Temporary restraining order issued by NFT

First time in crypto history. 60% of stolen funds from LCX hack have been tracked and frozen. being fully regulated pays off hey retards. can your exchange do this?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What jurisdictions? How long will authorities track the case.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can my exchange get hacked and lose 40% of the money? yeah I guess it can. Lmao
    Fucking scam

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just right click and saved your court order. Now what Monty?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      based

      What jurisdictions? How long will authorities track the case.

      The order is LCX AG vs. John Doe Nos. 1-25 if you want to read it. Not good with legalese but states that its any jurisdiction both inside or outside of the US. No idea how long theyll track for but the hack happened in Jan this year

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >based
        Thanks anon. LCX is a scam though.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The alleged thief or group of criminals sent 500 ETH to a fully verified user account at Coinbase. And recently swapped ETH to USDC on decentralized exchanges. U.S. Dollar Coin (USDC) is issued by Circle (Circle Financial Services) while Centre Consortium is operating the technology and is able to blacklist wallets, ultimately freezing USDC tokens in particular wallets.
    So LCX made an NFT reporting the issue someone else solved. Should have used Monero.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not the smartest hackers by a long shot but its the procedure and precedent this case creates that is important

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Whats the precedent

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          that restraining orders issued through nft form to a crypto address is classed as acceptable delivery, and that LCXs legal team is extremely based

          • 3 weeks ago
            sega

            They took a normal restraining order and made it an NFT so they could make a post about it with the sole purpose of wasting your and thereby our time with nonsense

            • 3 weeks ago
              Nintendo

              Getting real sick of your shit.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It was the judge that ordered this. Rare times you see NFTs get an actual usecase. You're likely to see nfts used in law much more in future and this case sets the precedent for judges to allow that method of distribution. im not a law student and even i see how important this is.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Sonic

                >Rare times you see NFTs get an actual usecase
                What is the actual use case of having it as an NFT

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Post link to the judge ordering it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >LCX AG vs. John Doe Nos. 1-25

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay I am reading over this and it seems that LCX did do something new here but that something new is meaningless. What are the supposed advantages of sending an NFT to the address?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                from what i can understand the TRO does not become effective until the order has been delivered to the person its against. now that delivery via nft constitutes as sufficient service of the TRO it becomes effective immediately, speeding up the process by a great deal. Any legal eagles please correct me if im wrong

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                To me it seems it becomes effective as soon as all 25 johns click the hyperlink in the nft

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i was wondering that but it seems they already have the USDC frozen upon the order being distributed. maybe them clicking it is important for other reasons down the line

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The USDC was frozen by USDC themselves before any of the trial procedings as per LCX themselves in their blog post.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I cant wait for the telegram leaks to drop.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                So you are just ignoring all the posts telling you why this is meaningless huh?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This thread is meaningless, there is a reason servers need to confirm identity of recipient. If a judge is claiming legal consequence for a jpeg being sent to a crypto address then i will enjoy the constitutional lawsuits that pop up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the fact is it has been done. the precedent has been set in a case lead by LCX and their legal team. whether you knobs call it meaningless or not has no bearing on the fact it has been set, and this case will be referred to for years possibly decades down the line. it is possibly a very historic case, its just too early for midwits like you to understand why

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The USDC was frozen by USDC themselves before any of the trial procedings as per LCX themselves in their blog post.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Anytime LCX get hacked they will make an NFT saying "thats illegal" and send it to the hacker.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Lmao I thought you were joking. LCX fags are delusional if they think this means anything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            i think it means a lot to oldheads with money that theres a regulated exchange out there that acts with legal merit. actually putting the regulation to work

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              that restraining orders issued through nft form to a crypto address is classed as acceptable delivery, and that LCXs legal team is extremely based

              What? So this is just lawyers thinking they are cool? Stupid.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The alleged thief or group of criminals sent 500 ETH to a fully verified user account at Coinbase
      Hahahaha, criminals are fucking retarded. Hope they enjoy jail

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bullish for pnk

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The NFT is meaningless from a legal point of view.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the point of this being an NFT?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Sonic

      see

      They took a normal restraining order and made it an NFT so they could make a post about it with the sole purpose of wasting your and thereby our time with nonsense

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >A TRO is an emergency court order that orders a party not to take some particular action until a hearing can be held. A TRO lasts for 14 days or until your temporary orders hearing, whichever is sooner.
    lmao

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      market doesnt seem to think its insignificant news. could all be speculative hype but i guess we'll see

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To me it looks like they just applied for the easiest thing to get and the judge said yes because it is only valid for two weeks. LCX - the future of immortalising legal notices only valid for two weeks on the blockchain.
    >market doesnt seem to think its insignificant news.
    zoom out

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i think ur missing the point its not this particular situation that is the important part its the fact it acts as a precedent for every other case in future. its big for case law

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They served someone an NTF that links to a url that all 25 unnamed defendands need to click for it to become legally valid between the time the TWO was published and when it expires 14 days later. What legal precedent do you think this sets?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It was the judge that ordered this. Rare times you see NFTs get an actual usecase. You're likely to see nfts used in law much more in future and this case sets the precedent for judges to allow that method of distribution. im not a law student and even i see how important this is.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can you reply to the question?
            >What legal precedent do you think this sets?

            They served someone an NTF that links to a url that all 25 unnamed defendands need to click for it to become legally valid between the time the TWO was published and when it expires 14 days later. What legal precedent do you think this sets?


            >What is the actual use case of having it as an NFT

            >Rare times you see NFTs get an actual usecase


            What is the actual use case of having it as an NFT

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the precedent is service of legal documents via nfts. the use case is it is now a legitimate means of distributing legal documents and notices. this method of service can/will now be used by courts because of its use in this case

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It will be used because it's useful or because you say so? What are the benefits of doing this?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                its beneficial to the courts as they can airdrop a legal document into your wallet, and any exchange which interacts with the funds in your wallet after the notice has been airdropped can be held liable. Basically exchanges will now have to look for nfts like this in any wallet they interact with because in the case they allow a criminal to move their tokens they could be charged. this is the law entering crypto.

