OpenSea 因涉嫌銷售未註冊證券合約而在美國面臨集體訴訟

兩名 OpenSea 用戶已在美國針對不可替代代幣 (NFT) 市場 OpenSea 提起集體訴訟

Two United States OpenSea users have filed a class-action lawsuit against the non-fungible token (NFT) marketplace, alleging it sells unregistered securities contracts.

兩名美國 OpenSea 用戶對不可替代代幣（NFT）市場提起集體訴訟，指控其出售未註冊的證券合約。

Anthony Shnayderman and Itai Bronshtein claimed in a Sept. 19 suit filed in a Florida federal court that NFTs they purchased on OpenSea — including from the once high-priced Bored Ape Yacht Club collection — are worthless “due to their illegal nature.”

Anthony Shnayderman 和 Itai Bronshtein 在 9 月 19 日向佛羅裡達州聯邦法院提起的訴訟中聲稱，他們在 OpenSea 上購買的 NFT（包括曾經高價的 Bored Ape Yacht Club 系列）「由於其非法性質」毫無價值。

The pair pointed in their arguments to OpenSea’s disclosure of a Wells notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission last month, which they claimed “suggests that OpenSea is in the hot seat and may be found liable for facilitating the exchange of unregistered securities.”

兩人在爭論中指出，OpenSea 上個月披露了美國證券交易委員會發出的 Wells 通知，他們聲稱該通知「表明 OpenSea 處於困境，可能會因促進未註冊證券的交易而承擔責任」。

A Wells notice is a warning that the SEC has conducted an investigation and could bring an enforcement action against the notice’s receiver.

Wells 通知是一種警告，表明 SEC 已進行調查，並可能對該通知的接收者採取執法行動。

The suit also highlights successful SEC action against NFT projects Impact Theory and Stoner Cats 2, where the regulator said the NFTs were unregistered securities sales.

該訴訟還凸顯了 SEC 對 NFT 項目 Impact Theory 和 Stoner Cats 2 採取的成功行動，監管機構稱這些 NFT 是未經註冊的證券銷售。

Shnayderman and Bronshtein claimed the securities-defining Howey test shows the NFTs they bought on OpenSea were investment contracts under U.S. securities laws, alleging they were an investment in a common enterprise and reasonably expected profits from other’s efforts.

Shnayderman 和 Bronshtein 聲稱，證券定義的 Howey 測試顯示，他們在 OpenSea 上購買的 NFT 是美國證券法規定的投資合同，聲稱它們是對普通企業的投資，是對其他人努力的合理預期利潤。

OpenSea’s NFT listings were “deceptive and misled the Plaintiffs into purchasing worthless and unlawful unregistered securities” as OpenSea said it “moderates the NFTs on its exchange, including ‘real-world financial instruments…securities,'” the suit alleged.

訴訟稱，OpenSea 的 NFT 上市“具有欺騙性，誤導原告購買毫無價值且非法的未註冊證券”，OpenSea 表示“其交易所的 NFT 受到監管，包括‘現實世界的金融工具……證券’”。

Highlighted excerpt of the lawsuit’s arguments claiming OpenSea was responsible for removing securities from its platform. Source: PACER

訴訟主張 OpenSea 負責從其平台上刪除證券的論點摘錄。資料來源：PACER

Shnayderman and Bronshtein claimed OpenSea breached a user warranty that said it “would moderate the OpenSea exchange for unregistered securities.”

Shnayderman 和 Bronshtein 聲稱 OpenSea 違反了用戶保證，該保證稱「將調節 OpenSea 交易未註冊的證券」。

They also alleged it unjustly enriched itself by charging fees and accepting funds “that it knew, or should have known, were derived from the sale of unregistered securities.”

他們還聲稱，該公司透過收取費用和接受「它知道或應該知道來自出售未註冊證券的資金」來不公正地致富。

In an emailed statement, Shnayderman and Bronshtein’s counsel, The Moskowitz Law Firm managing partner Adam Moskowitz, told Cointelegraph, “With today’s ever-changing regulation, there should be a process to sell NFTs in a well-regulated environment.”

在一份電子郵件聲明中，Snayderman 和 Bronshtein 的律師、Moskowitz 律師事務所管理合夥人 Adam Moskowitz 告訴 Cointelegraph，“隨著當今監管不斷變化，應該有一個在監管良好的環境中銷售 NFT 的流程。”

“We look forward to working with OpenSea, to structure the best avenue and future process, for both consumers and the crypto industry,” Moskowitz added.

Moskowitz 補充道：“我們期待與 OpenSea 合作，為消費者和加密貨幣行業建立最佳途徑和未來流程。”

OpenSea did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

OpenSea 沒有立即回應置評請求。