第二巡迴上訴法院的最新裁決

第二巡迴上訴法院最近的一項裁決在Uniswap Labs案中重申，中立的，分散的軟件創建者不應對第三方濫用該技術承擔任何責任。

A recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a case against Uniswap Labs has no formal precedential value but may carry broader implications for decentralized finance (DeFi) developers, according to the DeFi Education Fund.

根據DEFI Education Fund的說法，第二巡迴上訴法院在針對UNISWAP實驗室的案件中的最新裁決沒有正式的先例價值，但可能對分散的財務（DEFI）開發商產生更廣泛的影響。

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs who purchased various tokens from liquidity providers on the Uniswap decentralized exchange (DEX).

該案源於原告提起的訴訟，這些訴訟是從單務分散交易所（DEX）上從流動性提供者那裡購買了各種令牌的。

The suit, which was initially dismissed by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleged that certain venture capital investors and Uniswap Labs had committed violations of US securities laws by enabling the trading of “scam tokens” on the exchange.

該訴訟最初被紐約南部地區的美國地方法院駁回，聲稱某些風險投資者和Uniswap Labs通過在交易所上交易“騙局”，違反了美國證券法。

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants, through their investments and technology, had contributed to the creation and liquidity of these tokens, which they claimed were sold in violation of federal securities laws.

原告斷言，被告通過其投資和技術，為這些代幣的創造和流動性做出了貢獻，他們聲稱這是違反了聯邦證券法的出售的。

Their argument focused on whether Uniswap’s smart contracts, which are used to facilitate trades on the DEX, could be deemed contractual agreements for the purposes of Section 12(a)(2) or Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

他們的論點集中在於為促進DEX交易的UNISWAP的智能合約是否可以被視為合同協議，目的是為了第12（a）（a）（a）（2）條還是《交換法》第13（a）條。

These sections, which are part of the 1933 Securities Act and the 1934 Exchange Act respectively, typically apply to the direct sale of securities or the solicitation of their sale.

這些部分分別是《 1933年證券法》和《 1934年交易法》的一部分，通常適用於證券的直接出售或徵集其出售。

However, the plaintiffs contended that these smart contracts should be viewed as overarching user agreements or, in the alternative, that each trade on Uniswap’s DEX could be considered a separate contract.

但是，原告爭辯說，這些智能合約應被視為總體用戶協議，或者，替代性，UNISWAP DEX上的每個交易都可以視為單獨的合同。

In their view, this contractual relationship would then fall under the rescission provisions of Section 12(a)(2) or Section 13(a) with respect to any disputed token sold via Uniswap’s protocol.

他們認為，這種合同關係將屬於第12（a）（a）（a）（a）條或第13（a）條的撤銷條款，就通過UNISWAP的協議出售的任何有爭議的令牌。

The Second Circuit ultimately affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, ruling that these contracts do not fall under the Exchange Act’s rescission provisions.

第二巡迴法院最終確認了下級法院對案件的駁回，裁定這些合同不屬於《交換法》的撤銷規定。

The court also stated that the smart contracts on Uniswap operate as overarching user agreements and that the contractual relationship exists between the token creator or liquidity provider and the purchaser, not between the purchaser and Uniswap Labs.

法院還表示，智能合同是作為跨越的用戶協議運作的，並且在代幣創建者或流動性提供商與買方之間存在合同關係，而不是購買者和UNISWAP實驗室之間的合同關係。

Furthermore, the ruling emphasized that even if each trade could be considered a separate contract, Uniswap’s technology functions merely as an automated tool for executing trades, similar to how a brokerage executes trades in accordance with a client’s instructions.

此外，該裁決強調，即使每個交易都可以視為單獨的合同，uniswap的技術僅作為執行交易的自動工具的運作，類似於經紀人根據客戶的說明如何執行交易。

It compared holding the DeFi platform liable to holding Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange responsible for fraudulent stock purchases on their exchanges.

它比較了持有納斯達克股票或紐約證券交易所負責在交易所購買欺詐性股票的紐約證券交易所的責任。

The ruling underscores that while the technology can be misused, the creators of neutral, decentralized software should not be held liable for third-party misuse of that technology.

該裁決強調說，儘管該技術可能會被濫用，但中立，分散軟件的創建者不應承擔第三方濫用該技術的責任。

This aligns with ongoing discussions regarding the implications of US government actions, such as the sanctions on Tornado Cash and the criminal charges against Samourai Wallet developers.

這與關於美國政府行動的影響的持續討論相吻合，例如對龍捲風現金的製裁以及針對薩穆萊錢包開發商的刑事指控。

In these cases, authorities have asserted broad software developer liability for technology used by third parties to conduct illegal activities.

在這些情況下，當局對第三方用來進行非法活動的技術宣布了廣泛的軟件開發人員責任。

The court’s ruling, issued as a Summary Order and therefore carrying no formal precedential value, focused on existing securities laws and how readily they extend to DeFi infrastructure.

法院的裁決是作為簡易命令發布的，因此沒有正式的先例價值，重點是現有證券法，以及它們如何輕易地擴展到Defi Infrastructure。

In contrast, the US government’s perspective in the cases against Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet prioritized the broader effects of the technology on the underlying cryptocurrency ecosystem.

相比之下，美國政府在反對龍捲風現金和薩穆萊錢包的案件中的觀點優先考慮該技術對基礎加密貨幣生態系統的廣泛影響。

This perspective will likely be crucial for future legal challenges and regulatory discussions concerning the extent of software developers’ liability in decentralized ecosystems.

對於未來的法律挑戰和有關軟件開發人員在分散生態系統中的責任程度的法律挑戰和監管討論可能至關重要。