                The extent to which this sets precedent to could be wallets which are connected to a KYCd exchange and have not had tax paid on them for example could be frozen/prevented from using exchanges.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >exchanges will now have to look for nfts like this in any wallet they interact with
                What is wrong with current chain analysis blacklisting? There is no way of automating what you are suggesting.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                defendands need to click for it to become legally valid
                I'm going to airdrop my dick into your wallet and brag to my friends about fucking a gay man

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think this ever would have been uncovered if not for OP making this thread? I honestly don't.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What I am way more interested in is if OP is ever going to make another thread after this one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am pretty sure I have unironically shaved millions off the marketcap of LCX. I saw people talking about the 10c redemption guarantee on their platform and I was the first person who ever noticed that they changed their whitepaper to remove that. I'm trans btw not sure if that matters.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It does since that’s a made up word
                You’re a man. Trans does not make you some new thing
                You’re a mentally ill man.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All words are made up.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This only becomes true if 25 unnamed people choose to admit to the crime and click the link in the NFT in the next two weeks.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This isn't anything new.
                >Commercial Division Rules 10 and 11 were amended effective January 2018 to require counsel for any party in Division cases to serve and file, and to submit at the preliminary conference and each subsequent compliance conference, a Certification (a court system form) stating that counsel has discussed with the party the availability of ADR mechanisms provided by the Division and/or private providers and indicating whether the party is at present willing to pursue mediation at some point during the litigation. The preliminary conference order shall contain, as appropriate, provisions for means of early disposition of the case, such as ADR, including, in all cases in which the parties’ Certifications indicate their willingness to mediate, a specific deadline for the identification of a mediator.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They served someone an NTF that links to a url that all 25 unnamed defendands need to click for it to become legally valid between the time the TWO was published and when it expires 14 days later.

    LOLOLOLOLOL
    O
    L
    O
    L
    O
    L

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only reason LCX did this in New York is because that is where Circle, the company behind USDC issued the notice to blacklist the USDC. Monty then paid for court time in the same court so that he could get published.

      Can you reply to the question?
      >What legal precedent do you think this sets? [...]
      >What is the actual use case of having it as an NFT [...]

      >https://www.lcx.com/lcx-hack-update/
      LCXs lawyers only were in contact with the Irish authorities since CoinBase relocated their British headquarters to Ireland after Brexit. They had no dealings with New York besides issuing this worthless notice. They chose New York to make it seem like they were involved in Circle blacklisting the USDC

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the law is a scam

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Has no legal effect at all since it doesn't comport with any of the notice requirements in US civil procedure. Sorry crypto bros.

    NFTs still useless.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can you explain a bit more please> I am trying to laugh at this desperate bagholder but as a Europoor I am not familiar with US law.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Service of process is an essential step in commencing a civil lawsuit. In fact, service of process is so essential in a lawsuit that, if it is not performed properly, a lawsuit cannot proceed. Service of process is critical because it establishes that the court hearing the lawsuit has jurisdiction over the defendant. (Jurisdiction, as described in an earlier chapter, is a court’s ability to hear a controversy involving two or more parties. A court has jurisdiction because these parties have some connection to the court, whether it is because they are citizens of the state where the court sits or because the state in which the courts sits is the site of the plaintiff's injury.) Service of process is also important because it notifies the defendant that the plaintiff is bringing a lawsuit and that the courts will hear the impending lawsuit. Therefore, it is important to understand service of process and its place in a lawsuit. .,

        “Due process requires proper service of process for a court to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of the parties.”
        Service of process is the method by which documents are delivered to other parties in the lawsuit as well as to the court. It occurs at the commencement of a lawsuit, when the plaintiff, or the party bringing the lawsuit, serves the complaint and summons on the defendant.

        Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with service of process and is composed of several subsections that identify the different issues that may arise relevant to the service.

        If service does not meet Rule 4 of Civil Procedure requirements as well as any applicable local rules, it has no efffect and the court has no jurisdiction over them.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
          (a) Contents; Amendments.

          (1) Contents. A summons must:

          (A) name the court and the parties;

          (B) be directed to the defendant;

          (C) state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or—if unrepresented—of the plaintiff;

          (D) state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend;

          (E) notify the defendant that a failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint;

          (F) be signed by the clerk; and

          (G) bear the court's seal.

          I don't see this on that NFT for starters so its completely ineffective vis a vi service.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the link contains the summons and meets all of these criteria

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              A defendant in the US can only be served the following ways:

              (e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a judicial district of the United States by:

              (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or

              (2) doing any of the following:

              (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally;

              (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual's dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or

              (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.

              They can argue it was delivered personally by this method but have a LONG way to go in terms of foundation to prove it was every received when they don't even know the identity of John Doe.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a
                literally me

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
          (a) Contents; Amendments.

          (1) Contents. A summons must:

          (A) name the court and the parties;

          (B) be directed to the defendant;

          (C) state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or—if unrepresented—of the plaintiff;

          (D) state the time within which the defendant must appear and defend;

          (E) notify the defendant that a failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint;

          (F) be signed by the clerk; and

          (G) bear the court's seal.

          I don't see this on that NFT for starters so its completely ineffective vis a vi service.

          Saved.

          the link contains the summons and meets all of these criteria

          (C) state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or—if unrepresented—of the plaintiff;

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >(B) be directed to the defendant;
            I meant to copy and paste B but have fat hands.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bullish like a cat!
    Kek I miss those days

Your email address will not be published.