SEC To Dismiss 3-Year Lawsuit Against Gemini – Details

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-01-25Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-25

Introduzione

In a major development, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has moved to dismiss its three-year lawsuit against Gemini Trust Company with prejudice, effectively ending the legal battle over the Gemini Earn crypto lending program. The SEC had accused Gemini and Genesis Global Capital of illegally offering unregistered securities through the program, which allowed users to earn interest on crypto loans. Following Genesis's bankruptcy and the FTX collapse, all affected investors fully recovered their assets. Gemini also settled with other regulators, paying over $50 million in fines. The SEC cited these recoveries and settlements in its decision to dismiss the case permanently. This dismissal occurs amid a broader shift in US crypto regulation, including the passage of the pro-crypto GENIUS Act and ongoing legislative efforts like the Clarity Act to define digital asset oversight.

In a major development, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a joint stipulation with defendant Gemini Trust Company, LLC to terminate its long-running civil enforcement action with prejudice, effectively ending the three-year legal battle over the Gemini Earn crypto lending program.

SEC Vs Gemini

In January 2023, the SEC instituted one of the most controversial crypto-related lawsuits against Gemini Trust Company and its partner, Genesis Global Capital LLC, accusing both parties of illegally offering and selling unregistered securities through the Gemini Earn lending program, a financial product that operated between 2021 and 2022, which allowed customers to lend crypto for interest at 7.4% per annum.

Following the FTX crash in 2022, Genesis, which had a significant financial exposure to the now-defunct crypto exchange, halted withdrawals on the Gemini Earn Program, effectively locking up $940 million in investor assets. Since then, a series of events has unfolded, including Genesis entering bankruptcy proceedings, and through that process, all Earn investors ultimately recovered 100 percent of their crypto assets in kind. In addition, Gemini has settled related matters with state and federal regulators, paying over $50 million in civil fines.

In the joint stipulation filed this week, the SEC noted that its decision to seek dismissal “in the exercise of its discretion” took into account the full investor recovery and those regulatory settlements. The dismissal is with prejudice, preventing the SEC from re-filing the same claims, and represents the formal end of one of the most high-profile enforcement actions in the US crypto industry.

US Crypto Regulatory Turnaround

The dismissal of the Gemini case comes amid a broader recalibration of the US crypto regulatory approach under the Donald Trump administration. Several high-profile SEC actions against major platforms, involving Coinbase, Kraken, and Binance, have been dropped or paused, reflecting a shift from a forceful regulatory approach seen under the former chairman, Gary Gensler.

At the same time, Congress and the White House continue to pursue pro-crypto legislative and policy initiatives. In July 2025, US President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law, a landmark bill establishing a comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins, aimed at boosting consumer protection and supporting broader adoption of digital assets.

Alongside the GENIUS Act, the highly anticipated Clarity Act, passed by the US House, aims to delineate regulatory responsibilities between agencies like the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) based on how digital assets function. The US Senate Agriculture Committee is set to observe a markup session of the bill on January 27, indicating steady progress despite recent concerning events, including public outrage by Coinbase founder Brian Armstrong and the Banking Committee’s continued postponement of its own hearing session.

Total crypto market cap valued at $2.97 trillion on the daily chart | Source: TOTAL chart on Tradingview.com

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the main reason the SEC decided to dismiss its lawsuit against Gemini with prejudice?

AThe SEC's decision to seek dismissal 'in the exercise of its discretion' took into account the full recovery of investor assets and the regulatory settlements Gemini had reached with state and federal regulators.

QWhat was the Gemini Earn program and what were the SEC's allegations against it?

AThe Gemini Earn program was a crypto lending product that operated between 2021 and 2022, allowing customers to lend crypto for interest. The SEC accused Gemini and its partner Genesis of illegally offering and selling unregistered securities through this program.

QWhat significant event in 2022 led to the halting of withdrawals on the Gemini Earn program?

AFollowing the FTX crash in 2022, Genesis, which had significant financial exposure to the failed exchange, halted withdrawals on the Gemini Earn Program, locking up $940 million in investor assets.

QHow does the dismissal of the Gemini case reflect a broader change in U.S. crypto regulation?

AThe dismissal is part of a broader recalibration of the U.S. crypto regulatory approach, with several high-profile SEC actions against major platforms like Coinbase, Kraken, and Binance being dropped or paused, reflecting a shift from the previous forceful regulatory stance.

QWhat are the names and purposes of the two key pro-crypto legislative acts mentioned in the article?

AThe two key acts are the GENIUS Act, a comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins aimed at consumer protection and digital asset adoption, and the Clarity Act, which aims to delineate regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC based on how digital assets function.

