英国上诉法院驳回了BSV索赔有限公司针对Binance和其他交流的诉讼

英国上诉法院驳回了BSV索赔有限公司的备受瞩目的挑战，该挑战率最高为90亿英镑，造成的损害赔偿金和2019年对比特币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).

英国上诉法院驳回了BSV索赔有限公司的备受瞩目的索赔，该索赔有限公司在2019年将比特币Satoshi Vision（BSV）脱落时，寻求了90亿英镑的损害赔偿和其他交流。

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.

上诉法院维持了下级法庭的观点，即代表大约243,000 BSV持有人提出的索赔在很大程度上超出了范围。

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.

具体而言，法院裁定，那些意识到这种偏见的人可以使用其他可交易的加密货币，并且应该通过出售其BSV持股来减轻损失。

“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.

“在我看来，议会可以打算，索赔人实际上可以寻求赔偿赔偿金，比据说被告损害的资产的价值高了几百倍，”男性法官在他的判决中说。

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

法院还发现，BSV并非唯一，并且很容易获得可比的投资。

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

该判决进一步批评法庭未能按照明确的秩序正式决定其决定。

“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.

法院说：“如果法庭认为适合将其决定纳入明确的正式命令，那肯定会协助事项。”

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，上诉法院果断地裁定，不需要任何审判来确定子级B成员是否有可行的替代方案，在这种情况下重申“市场缓解规则”。

Speculative damages dismissed

驳回了投机损失

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声称还试图争辩说，损害赔偿应包括BSV可能已经演变成顶级加密货币的“失去机会”，就像比特币（BTC）一样。

However, the appeals court dismissed this contention as well.

但是，上诉法院也驳回了这一论点。

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

它裁定，这种说法未能达到法律阈值，并等于没有基础的市场投机。

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.

该代表的损害赔偿理论基于以下假设：BSV本可以实现与比特币类似的迅速升高的假设，但被发现缺乏法律先例和现实的基础。

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

索赔人无法证明BSV到达加密货币市场的先端的可能性很大，从而使损害赔偿索赔不可接受。

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.

该索赔依赖于BSV的预先列出的价值增加了​​352倍，这一上诉法院认为是为了进行法律补救而被认为令人难以置信的飞跃。

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

反映5月21日上诉判决的正式命令将在当事方之间在适当的时候完成。

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.

对于其他投资者亚组，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的诉讼。