Jane Street Sued: Suspected of Using Telegram Insider Information to Exit and Short Before Terra Collapse, Profiting $134 Million

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-05-22Обновлено 2026-05-22

Введение

Wall Street trading giant Jane Street Group is facing a lawsuit alleging it used insider information from a private Telegram channel with a former Terraform Labs intern to avoid losses and profit from the collapse of the Terra ecosystem in May 2022. According to newly unsealed court documents, Jane Street allegedly sold nearly $192 million worth of the UST stable币 before its depeg, and then established short positions, netting approximately $134 million in profits. The suit, filed by Terraform's bankruptcy estate, claims the firm gained a critical "information advantage" through these private communications, allowing it to execute large sales, including an $85 million UST transaction on Curve Finance minutes after Terraform quietly withdrew liquidity. Jane Street has denied the allegations as "baseless" and moved to dismiss the case. A 2023 court ruling that classified UST and Luna as securities bolsters the legal basis of this suit.

Author:CoinDesk

Compiled by: Deep Chao TechFlow

Deep Chao Introduction: Wall Street's top trading firm, Jane Street, is accused of using a private Telegram chat to obtain insider information before the Terra collapse, precisely exiting their position and shorting to profit $134 million. This lawsuit not only exposes the information advantage of traditional finance giants in the crypto market but also gains stronger legal footing due to a 2023 court ruling that recognized UST and Luna as securities. It holds significant reference value for investors understanding institutional behavior and market manipulation.

Jane Street Group, one of Wall Street's largest trading firms, is accused of selling $192 million worth of the TerraUSD (UST) stablecoin just before the Terra collapse in May 2022, allegedly through a private Telegram channel with Terraform Labs insiders, according to newly unsealed court filings in Manhattan federal court.

The lawsuit, brought by the administrator liquidating Terraform's bankruptcy estate, was amended last week to reduce redactions and reveal new details about how Jane Street allegedly obtained non-public information as the Terra ecosystem crumbled.

Jane Street denied the initial allegations when they were filed in February, calling them "desperate" and "baseless," and asked the court to dismiss the case.

According to the suit, Jane Street's alleged informational edge came from a private Telegram backchannel between former Terraform intern Bryce Pratt (then working at Jane Street) and his former Terraform colleagues.

The bankruptcy administrator claims this access helped Jane Street unload its UST position near its face value before the algorithmic stablecoin's implosion and then establish short positions, profiting approximately $134 million during the collapse of Terra's $40 billion ecosystem.

In one internal exchange cited in the suit, Pratt allegedly joked that colleagues should be "slightly happier" about having an "information advantage."

With that advantage, Jane Street allegedly sold its entire UST position on May 7, 2022, unloading roughly 193 million tokens. Its single largest trade was an $85 million UST sale on the decentralized exchange Curve Finance, which occurred just nine minutes after Terraform quietly withdrew $150 million in UST liquidity from the same pool.

This trade is significant because public post-mortems of Terra's collapse have long focused on a large swap on Curve that helped push the token off its $1 peg. The lawsuit now alleges that wallet belonged to Jane Street.

When a crypto analytics firm later told a Jane Street contact that the firm had "made a killing," internal communications cited in the case show traders worrying about how their wallet was identified and then discussing how to "deactivate" them.

"This lawsuit is a transparent attempt to extract money in the well-known context that losses suffered by Terra and Luna holders were the result of a multi-billion dollar fraud perpetrated by Terraform Labs management," a Jane Street spokesperson said. "As demonstrated by the motion to dismiss filed with the court last month, we will vigorously defend ourselves against these baseless, opportunistic claims."

The suit also names Jane Street co-founder Robert Granieri and trader Michael Huang. It alleges violations of federal securities laws and the Commodity Exchange Act and seeks to recover the profits to repay creditors.

A 2023 federal court ruling in a separate U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission case that found UST and Luna qualified as securities gives the new lawsuit stronger legal grounding.

The lawsuit states that on May 18, 2022, five days after UST bottomed, Jane Street offered a job to a Terraform research lead. He joined the firm two weeks later.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the core accusation against Jane Street Group in the lawsuit related to Terra's collapse?

AJane Street Group is accused of obtaining non-public insider information about Terraform Labs through a private Telegram channel with a former Terraform intern, allegedly using that information to sell off $192 million worth of UST stablecoin and establish short positions before Terra's collapse, profiting approximately $134 million.

QWho is Bryce Pratt mentioned in the article, and what role does the lawsuit allege he played?

ABryce Pratt is a former Terraform Labs intern who was working at Jane Street. The lawsuit alleges he provided Jane Street access to a private 'backdoor' Telegram channel with his former Terraform colleagues, giving the firm an information advantage.

