第二巡回上诉法院的最新裁决

第二巡回上诉法院最近的一项裁决在Uniswap Labs案中重申，中立的，分散的软件创建者不应对第三方滥用该技术承担任何责任。

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.

根据DEFI Education Fund的说法，第二巡回上诉法院在针对UNISWAP实验室的案件中的最新裁决没有正式的先例价值，但可能对分散的财务（DEFI）开发商产生更广泛的影响。

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

该案源于原告提起的诉讼，这些诉讼是从单务分散交易所（DEX）上从流动性提供者那里购买了各种令牌的。

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.

该诉讼最初被纽约南部地区的美国地方法院驳回，声称某些风险投资者和Uniswap Labs通过在交易所上交易“骗局”，违反了美国证券法。

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.

原告断言，被告通过其投资和技术，为这些代币的创造和流动性做出了贡献，他们声称这是违反了联邦证券法的出售的。

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.

他们的论点集中在于为促进DEX交易的UNISWAP的智能合约是否可以被视为合同协议，目的是为了第12（a）（a）（a）（2）条还是《交换法》第13（a）条。

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.

这些部分分别是《 1933年证券法》和《 1934年交易法》的一部分，通常适用于证券的直接出售或征集其出售。

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，原告争辩说，这些智能合约应被视为总体用户协议，或者，替代性，UNISWAP DEX上的每个交易都可以视为单独的合同。

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.

他们认为，这种合同关系将属于第12（a）（a）（a）（a）条或第13（a）条的撤销条款，就通过UNISWAP的协议出售的任何有争议的令牌。

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.

第二巡回法院最终确认了下级法院对案件的驳回，裁定这些合同不属于《交换法》的撤销规定。

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.

法院还表示，智能合同是作为跨越的用户协议运作的，并且在代币创建者或流动性提供商与买方之间存在合同关系，而不是购买者和UNISWAP实验室之间的合同关系。

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，该裁决强调，即使每个交易都可以视为单独的合同，uniswap的技术仅作为执行交易的自动工具的运作，类似于经纪人根据客户的说明如何执行交易。

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

它比较了持有纳斯达克股票或纽约证券交易所负责在交易所购买欺诈性股票的纽约证券交易所的责任。

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.

该裁决强调说，尽管该技术可能会被滥用，但中立，分散软件的创建者不应承担第三方滥用该技术的责任。

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.

这与关于美国政府行动的影响的持续讨论相吻合，例如对龙卷风现金的制裁以及针对萨穆莱钱包开发商的刑事指控。

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

在这些情况下，当局对第三方用来进行非法活动的技术宣布了广泛的软件开发人员责任。

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.

法院的裁决是作为简易命令发布的，因此没有正式的先例价值，重点是现有证券法，以及它们如何轻易地扩展到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，美国政府在反对龙卷风现金和萨穆莱钱包的案件中的观点优先考虑该技术对基础加密货币生态系统的广泛影响。

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

对于未来的法律挑战和有关软件开发人员在分散生态系统中的责任程度的法律挑战和监管讨论可能至关重要。