Uniswap Labs has secured a decisive courtroom victory that could ripple across decentralized finance for years.

 

On March 2, a federal judge in New York dismissed, with prejudice, a long-running class action lawsuit accusing the company of facilitating crypto rug pulls on its decentralized exchange. The ruling closes the door on a case first filed in 2022 and underscores a principle that courts are becoming increasingly comfortable with: writing open-source software is not the same as committing securities fraud.

 

 

The Lawsuit That Would Not Go Away

The case began in April 2022, when a group of investors led by Nessa Risley sued Uniswap Labs, founder Hayden Adams, and several high-profile venture capital backers. The plaintiffs alleged that scam tokens traded on Uniswap had caused substantial losses and argued that the protocol’s creators should bear responsibility.

 

At its core, the lawsuit tried to stretch traditional securities law into a decentralized environment. The argument was relatively straightforward. If fraudulent tokens were being created and traded on Uniswap, and if Uniswap’s infrastructure made that trading possible, then perhaps the developers and investors behind the protocol were on the hook.

 

The problem for the plaintiffs was always going to be causation and knowledge.

 

But Uniswap is a permissionless protocol built on Ethereum. Anyone can deploy a token. Anyone can create a liquidity pool. Smart contracts execute swaps automatically. There is no listing committee. No approval process. No centralized trading desk.

 

Over the past four years, the case wound through motions to dismiss, amendments to complaints, and an appeal to the Second Circuit. Federal securities claims were largely thrown out earlier in the process. What remained were state law claims, including allegations that Uniswap had aided and abetted fraudulent conduct.

 

This week, those claims fell too. Manhattan federal judge Katherin Polk Failla dismissed the suit with prejudice on Monday.

 

Why the Court Said No

Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot bring the same claims again.

 

The reasoning was technical but important. To establish aiding and abetting liability, plaintiffs generally must show that a defendant had actual knowledge of wrongdoing and substantially assisted it. The court found that the complaint failed on both fronts.

 

There were no plausible allegations that Uniswap Labs knew about specific rug pulls before they happened. Nor was there evidence that the company took affirmative steps to advance fraudulent schemes. Providing a neutral, automated protocol that others can use, even if some use it badly, was not enough.

 

The court drew comparisons to other neutral infrastructure. Payment networks process transactions that later turn out to be illicit. Messaging apps are used for scams. Internet service providers transmit fraudulent communications. Yet courts have historically hesitated to hold those intermediaries liable absent clear knowledge and participation.

 

The same logic, at least here, applied to DeFi.

 

The dismissal with prejudice sends a strong signal. 

 

 

A Win for Protocol Neutrality

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams described the outcome as sensible. Company lawyers called it precedent-setting. That may not be an exaggeration.

 

The Second Circuit had already affirmed dismissal of the core securities claims last year, reinforcing the notion that decentralized trading protocols are not automatically securities exchanges under existing law. This final ruling on the remaining state claims sharpens the boundary further.

 

Developers who publish autonomous smart contracts are not, by default, guarantors of every token that trades through them.

 

If courts had ruled the other way, it would have opened the door to expansive liability for developers across DeFi. Automated market makers, lending protocols, even wallet providers could have found themselves exposed whenever bad actors exploited open systems.

 

Instead, the judiciary appears to be drawing a line between building infrastructure and orchestrating fraud.

 

 

Venture Capital Backers Breathe Easier

The case also named major venture capital firms that invested in Uniswap Labs. While those firms were not accused of directly launching scam tokens, plaintiffs argued that by funding and promoting the protocol, they shared responsibility.

 

Those claims have now effectively collapsed alongside the broader case.

 

For crypto VCs, the ruling reduces a specific litigation risk. Investing in a protocol that later hosts fraudulent activity does not automatically translate into liability, at least under the theories tested here.

 

Still, risk has not disappeared. Regulators continue to scrutinize token listings, governance structures, and revenue models. And courts have not issued a blanket immunity for DeFi projects.

 

What this case does suggest is that stretching traditional intermediary liability to decentralized software will be an uphill battle.

 

 

A Move in the Right Direction

The broader regulatory environment for crypto remains unsettled. Lawmakers are still debating market structure legislation. Agencies continue to spar over jurisdiction. Courts are gradually filling in gaps.

 

Uniswap’s victory does not settle whether certain tokens are securities. It does not resolve how decentralized autonomous organizations should be treated under U.S. law. And it certainly does not eliminate fraud in DeFi.

 

But it does clarify one thing.

 

Writing code that others misuse is not, without more, a securities violation.

