DCG Calls Out Genesis' Settlement With New York as 'Subversive'

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado a 2024-02-20Actualizado a 2024-02-21

Resumen

DCG filed an objection in bankruptcy court to the deal Genesis secured to end the New York attorney general's investigation of fraud and money laundering controls.

  • Digital Currency Group objected to subsidiary Genesis' proposed settlement with the New York attorney general's office.
  • NYAG sued DCG and Genesis – as well as another company – on fraud charges.

Digital Currency Group (DCG) is objecting to the settlement between the New York attorney general and Genesis – the failed crypto lender that was among DCG's array of digital assets businesses.

10

The bankrupt Genesis Global struck a deal with the attorney general's office earlier this month to resolve charges that it had defrauded investors, but its parent company contends that it wasn't a proper settlement.

Genesis "cannot, under the guise of a 'settlement,' take value from lower classes and redistribute it to preferred creditors in violation of absolute priority," DCG argued in an objection filed Wednesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York – the court that must approve the New York arrangement.

Advertisement
Advertisement

In a further statement from DCG circulated on Wednesday, the company called the deal "a back-door attempt to circumvent U.S. bankruptcy law," characterizing it as a "subversive arrangement, put together last-minute and in secret."

Jason Brown, a former co-chief deputy of the attorney general's office and a former senior federal attorney in New York, backed DCG's objection to the Genesis settlement with the state, asserting in a court filing that the details of the settlement may not have been arrived at properly.

"In any case of this magnitude, I would expect the parties to have engaged in extensive merits-based assessments of the claims prior to finalization of a settlement," he argued. "It is, in my opinion, not in the usual course to forgo such discussions."

The attorney general's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last month, Genesis also settled a case from the state's Department of Financial Services (DFS), agreeing to pay $8 million and give up its New York BitLicense.

And earlier this month, the DFS amplified its case against DCG and Gemini, saying they were responsible for much more in investors losses – now at $3 billion – than the office first asserted in its fraud lawsuit tied to the defunct Gemini Earn program.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Lecturas Relacionadas

Hyperliquid is Strongly Strangling HyperEVM

The article analyzes the apparent failure of HyperEVM, the application engine of the Hyperliquid blockchain, contrasting it with the success of its core trading engine, HyperCore. Hyperliquid operates on a dual-engine architecture. HyperCore is a closed, high-performance order-book exchange for perpetuals and spot trading, which dominates on-chain volume and generates massive fees. HyperEVM, launched in February 2025, is an EVM-compatible layer meant for DeFi applications like lending and DEXs, which can access HyperCore's liquidity. Despite Hyperliquid's overall strength in a bear market, a stark divergence exists: * **HyperCore (Trading):** Captures over half of on-chain perpetual volume, generating ~$56M in fees over 30 days. * **HyperEVM (Applications):** All DeFi protocols combined generate less than $60M in fees. TVL is shrinking, daily active addresses are low (~8k), and the ecosystem lacks diversity. The DEX sector is particularly anemic, with most volume concentrated in a single protocol. The article identifies four key reasons for HyperEVM's struggles: 1. **Core Monopoly on Execution:** HyperCore exclusively handles order matching. This makes native DEXs on HyperEVM redundant and limits viable applications to those leveraging its order book (e.g., staking, lending). 2. **Architectural Concentration:** Shared liquidity across interfaces naturally leads to a "winner-takes-most" outcome, explaining the high concentration in both the trading (e.g., trade.xyz) and application layers. 3. **"No Insider" Philosophy:** Hyperliquid's commitment to fair launch means it provides no grants, business development, or marketing support to ecosystem projects, stunting growth. 4. **Complex Developer Experience:** The asynchronous design between HyperEVM and HyperCore (via the CoreWriter contract) creates non-standard development hurdles, as EVM transactions don't roll back if the core action fails. The conclusion is that HyperEVM's weakness is a deliberate trade-off, not an accident. Hyperliquid prioritized building an unbeatable trading engine, sacrificing the development of a broad, independent application ecosystem. HyperEVM functions more as a tokenization layer for HyperCore's liquidity rather than a general-purpose chain. The debate isn't whether it's "dead"—it serves a niche—but whether Hyperliquid ever intended to build a thriving, diverse DeFi ecosystem beyond its core trading product.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Hyperliquid is Strongly Strangling HyperEVM

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

UltraPure Applied Materials Lists on Shenzhen Stock Exchange: Annual Revenue of 5 Billion, Post-Adjustment Net Profit of 2 Billion, Market Cap of 51.2 Billion

SuperPure Applied Materials (Stock Code: 301717) debuted on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange's ChiNext board. The company issued 25.4615 million shares at an offering price of 65.99 yuan per share, raising approximately 1.68 billion yuan. The stock opened at 450 yuan, soaring 582% from the IPO price, and closed at 503 yuan, up 662%, giving the company a market capitalization of 51.2 billion yuan. The company specializes in special coating processes and related technologies and materials, providing precision components and services for the semiconductor manufacturing and precision optics sectors. Its products cover core equipment parts for wafer fabrication, packaging, and silicon wafer manufacturing, with notable technical advantages in etching, lithography, measurement/inspection, annealing, and thin-film deposition equipment. Financially, SuperPure reported revenues of 169 million, 260 million, and 496 million yuan for 2023, 2024, and 2025 respectively, with corresponding net profits of 64.8 million, 82.26 million, and 185 million yuan. For Q1 2026, revenue reached 147 million yuan, a 62% year-over-year increase. The company forecasts H1 2026 revenue between 270 to 290 million yuan and net profit between 103 to 110 million yuan. The company's controlling shareholder and actual controller is Chai Jie, who directly and indirectly controls 48.23% of the voting rights. Together with his brother Chai Lin, a concerted action person, they control a total of 68.84% of the voting rights. Major pre-IPO shareholders included GSD Venture Capital, BYD, and AMEC.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

UltraPure Applied Materials Lists on Shenzhen Stock Exchange: Annual Revenue of 5 Billion, Post-Adjustment Net Profit of 2 Billion, Market Cap of 51.2 Billion

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片