by Stephen Gannon, James Goldfarb, and Alexandra Coyle
Stephen Gannon, James Goldfarb, and Alexandra Coyle (photos courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)
In denying motions to dismiss, court potentially expands liability for venture capital firms investing in cryptocurrency enterprises
A recent order handed down by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California could be a new source of concern for digital asset entrepreneurs and the venture capital firms which invest in and support them. In Samuels v. Lido DAO the court denied the motion to dismiss filed by an entity called Lido DAO (“Lido”) and a group of its institutional investors regarding what was alleged to be a sale of unregistered tokens on an exchange. Lido was and is the operator of a successful “Staking as a Service” business conducted through a decentralized autonomous organization, or a “DAO.” Founded in 2020, Lido provides a service in which it gathers ETH from individual holders, which it then pools and “stakes” to provide validation for transactions on the Ethereum blockchain. It also selects validators and provides an “oracle” to ensure that (i) the validators, (ii) the owners who pooled their ETH, and (iii) Lido itself receive the correct ETH rewards for performing the validation work.[1]
In largely denying defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court’s order potentially greatly expands the liability venture capital firms based in California might face, particularly in the context of investing in cryptocurrency enterprises, and may raise more questions than it answers for parties involved in such disputes.