Letture associate

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are undergoing a radical financial transformation due to AI. Their traditional "light-asset, high-free-cash-flow" model is being dismantled by staggering capital expenditures on AI infrastructure—data centers, GPUs, and power. Combined 2026 guidance exceeds $700 billion, a 4.5x increase from 2022, causing free cash flow to plummet (e.g., Amazon's fell 95%). To fund this, they are borrowing unprecedented sums through long-dated, multi-currency bonds (e.g., Alphabet's 100-year bond). The world's most conservative capital—pensions, insurers—is now funding Silicon Valley's most speculative bet. This shift makes these companies resemble heavy-asset industrials (railroads, utilities) rather than software firms, threatening their premium valuations. Historically, such infrastructure booms (railroads, fiber optics) followed a pattern: genuine technology, overbuilding fueled by competitive frenzy, aggressive debt financing, and a crash triggered by financial conditions—not technology failure. The infrastructure remained, but many original builders and financiers did not survive. The core gamble is a "time arbitrage": using cheap debt today to build scale and lock in customers before AI capabilities commoditize. They are betting that AI revenue will materialize before debt comes due. Their positions vary: Amazon is under immediate cash pressure; Meta's path to monetization is unclear; Alphabet has a robust core business buffer; Microsoft has the shortest path from infrastructure to revenue. The contract is set: the most risk-averse global capital has lent its time to Silicon Valley, awaiting a future that is promised but uncertain.

marsbit25 min fa

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

marsbit25 min fa

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

"The article explores the 'VVV' concept as the new AI-focused narrative within the Base ecosystem, centered around the token $VVV of the privacy-focused, uncensored generative AI platform Venice, led by crypto veteran Erik Voorhees. Venice has seen significant growth in 2026, with its API users surging, partly attributed to exposure from OpenClaw. The platform now boasts over 2 million total users and 55,000 paid subscribers. Correspondingly, the $VVV token price has risen over 9x this year. Key to its performance are tokenomics designed for value accrual: reduced annual emissions, subscription revenue used for buyback-and-burn, and a unique staking mechanism. Staking $VVV yields $sVVV, which can be used to mint $DIEM tokens. Each staked $DIEM provides a daily $1 credit for using Venice's API services, creating tangible utility. The article also highlights other tokens associated with the 'VVV' narrative. $POD, the token of distributed AI network Dolphin (which co-developed Venice's default AI model), saw a massive price surge. $cyb3rwr3n, a project for a Venice credit auction market, gained attention due to perceived connections to Venice's team despite official denials. Finally, $SR of robotics platform STRIKEROBOT.AI rose after announcing a partnership with Venice for robot vision-language model development. Overall, the 'VVV' ecosystem combines AI platform growth, deflationary tokenomics, and innovative utility mechanisms, driving significant investor interest and price action in related tokens."

marsbit34 min fa

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

marsbit34 min fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). The market reaction highlights a divergence: while asset-backed pre-IPO tokens plummeted, purely speculative pre-IPO futures contracts, which are bilateral bets on future IPO prices with no claim to actual shares, remained relatively stable as they are unaffected by the transfer restrictions. The industry is split on the implications. Some believe the fundamental logic of pre-IPO token trading is broken if leading companies reject SPV-held shares, potentially causing a domino effect. Others, like Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, argue that buyers of such unofficial tokens always knowingly accepted the risk of non-recognition by the company. The statements serve as a stark risk warning and a corrective measure for a market where valuations for some AI-related pre-IPO tokens had soared to irrational levels, far exceeding recent funding round valuations.

marsbit1 h fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbit1 h fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuations (e.g., Anthropic's token hitting a $1.4 trillion implied valuation) far exceeded recent official funding rounds. Opinions are split: some believe this undermines the core logic of pre-IPO token trading if top companies reject SPVs, while others argue buyers always assumed this legal risk when accessing unofficial channels. The statements serve as a stark warning and a potential catalyst for market de-leveraging and clearer boundaries.

Odaily星球日报1 h fa

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报1 h fa

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

"AI Membership: The Hidden Cost Pushing Workers Toward 'Poverty'" The widespread corporate push for AI adoption is creating a hidden financial burden for employees. Companies, from giants like Alibaba to small firms, are mandating AI use, often tying token consumption to KPIs, but frequently refuse to cover the costs. Workers are forced to pay for subscriptions out of pocket to stay competitive and avoid being replaced. Front-end developer Long Shen spends up to 2000 RMB monthly on tools like Cursor and ChatGPT Plus, seeing it as a necessary 3% salary investment to handle 90% of his coding tasks. While it boosted his performance and led to promotions, he now faces idle time at work, pretending to be busy. Designer Peng Peng navigates strict company firewalls by using personal devices and accounts for AI image generation tools like Midjourney, spending hundreds monthly without reimbursement, while her boss demands faster, more numerous revisions. The pressure creates workplace anxiety and suspicion. Programmer Li Huahua, after a friend's experience of raised KPIs following AI success, fears being branded a "traitor" for using it yet worries about falling behind if she doesn't. The dynamic allows management to demand results without understanding the tools or covering expenses, treating employees like AI "agents." While some, like entrepreneur Jin Tu, find high value in paid AI, building entire systems and winning competitions, for most, it's a trap. Free tools like Kimi and Doubao are introducing fees, closing off alternatives. The initial efficiency gains individual advantage, but as AI becomes ubiquitous, the personal edge disappears, workloads increase, and a cycle of dependency begins. Workers like Long Shen realize they cannot maintain AI-generated code without AI, making stopping harder than continuing to pay. The tool promising liberation is instead becoming a compulsory, costly chain in the modern workplace.

marsbit2 h fa

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

marsbit2 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片