A Lido holder initiated a class action lawsuit against the governing body for liquid staking protocol Lido, according to a complaint filed in a San Francisco United States District Court on Dec. 17. The lawsuit alleges that the Lido token is an unregistered security and that Lido decentralized autonomous organization (Lido DAO) is liable for plaintiffs’ losses from the token’s price decline.
Complaint filed against Lido DAO on Dec. 17. Source: CourtListener.
Lido is a liquid staking protocol that allows users to delegate their Ether (ETH) to a network of validators and earn staking rewards, while also holding a derivative token called “stETH” that can be used in other applications. It is governed by holders of Lido (LDO), which collectively form Lido DAO.
The lawsuit was filed by Andrew Samuels, who resides in Solano County, California, the document states. The defendants are Lido DAO, as well as venture capital firms Paradigm, AH Capital Management, Dragonfly Digital Management, and investment management company Robert Ventures. The document alleges that 64% of Lido tokens “are dedicated to the founders and early investors like [these defendants],” and therefore, “ordinary investors like Plaintiffs are unable to exert any meaningful influence on governance issues.”
According to the filing, Lido DAO began as a “general partnership” made up of institutional investors. But later, it decided to have “a potential ‘exit’ opportunity.” To facilitate this opportunity, it decided to sell Lido tokens to the public by convincing centralized exchanges to make them available on their platforms. Once the tokens were listed, plaintiff Andrew Samuels and “thousands of other investors” purchased them. The price then fell, causing losses for these investors, the document alleges. It claims that these firms are liable for the losses as a result.
Quoting United States Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler, the document claimed that Lido is a security because there allegedly is “a group in the middle [between the tokens and investors] and the public is anticipating profits based on that group.”
Cointelegraph contacted Lido DAO representatives but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
According to data from blockchain analytics platform DeFi Llama, Lido has the largest total value locked of any liquid staking derivative, with more than $19 billion worth of cryptocurrency locked within its contracts. The Lido governance token reached an all-time high during the last bull market, when it sold for $6.41 per coin on August 20, 2021. It currently sits at $2.08 per coin.
“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Image: Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.
Image: Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
We have been here before
Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
Image: The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.
Federal Reserve vice chair for supervision, Michelle Bowman, says the central bank should roll back its restrictions that ban staff from buying crypto.
Paul Atkins spoke at Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on the SEC’s Project Crypto, its relationship with the Trump administration, and its plans on handling digital asset regulations.