QWhat specific transaction on Curve Finance is highlighted in the lawsuit as significant to the UST depegging?

AThe lawsuit highlights Jane Street's sale of $85 million worth of UST on the Curve Finance decentralized exchange, which occurred just nine minutes after Terraform Labs quietly removed $150 million in UST liquidity from the same pool. This transaction is alleged to have been a key event in pushing UST away from its $1 peg.

QHow did a 2023 court ruling in an SEC case impact the legal basis for this new lawsuit against Jane Street?

AA 2023 federal court ruling in a separate SEC case determined that UST and Luna were securities. This legal finding strengthened the foundation of the new lawsuit, which includes allegations of violations of federal securities laws.

QWhat action did Jane Street allegedly take regarding their trading wallets after an analytics firm noted their profits?

AAccording to internal communications cited in the lawsuit, after a crypto analytics firm informed a Jane Street contact that the firm had 'made a killing,' Jane Street traders expressed concern about how their wallet was identified and discussed how to 'deactivate' it.

Похожее

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

"World Models" has become a widely used yet confusing term in AI. To address this, a team led by Fei-Fei Li and World Labs proposed a functional taxonomy based on the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process framework. This taxonomy categorizes systems called "world models" into three distinct projections: Renderers, Simulators, and Planners. Renderers, like OpenAI's Sora and other video generation models, focus on producing photorealistic visual outputs for human perception. They prioritize visual fidelity over physical accuracy. Simulators, such as NVIDIA Omniverse, aim to compute precise future environmental states for computational tasks like engineering analysis or digital twins. Planners, like Vision-Language-Action models, take in observations and goals to output executable actions for robots or agents. The article clarifies that most current "world models," including Sora, are primarily Renderers. They generate convincing visuals but lack the core ability to simulate state transitions based on actions, a key requirement for a true world model in classic reinforcement learning definitions. This conceptual confusion has practical implications, leading to potential misalignment in technology selection, investment, and public understanding of AI capabilities. Clear categorization is crucial. It helps enterprises avoid costly mistakes (e.g., using a renderer for robot training), allows investors to accurately assess markets, and enables researchers to build comparable benchmarks. While future systems may integrate these functions, recognizing current boundaries is essential for honest assessment and progress.

marsbit56 мин. назад

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

marsbit56 мин. назад

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

**Summary: How Wealthy Chinese Circumvent $50,000 Annual Foreign Exchange Limits** Despite China's strict capital controls, including an annual $50,000 per person foreign exchange quota, an estimated $150 billion in funds still leaves the country annually via various gray and underground channels. This report outlines the evolution of China's "capital wall" and the methods used to bypass it. **The Evolving Capital Controls:** * **Foundation (1994):** The system of "current account convertibility with strict capital account controls" was established. * **Quota Set (2007):** The $50,000 individual annual forex purchase limit was formalized. * **Crackdown Begins (2015-2017):** Following market volatility, enforcement tightened. Banks were required to scrutinize transactions, and channels like using UnionPay cards for Hong Kong insurance premiums or buying overseas property were blocked. * **Digital & Legal Upgrades (2024-2026):** Enhanced algorithms now flag suspicious patterns (e.g., "smurfing"). The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) provides Chinese tax authorities with data on citizens' offshore accounts. Unlicensed cross-border brokers have been targeted. **Five Primary Methods for Moving Capital:** 1. **Underground Banking / "Hawala" (Duiqiao):** The largest-scale method. No money crosses borders. Clients pay RMB to a domestic account; an overseas associate deposits equivalent foreign currency into the client's offshore account. Risks include high fees, account freezes, and legal penalties. 2. **"Smurfing" or "Ant Moving":** Using multiple individuals' $50,000 quotas to pool funds for one offshore recipient. Increasingly detected by anti-money laundering algorithms. 3. **Trade Invoice Manipulation:** Businesses over-invoice imports or under-invoice exports via offshore shell companies, creating a pretext to transfer excess funds abroad under the guise of trade. 4. **Channel Migration:** After a crackdown on internet brokers, funds flow toward more compliant but costly channels like major banks' cross-border wealth management services or Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quotas. 5. **Structural Arrangements:** High-net-worth individuals use complex, high-cost legal structures involving offshore trusts, insurance, and investment migration programs to transfer asset ownership. **Regulatory Response: Focusing on People, Not Just Money** The current strategy extends oversight from enterprises to **individual residents**. Tools like CRS allow retroactive visibility into offshore assets. Cryptocurrencies, once seen as a potential loophole, are now actively monitored and prosecuted as an illegal channel. The underlying driver remains: with significant wealth concentrated among millions of affluent households seeking diversification amid domestic economic shifts, the incentive to move assets offshore persists despite regulatory barriers.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片