法院駁回 Lido DAO 的豁免權主張，使 DAO 面臨現有法律框架

美國加州北區地方法院的一名法官駁回了 Lido DAO 聲稱其不是法人實體的企圖，並且

A judge for the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California has dismissed Lido DAO’s attempt to claim it is not a legal entity and, therefore, immune to lawsuits. The California court ruled that the decentralized autonomous organization was a general partnership, meaning it could be sued.  

美國加州北區地方法院的一名法官駁回了 Lido DAO 聲稱自己不是法人實體，因此不受訴訟的指控。加州法院裁定，這個去中心化自治組織是普通合夥企業，這意味著它可能會被起訴。

Andrew Samuels, a former lawmaker for Lido DAO’s (LDO) governance token, brought the case forward. Last December, Samuels filed a lawsuit alleging that the falling value of the token had caused massive financial losses. Lido DAO accused him of violating federal securities laws by not registering the LDO token as a security.  

Lido DAO (LDO) 治理代幣的前立法者 Andrew Samuels 提出了此案。去年 12 月，Samuels 提起訴訟，指控代幣價值下跌造成了巨大的財務損失。 Lido DAO 指控他未將 LDO 代幣註冊為證券，違反了聯邦證券法。

The Court has rejected Lido DAO’s immunity claims, stating that decentralized governance structures don’t mean entities are exempt from regulatory compliance. The ruling also follows increasing regulatory scrutiny of decentralized finance (DeFi) organizations.  

法院駁回了 Lido DAO 的豁免權主張，指出去中心化治理結構並不意味著實體可以免受監管合規性的約束。這項裁決也伴隨著對去中心化金融（DeFi）組織日益嚴格的監管審查。

Samuels’ legal team also pointed to centralized control within Lido DAO, saying that founders and early investors control 64 percent of LDO tokens. They argued that such a concentration of ownership entailed unfair influence over governance decisions.  

Samuels 的法律團隊也指出 Lido DAO 內部的集中控制，並表示創辦人和早期投資者控制著 64% 的 LDO 代幣。他們認為，所有權的這種集中會對治理決策產生不公平的影響。

The lawsuit also alleges that Lido DAO deliberately structured itself to shield it from legal scrutiny while allowing institutional investors, including Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz’s a16z, and Dragonfly Digital Management, to make money selling unregistered securities. The Court concluded that such investors may well have taken an active part in the governance and operations of Lido DAO by being liable alongside the DAO.  

該訴訟還稱，Lido DAO 故意進行自我調整，以使其免受法律審查，同時允許包括 Paradigm、Andreessen Horowitz 的 a16z 和 Dragonfly Digital Management 在內的機構投資者透過出售未註冊證券賺錢。法院的結論是，此類投資者很可能積極參與 Lido DAO 的治理和運營，並與 DAO 一起承擔責任。

The Court also noted that Lido DAO ran promotional activities, including social media campaigns amplifying LDO purchases and facilitating token listings on decentralized exchanges. However, the Court ruled that Samuels’ purchase of his tokens on secondary markets was not enough to break the Lido DAO’s persuading, which helped cost him, resulting in him receiving a large share of the tokens exchanged in the crime.  

法院還指出，Lido DAO 開展了促銷活動，包括社交媒體活動，以擴大 LDO 購買量並促進去中心化交易所上代幣上市。然而，法院裁定 Samuels 在二級市場上購買其代幣不足以打破 Lido DAO 的說服，這讓他付出了代價，導致他獲得了犯罪中交換的代幣的很大一部分。

According to DefiLlama, Lido DAO, one of the most significant liquid staking protocols in the DeFi ecosystem, manages over $30B in assets. It is now under ramped-up scrutiny. This ruling puts DAOs in the face of their existing legal frameworks and will have broader implications for decentralized organizations.

據 DefiLlama 稱，Lido DAO 是 DeFi 生態系統中最重要的流動性質押協議之一，管理超過 30B 美元的資產。現在它正受到更嚴格的審查。這項裁決使 DAO 面臨現有的法律框架，並將對去中心化組織產生更廣泛的影響。