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?
LULZ / Finance & Business
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?
What jurisdictions? How long will authorities track the case.
Can my exchange get hacked and lose 40% of the money? yeah I guess it can. Lmao
Fucking scam
Just right click and saved your court order. Now what Monty?
based
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
>based
Thanks anon. LCX is a scam though.
>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.
not the smartest hackers by a long shot but its the procedure and precedent this case creates that is important
Whats the precedent
that restraining orders issued through nft form to a crypto address is classed as acceptable delivery, and that LCXs legal team is extremely based
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
Getting real sick of your shit.
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.
>Rare times you see NFTs get an actual usecase
What is the actual use case of having it as an NFT
Post link to the judge ordering it.
>LCX AG vs. John Doe Nos. 1-25
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?
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
To me it seems it becomes effective as soon as all 25 johns click the hyperlink in the nft
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
The USDC was frozen by USDC themselves before any of the trial procedings as per LCX themselves in their blog post.
I cant wait for the telegram leaks to drop.
So you are just ignoring all the posts telling you why this is meaningless huh?
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.
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
Yes. Anytime LCX get hacked they will make an NFT saying "thats illegal" and send it to the hacker.
Lmao I thought you were joking. LCX fags are delusional if they think this means anything.
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
What? So this is just lawyers thinking they are cool? Stupid.
>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
Bullish for pnk
The NFT is meaningless from a legal point of view.
What's the point of this being an NFT?
see
>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
market doesnt seem to think its insignificant news. could all be speculative hype but i guess we'll see
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
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
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?
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
What is the actual use case of having it as an NFT
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
It will be used because it's useful or because you say so? What are the benefits of doing this?
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.
>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.
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
Do you think this ever would have been uncovered if not for OP making this thread? I honestly don't.
What I am way more interested in is if OP is ever going to make another thread after this one.
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.
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.
All words are made up.
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.
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.
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
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.
>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
the law is a scam
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.
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.
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.
>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.
the link contains the summons and meets all of these criteria
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.
>other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a
literally me
Saved.
(C) state the name and address of the plaintiff's attorney or—if unrepresented—of the plaintiff;
>(B) be directed to the defendant;
I meant to copy and paste B but have fat hands.
Bullish like a cat!
Kek I miss those days