英國上訴法院駁回了BSV索賠有限公司針對Binance和其他交流的訴訟

英國上訴法院駁回了BSV索賠有限公司的備受矚目的挑戰，該挑戰率最高為90億英鎊，造成的損害賠償金和2019年對比特幣Satoshi Vision（BSV）的其他交流。

The UK Court of Appeals has dismissed a high-profile claim by BSV Claims Ltd, which was seeking up to £9 billion in damages from Binance and other exchanges over the 2019 delisting of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).

英國上訴法院駁回了BSV索賠有限公司的備受矚目的索賠，該索賠有限公司在2019年將比特幣Satoshi Vision（BSV）脫落時，尋求了90億英鎊的損害賠償和其他交流。

The appeals court upheld a lower tribunal’s view that the claim, which was brought on behalf of around 243,000 BSV holders, was largely out of scope.

上訴法院維持了下級法庭的觀點，即代表大約243,000 BSV持有人提出的索賠在很大程度上超出了範圍。

Specifically, the court ruled that those who were aware of the delistings had access to other tradeable cryptocurrencies and should have mitigated their losses by selling their BSV holdings.

具體而言，法院裁定，那些意識到這種偏見的人可以使用其他可交易的加密貨幣，並且應該通過出售其BSV持股來減輕損失。

“It seems to me incredible that Parliament can have intended that the claimants can, in effect, seek an award of damages for an amount that is several hundred times more than the value of the assets that the defendants are said to have damaged,” stated Lord Justice Males in his judgment.

“在我看來，議會可以打算，索賠人實際上可以尋求賠償賠償金，比據說被告損害的資產的價值高了幾百倍，”男性法官在他的判決中說。

The court also found that BSV was not unique and that comparable investments were readily available.

法院還發現，BSV並非唯一，並且很容易獲得可比的投資。

The judgment further criticized the Tribunal for failing to formalize its decision in a clear order.

該判決進一步批評法庭未能按照明確的秩序正式決定其決定。

“It would surely have assisted matters if the Tribunal had seen fit to put its decision into an express and formal order,” the court stated.

法院說：“如果法庭認為適合將其決定納入明確的正式命令，那肯定會協助事項。”

However, the appeals court decisively ruled that no trial was needed to determine whether sub-class B members had viable alternatives, reaffirming the “market mitigation rule” as controlling in this instance.

但是，上訴法院果斷地裁定，不需要任何審判來確定子級B成員是否有可行的替代方案，在這種情況下重申“市場緩解規則”。

Speculative damages dismissed

駁回了投機損失

BSV Claims had also sought to argue that the damages should include the “loss of a chance” that BSV might have evolved into a top-tier crypto, much like Bitcoin (BTC).

BSV聲稱還試圖爭辯說，損害賠償應包括BSV可能已經演變成頂級加密貨幣的“失去機會”，就像比特幣（BTC）一樣。

However, the appeals court dismissed this contention as well.

但是，上訴法院也駁回了這一論點。

It ruled that such a claim failed to meet the legal thresholds and amounted to ungrounded market speculation.

它裁定，這種說法未能達到法律閾值，並等於沒有基礎的市場投機。

The representative’s damages theory, which was based on the assumption that BSV could have achieved a similar meteoric rise to Bitcoin, was found to lack both legal precedent and a realistic foundation.

該代表的損害賠償理論基於以下假設：BSV本可以實現與比特幣類似的迅速升高的假設，但被發現缺乏法律先例和現實的基礎。

Claimants were unable to demonstrate a serious possibility of BSV reaching the apex of the crypto market, rendering the damages claim inadmissible.

索賠人無法證明BSV到達加密貨幣市場的先端的可能性很大，從而使損害賠償索賠不可接受。

The claim relied on a 352x increase from BSV’s pre-delisting value, a leap that the appeals court deemed implausible for the purpose of legal redress.

該索賠依賴於BSV的預先列出的價值增加了​​352倍，這一上訴法院認為是為了進行法律補救而被認為令人難以置信的飛躍。

An official order reflecting the May 21 appellate judgment will be finalized between the parties in due course.

反映5月21日上訴判決的正式命令將在當事方之間在適當的時候完成。

The lawsuit remains ongoing for other investor subgroups, particularly those who sold BSV shortly after the delisting or lost access entirely on exchanges like Kraken and Binance.

對於其他投資者亞組，尤其是那些在Kraken and Binance等交易所中出售BSV的人，尤其是那些出售BSV的訴訟。