 

For an industry that has spent years arguing that decentralized protocols are more like public infrastructure than traditional financial institutions, this ruling is validation. It also places pressure back where many judges seem to believe it belongs, on the individuals who design and execute scams.

 

As DeFi matures, that distinction between neutral tools and active misconduct will likely remain central. The Uniswap case may not be the final word, but it is an important chapter in defining how far platform liability extends in crypto’s open markets.

New Bipartisan Senate Crypto Bill Targets Developer Liability

 

As the U.S. Senate pushes towards markup for the CLARITY Act, a new bipartisan push in the U.S. Senate is trying to answer another question that has come up again and again in crypto.

When does writing software turn into running a financial business?

At the center of the debate is a bill reintroduced by Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) that aims to clarify when crypto developers, open-source maintainers, and infrastructure providers should, and should not, be treated as money transmitters under federal law. The proposal does not try to deregulate crypto wholesale. Instead, it tries to draw a hard line between publishing code and controlling user funds.

That distinction might sound obvious to engineers. To prosecutors, it has been anything but.

 

Why this suddenly matters so much

For years, the idea of “developer liability” lived mostly in white papers, legal panels, and late-night conference debates. That changed when U.S. authorities began testing aggressive theories that treat certain privacy tools and non-custodial software as unlicensed financial businesses.

Cases involving Tornado Cash and Samourai Wallet turned a theoretical concern into a real one. The message many developers heard was simple and chilling: if people use your software to move money, you might be responsible for how they use it, even if you never touched the funds yourself.

That fear has started to shape behavior. Some teams have shut down. Others have avoided building in the U.S. entirely. Many have quietly redesigned products to remove any feature that could be interpreted as “control.”

This Senate bill is a direct response to that climate.

 

The core idea: code is not custody

The proposal, often referred to as the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, rests on a single principle. Developers and infrastructure providers should not be treated as money transmitters if they do not have custody of user assets and do not have the unilateral ability to move or control those assets.

In other words, liability should follow control, not authorship.

If you run an exchange, a broker, or a custodial wallet, this bill does nothing for you. You are still squarely in regulated territory. But if you publish open-source software, operate a node, maintain a wallet interface, or provide routing infrastructure without custody, the bill aims to put you outside money transmitter rules.

That matters because money transmitter classification is not a small thing. It can trigger state-by-state licensing, federal registration, AML obligations, and in some cases criminal exposure if regulators decide you crossed the line without permission.

Even if a developer ultimately wins in court, the cost and risk of getting there can be enough to stop innovation cold.

 

Why “control” is the battlefield

The word that does all the work in this bill is “control,” and that is exactly where the fight will be.

In clean cases, the distinction is easy. Exchanges custody funds. Non-custodial wallets do not. But crypto is full of gray areas.

Upgradeable smart contracts with admin keys. Front ends that can block addresses. Protocols with pause buttons. Governance structures that look decentralized on paper but concentrated in practice.

Regulators may argue that these forms of influence amount to control. Developers will argue they do not.

The Senate bill tries to anchor the definition to something narrow and concrete: the legal right or unilateral technical ability to move someone else’s assets. Whether that language survives negotiations intact is an open question.

 

How this fits into the broader crypto regulation fight

This developer liability push is happening alongside a much bigger legislative effort to overhaul U.S. crypto market structure more broadly. That larger framework aims to clarify which assets are securities, which are commodities, and which agencies oversee what.

What is becoming clear is that developer liability has become a quiet pressure point in those negotiations. Many lawmakers may be willing to compromise on market structure details, but fewer are comfortable backing a system that could criminalize software developers for publishing neutral tools.

In that sense, developer protections are no longer a niche issue. They are a prerequisite for passing broader crypto legislation at all.

 

What would change if this becomes law

If enacted, the bill would not end debates about crypto and compliance. But it would shift them.

First, it would give open-source developers and infrastructure providers a clearer legal lane, especially those building non-custodial systems.

Second, it would encourage business models that minimize custody by design. Expect more architectures that deliberately strip out admin powers, key control, and unilateral intervention.

Third, it would push regulators to focus enforcement elsewhere. Centralized onramps, custodians, stablecoin issuers, and brokers would remain the primary choke points for AML and sanctions policy.

That shift may frustrate some policymakers. It will reassure many builders.

 

The bigger question Congress is really answering

Strip away the legal language and the crypto politics, and this debate boils down to something fundamental.

Is publishing financial software more like writing code, or more like running a bank?

The Lummis-Wyden approach says it depends on whether you control the money. That principle is simple, intuitive, and easy to explain. The hard part will be writing it into law tightly enough to protect neutral builders without giving cover to businesses that function as intermediaries in everything but name.

 

That fight is just getting started.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.