📢 Gate Square Exclusive: #WXTM Creative Contest# Is Now Live!
Celebrate CandyDrop Round 59 featuring MinoTari (WXTM) — compete for a 70,000 WXTM prize pool!
🎯 About MinoTari (WXTM)
Tari is a Rust-based blockchain protocol centered around digital assets.
It empowers creators to build new types of digital experiences and narratives.
With Tari, digitally scarce assets—like collectibles or in-game items—unlock new business opportunities for creators.
🎨 Event Period:
Aug 7, 2025, 09:00 – Aug 12, 2025, 16:00 (UTC)
📌 How to Participate:
Post original content on Gate Square related to WXTM or its
ParaFi and two other encryption venture capital firms lost the legal dispute with the founder of Curve
PANews January 23 news, according to DL News, there is new progress in the legal dispute between Decentralization exchange Curve founder Mikhail Egorov and three cryptocurrency venture capital giants. The California Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the venture capital firm's lawsuit on the grounds that California is not the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the case. The dispute began in June 2020 when venture capital firms ParaFi, Framework Ventures, and 1kx invested $3 million in Curve's parent company, Swiss Stake GmbH. However, in August 2020, Egorov canceled the investment due to missing the deadline and allegedly withheld the deliverable equity. In October 2022, the venture capital firm filed a lawsuit in California, accusing Egorov of fraud and misappropriation of funds, but Egorov denied these allegations. In September 2023, a San Francisco judge ruled that California had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The venture capital firm subsequently appealed, but the California Court of Appeals upheld the original judgment. In the appeal, the venture capital company accused Egorov of lying about the timing of his move to Switzerland and claimed that he fraudulently induced them to agree to choose the Swiss court jurisdiction in the investment agreement and then fled the United States to evade jurisdiction. However, the court found that Egorov's interaction with California was limited and indirect, which did not meet California's requirement of 'minimum contacts' for exercising jurisdiction over him. The judge pointed out that the efforts made by the venture capital company to establish a business relationship did not constitute intentional conduct by Egorov towards California. Therefore, the California court does not have jurisdiction over this case, and Egorov stated that the venture capital company can continue to oppose and appeal, but the court's ruling is based on sufficient grounds.