法院驳回 Lido DAO 的豁免权主张，使 DAO 面临现有法律框架

美国加利福尼亚州北区地方法院的一名法官驳回了 Lido DAO 声称其不是法人实体的企图，并且

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.  

美国加利福尼亚州北区地方法院的一名法官驳回了 Lido DAO 声称自己不是法人实体，因此不受诉讼的指控。加州法院裁定，这个去中心化自治组织是普通合伙企业，这意味着它可能会被起诉。

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) 治理代币的前立法者 Andrew Samuels 提出了此案。去年 12 月，Samuels 提起诉讼，指控代币价值下跌造成了巨大的财务损失。 Lido DAO 指控他未将 LDO 代币注册为证券，违反了联邦证券法。

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.  

法院驳回了 Lido DAO 的豁免权主张，指出去中心化治理结构并不意味着实体可以免受监管合规性的约束。这项裁决还伴随着对去中心化金融（DeFi）组织日益严格的监管审查。

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 的法律团队还指出 Lido DAO 内部的集中控制，称创始人和早期投资者控制着 64% 的 LDO 代币。他们认为，所有权的这种集中会对治理决策产生不公平的影响。

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.  

该诉讼还称，Lido DAO 故意进行自我调整，以使其免受法律审查，同时允许包括 Paradigm、Andreessen Horowitz 的 a16z 和 Dragonfly Digital Management 在内的机构投资者通过出售未注册证券赚钱。法院的结论是，此类投资者很可能积极参与 Lido DAO 的治理和运营，与 DAO 一起承担责任。

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.  

法院还指出，Lido DAO 开展了促销活动，包括社交媒体活动，以扩大 LDO 购买量并促进去中心化交易所上代币上市。然而，法院裁定 Samuels 在二级市场上购买其代币不足以打破 Lido DAO 的说服，这让他付出了代价，导致他获得了犯罪中交换的代币的很大一部分。

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.

据 DefiLlama 称，Lido DAO 是 DeFi 生态系统中最重要的流动性质押协议之一，管理着超过 30B 美元的资产。现在它正受到更严格的审查。这一裁决使 DAO 面临其现有的法律框架，并将对去中心化组织产生更广泛的影响。