, pegging it at around $120 million.Beyond asset ownership, jurisdiction has become a pivotal point of contention in the legal discourse. DeFiance Capital has steadfastly advocated for legal proceedings to take place in Singapore, where it operates, as opposed to the British Virgin Islands. The recent ruling from the High Court of Singapore lends support to this stance, challenging Teneo’s argument.DeFiance articulated its position, asserting: “Our position was that all the important witnesses and documents are in Singapore and the dispute ought to be heard by the Singapore Courts to ensure all relevant evidence would be available.”With the court’s decision aligning with DeFiance’s jurisdictional preference, the firm hopes that this development will pave the way for more substantive engagement between the parties, rather than being embroiled in procedural wrangling. The firm believes that this will allow the focus to shift towards addressing the core issues at hand.Business riftThe genesis of this legal saga dates back to 2020 when DeFiance was established as part of the 3AC group, operating autonomously under the stewardship of its founder, Arthur Cheong. The rift escalated in February 2022, when Cheong declined 3AC’s proposal to relocate to Dubai, eventually leading to the formation of two Singapore-based firms in May of that year.Furthermore, in the same month, DeFiance extended a loan of $35 million worth of USDC to 3AC, effectively becoming a creditor. Complications arose when 3AC’s founders transferred legal rights related to DeFiance Capital, a transaction that remained incomplete as 3AC filed for bankruptcy.In light of the ongoing dispute, 3AC asserted that DeFiance’s assets should be harnessed to settle its debts. However, DeFiance firmly stood its ground, upholding its ownership claims over the assets.With liquidators advocating for resolution in the British Virgin Islands — a move that DeFiance rejected due to its Singaporean management ties with 3AC — the stage was set for the legal clash that has now taken a notable turn with this recent court ruling.