Singapore first Bitcoin dispute to be heard

nBankruptcy comment: Given the complexity of cryptocurrencies, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) declined to make a definitive judgment on the bitcoin dispute between B2C2 and Quoine and required a hearing. The case is Singapore’s first dispute over the cryptocurrency space, which is hard to address because of the lack of a clear legal definition and regulation of many cryptocurrencies. Therefore, the new issues brought by this new development pose a challenge to the legislative bodies in Singapore and throughout the world.n
nTranslation: Inan
n
Singapore first bitcoin disputen


 n
According to The Straits Times, “Electronic market maker B2C2 filed a lawsuit against Bitcoin Exchange operator Quoine in July, claiming that its transaction was canceled and revenue was deducted.”n
London-based B2C2 claims “Financial institutions and large dealers believe B2C2 is able to seamlessly encrypt currency transactions with plug-and-play connectivity, short sales and post-trade clearing.” Quoine has offices in Singapore, Japan and Vietnam Office, claiming to be “a leading financial technology company providing trade, exchange and next-generation financial services backed by blockchain technology.”n
It is reported that the theme of the controversy between the two sides is that B2C2 has attempted to “recover 3084.78582325 bitcoin from Quoine and claim that Quoine’s dishonesty has deprived it of the opportunity to sell proceeds at the highest middle price.”n
B2C2 Bitcoin revenue at the time close to 4 million US dollars, but because of soaring prices, it has now risen nearly tenfold. Judging by the complexity of cryptocurrencies, Judge Simon Thorley of Singapore’s International Commercial Court (SICC), who declined to issue a summary judgment, called for a hearing to determine “whether B2C2 has the right to take back Bitcoins on its own or Bitcoin increases since the incident the value of”. This case is still the first case in Singapore.n
SICC said its role is “to assist arbitration, rather than arbitration, hoping to offer both companies an alternative.”n
n
Has the filled order been irrevocable?n
The crux of the problem may lie in the regulatory status of cryptocurrencies. Quoine was accused of violating its own irrevocable transaction criteria. In this case, there may not be a suitable arbiter, and ultimately calls for more government regulation.n

Danny Ong of B2C2 said his client “placed an order on Quoine’s platform to sell the ether at a price of 10 bitcoins in exchange for 1 ether.” The orders were transformed into a series of deals, and finally B2C2 paid 309.2518 dollars Bought 3092.517116 bitcoin. The same day, bitcoin was credited to B2C2’s account. But the next day, Quoine revoked the deal directly without permission.n
Quoine’s move to take this measure is panicked by the disruption of “fair global market prices”, but there is no legal standard to clarify whether such behavior is in line with these concepts.n
It is reported that B2C2 requested to get the “dollar return from the default date to the ruling day, the highest median Bitcoin price.”n
According to lawyer Paul Ong, Quoine calls this a “technical bug,” and B2C2 is using it to gain unfair returns. He pointed out that the price was “more than 100 times higher than the actual market price of the etheric / bitcoin”, therefore, “This is a very serious issue and must be solved through trial.”n

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *