free page hit counter



The founder of Bitcoin.com Roger Ver and other high profile cryptocurrencies including Cracking Director Jesse Powell, have won a motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought against them for alleged market manipulation.

The amended complaint was filed in March 2020 by crypto firm United American Corp against Ver, Powell, Bitmain Technologies and its CEO Jihan Wu, along with Bitcoin Cash developers Shammah Chancellor and Jason Cox.

The case has now been dismissed for lack of evidence. The emphatic decision came after the court unabated the initial complaint in February 2020.

UAC’s first complaint in December 2018 to blamed Ver, Wu and Bitmain conspired to manipulate the outcome of a Bitcoin Cash network upgrade scheduled for November 15, 2018, when Bitcoin SV pulled out of Bitcoin Cash.

The original complaint was dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to file a claim, with the court advising UAC, even before changing its claim, that this would be the last opportunity to defend its case.

The amended lawsuit claimed the parties hired “mercenaries” mining power increase Bitcoin.com’s hashing power of more than 4,000% and the watering down of votes submitted by other entities participating in the network. It claimed they had made plans to temporarily take over and effectively centralize the market, in violation of accepted standards and protocols.

The United States Magistrate Judge of the Southern District of Florida, Chris McAliley, granted the defendant’s request to dismiss the amended complaint, noting that he could show no evidence of a conspiracy:

“The court first examines whether the complaint meets the plea requirements of the first element, conspiracy. It does not. As noted, the Complaint must state facts – not conclusions – that plausibly suggest a conspiracy. “

Judge McAliley alleged that the plaintiff relied on circumstantial evidence and did not expressly claim that an agreement between the defendants was made to manipulate the Bitcoin Cash market in violation of Sherman’s antitrust law.

“After a careful assessment of the complaint, the court concludes that there are no facts that give a reasonable expectation that discovery will provide evidence of an illegal agreement.”