# Пов'язані статті щодо Rights

Центр новин HTX надає останні статті та поглиблений аналіз на тему "Rights", що охоплює ринкові тренди, оновлення проєктів, технологічні розробки та регуляторну політику в криптоіндустрії.

Why Are Crypto Project Acquisitions Now Excluding Tokens?

Recent acquisitions in the crypto space, such as Circle’s purchase of Interop Labs (developers of Axelar Network), have sparked controversy by focusing on acquiring teams and intellectual property while excluding the native tokens. In the Axelar case, the AXL token and network remain independent, leading to a 15% price drop and community backlash. Similar patterns emerged in other acquisitions: Kraken’s Ink acquired Vertex Protocol’s team and tech but abandoned the VRTX token, causing a 75% crash. Pump.fun acquired Padre and invalidated its token without compensation, and Coinbase integrated Vector.fun’s tech without involving the TNSR token. These cases reflect a broader “acquihire” trend common in Web2, where companies acquire talent and tech but avoid equity or token obligations. In crypto, however, this often leaves retail token holders with no rights or financial benefits, as tokens are designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny as securities—offering utility or governance instead of ownership or profit-sharing. This has led to growing tension between project teams and token holders, exemplified by Aave’s recent governance proposal to assert DAO control over IP, equity, and revenue—highlighting the misalignment between token-based incentives and traditional equity structures. The trend raises fundamental questions about the value and rights attached to tokens in decentralized ecosystems.

marsbit12/18 01:12

Why Are Crypto Project Acquisitions Now Excluding Tokens?

marsbit12/18 01:12

Axelar Team Acquired, Token Abandoned: Circle's 'Take the Team, Not the Token' Move Sparks Heated Debate in Crypto Community

Circle, the stablecoin giant, has announced the acquisition of the core team and intellectual property of Interop Labs, the initial development team behind the cross-chain protocol Axelar Network. The move aims to advance Circle’s cross-chain infrastructure strategy and improve interoperability for its core products like Arc and CCTP. However, the acquisition explicitly excludes the Axelar Network itself, its foundation, and its native token AXL, which will continue to operate under community governance. Another contributing team, Common Prefix, will take over Interop Labs' former activities. Following the news, the price of AXL dropped sharply, falling 15% to around $0.115. The “acquire-the-team-but-not-the-token” approach has sparked intense debate within the crypto community. Critics, including VCs and industry figures, argue that the move unfairly disadvantages token holders, who supported the project early on but received nothing from the acquisition. Some have called it a “rug pull” and raised ethical and legal concerns, emphasizing the misalignment between team incentives and token holder interests. Supporters counter that this reflects standard market reality where tokens sit at the bottom of the capital structure—below debt and equity—and aren’t inherently entitled to proceeds in acquisitions. They see Circle’s decision as a rational business move that follows conventional corporate finance hierarchies. The incident highlights a recurring conflict in crypto: the ambiguous legal and economic status of tokens. While often treated as “quasi-equity” during bullish phases, tokens lack formal rights in events like acquisitions or liquidations. The Axelar situation underscores the need for clearer definitions and structures around token rights and incentives.

marsbit12/17 10:05

Axelar Team Acquired, Token Abandoned: Circle's 'Take the Team, Not the Token' Move Sparks Heated Debate in Crypto Community

marsbit12/17 10:05

Circle Acquires Axelar Team but Excludes Token, How Should Token Holders Respond to Value Stripping?

Circle, the stablecoin giant, has announced the acquisition of the core team and technology behind Axelar Network's initial team, Interop Labs, to advance its cross-chain infrastructure strategy. However, the acquisition explicitly excludes the Axelar Network project itself, its foundation, and the AXL token, which will continue to operate independently under community governance. This has led to a sharp 15% drop in AXL's price. The move has sparked significant controversy, highlighting the ongoing debate over "equity vs. token" interests in the crypto industry. Critics, including VCs and industry figures, argue that the acquisition effectively abandons token holders who supported the project, calling it a "rug pull" and morally questionable. They emphasize that while the team and intellectual property were monetized, token investors were left with depreciating assets. Supporters, however, view it as a standard market practice, noting that tokens sit at the bottom of the capital structure in traditional finance, behind debt and equity. They argue that Circle’s decision reflects rational business logic, where acquirers prioritize valuable assets like talent and IP without obligation to token holders. The core issue revolves around the ambiguous legal and economic nature of tokens—often treated as "quasi-equity" during bullish phases but stripped of rights in events like acquisitions. The incident underscores the need for clearer definitions and structures for tokens to protect investors and ensure fairness in future deals.

比推12/16 15:08

Circle Acquires Axelar Team but Excludes Token, How Should Token Holders Respond to Value Stripping?

比推12/16 15:08

Behind Cryptocurrency 'Thefts and Scams': Why Does Civil Relief Frequently Encounter Obstacles?

Behind the surge in cryptocurrency "thefts and scams", why does civil relief frequently hit roadblocks? This article explores the legal challenges through two representative cases. In Case 1, a company paid 800,000 USDT to a Chinese employee of an overseas exchange for a listing service, only to have the employee disappear. Despite cross-border complexities and initial police refusal to accept the report (citing the company’s foreign status and claims that crypto "is not protected by law"), lawyers eventually secured case acceptance by invoking criminal procedure rules and citing regulatory recognition of virtual assets as property. However, formal立案 (case filing) is still pending. Case 2 involved a woman scammed into transferring over RMB 3 million to a USDT exchanger for a fake investment. While police quickly arrested the exchanger, the main scammer remained abroad. The exchanger was released due to lack of criminal intent, and a civil lawsuit against them for unjust enrichment was rejected at filing. The judge indicated that even if accepted, such cases rarely succeed. The analysis highlights key obstacles: the "criminal procedure takes precedence" principle often blocks civil suits until criminal proceedings conclude; if a criminal judgment orders restitution, further civil claims are barred; and bypassing criminal reporting to file civilly usually results in the case being referred back to police, wasting time. Ultimately, when crypto crimes are involved, civil relief is extremely difficult. The more viable path remains criminal prosecution, despite its own challenges, as civil victories are exceptionally rare in practice.

marsbit12/09 19:39

Behind Cryptocurrency 'Thefts and Scams': Why Does Civil Relief Frequently Encounter Obstacles?