‘Scammers are liable’: Uniswap CEO reacts to landmark court dismissal

ambcryptoPublicado em 2026-03-03Última atualização em 2026-03-03

Resumo

In a landmark ruling, a New York federal court dismissed a lawsuit against Uniswap that sought to hold the decentralized exchange and its CEO, Hayden Adams, liable for financial losses users suffered from scam tokens traded on its platform. Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that Uniswap cannot be held responsible for the misconduct of unidentified third-party token issuers, stating it defies logic to hold the drafter of open-source code accountable for a third party’s misuse of the platform. The case, ongoing since April 2022, was dismissed with prejudice. Uniswap’s CEO hailed the decision as a "good, sensible outcome" and a significant legal precedent for DeFi, emphasizing that scammers—not open-source developers—should be held liable for fraud. The ruling is seen as a major win for the DeFi industry, providing decentralized platforms greater legal protection and breathing room. Following the news, Uniswap’s native token UNI saw a brief price increase of approximately 5%. The case may influence ongoing legislative efforts, such as the CLARITY Act, which aims to establish safe harbor protections for open-source developers in crypto.

DeFi exchange Uniswap has hailed the latest court ruling that dismissed a case that sought to hold it accountable for scam tokens traded on the platform.

In an opinion issued on the 2nd of March, federal Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Judge Failla ruled that the petitioners can not hold Uniswap CEO Hayden Adams and Uniswap Labs (defendants) responsible for misconduct carried out by unidentified third-party token issuers.

The petitioners claimed losses from trading tokens on the Uniswap platform. They alleged the tokens were ‘rug pulls’ and ‘pump and dump’ schemes.

According to them, Uniswap facilitated fraud by running a marketplace that allows the selling and buying of these alleged scam tokens.

But the court dismissed this argument, stating that,

“It defies logic that a drafter of computer code underlying a particular software platform could be liable under Section 29(b) for a third-party’s misuse of that platform.”

Uniswap leadership hails the ruling

The case has been running since April 2022. Reacting to the ruling, Uniswap CEO called it a ‘good, sensible outcome’ and a new legal precedent for the sector.

“If you write open source smart contract code, and the code is used by scammers, the scammers are liable, not the open source developers.”

Stani Kulechov, Founder of Aave, called the update a “great win for DeFi.”

The change gives DeFi players breathing room. Fully decentralized platforms will no longer face legal liability for losses caused by third-party token issuers.

Lawmakers are also pushing for a safe harbor for open-source developers in the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act. Still, the final draft will determine whether those developer protections actually hold.

Uniswap is one of the largest DeFi platforms and has operated for over eight years. Since its inception, the exchange has recorded a cumulative of over $5 billion in fees and recently activated a token accrual program for its governance token UNI.

Following the court update, the Uniswap [UNI] token surged by about 5%, but was still stuck between $3.6 and $4.2 short-term price range.


Final Summary

  • Judge Failla ruled that Uniswap and other DeFi platforms can’t be held responsible for misconduct done by unidentified third-party token issuers.
  • The case could set the tone for the protection of open-source DeFi developers, according to policy watchers.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the outcome of the court case against Uniswap regarding scam tokens?

AThe court dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling that Uniswap and its CEO could not be held liable for the misconduct of unidentified third-party token issuers.

QWho was the judge that issued the ruling in the Uniswap case?

AFederal Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) issued the opinion.

QWhat was the core legal argument the judge used to dismiss the complaint?

AThe judge stated that it defies logic to hold the drafter of computer code liable for a third party's misuse of that platform under Section 29(b).

QHow did Uniswap CEO Hayden Adams react to the court's decision?

AHe called it a 'good, sensible outcome' and a new legal precedent, stating that scammers are liable, not the open-source developers.

QWhat was the immediate market reaction of the UNI token following the court update?

AThe UNI token surged by about 5% following the court ruling.

Leituras Relacionadas

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbitHá 3h

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbitHá 3h

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手Há 3h

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手Há 3h

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbitHá 5h

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbitHá 5h

Trading

Spot
Futuros

Artigos em Destaque

Como comprar T

Bem-vindo à HTX.com!Tornámos a compra de Threshold Network Token (T) simples e conveniente.Segue o nosso guia passo a passo para iniciar a tua jornada no mundo das criptos.Passo 1: cria a tua conta HTXUtiliza o teu e-mail ou número de telefone para te inscreveres numa conta gratuita na HTX.Desfruta de um processo de inscrição sem complicações e desbloqueia todas as funcionalidades.Obter a minha contaPasso 2: vai para Comprar Cripto e escolhe o teu método de pagamentoCartão de crédito/débito: usa o teu visa ou mastercard para comprar Threshold Network Token (T) instantaneamente.Saldo: usa os fundos da tua conta HTX para transacionar sem problemas.Terceiros: adicionamos métodos de pagamento populares, como Google Pay e Apple Pay, para aumentar a conveniência.P2P: transaciona diretamente com outros utilizadores na HTX.Mercado de balcão (OTC): oferecemos serviços personalizados e taxas de câmbio competitivas para os traders.Passo 3: armazena teu Threshold Network Token (T)Depois de comprar o teu Threshold Network Token (T), armazena-o na tua conta HTX.Alternativamente, podes enviá-lo para outro lugar através de transferência blockchain ou usá-lo para transacionar outras criptomoedas.Passo 4: transaciona Threshold Network Token (T)Transaciona facilmente Threshold Network Token (T) no mercado à vista da HTX.Acede simplesmente à tua conta, seleciona o teu par de trading, executa as tuas transações e monitoriza em tempo real.Oferecemos uma experiência de fácil utilização tanto para principiantes como para traders experientes.

405 Visualizações TotaisPublicado em {updateTime}Atualizado em 2025.03.21

Como comprar T

Discussões

Bem-vindo à Comunidade HTX. Aqui, pode manter-se informado sobre os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da plataforma e obter acesso a análises profissionais de mercado. As opiniões dos utilizadores sobre o preço de T (T) são apresentadas abaixo.

活动图片