Share this article
SEC Seeks to Slash $22M Fine on Crypto Firm LBRY to $111K
A U.S. judge ruled in November that the crypto startup had violated securities laws by selling its native LBC token without registering with the SEC.
Updated May 15, 2023, 5:16 p.m. Published May 15, 2023, 9:55 a.m.
Make us preferred on Google
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) wants to revise a $22 million penalty set on crypto startup LBRY to $111,614, according to court documents from Friday.
The regulator cited LBRY's "lack of funds and near-defunct status," as reasons for withdrawing its previous request for fine.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW
In March last year, the SEC sued LBRY on allegations that the sale of its native LBRY credits (LBC) violated federal securities laws. In November, a New Hampshire judge ruled the startup had violated securities laws by failing to register with the SEC.
Jeremy Kauffman, LBRY's founder has previously said this case could impact the wider crypto industry as the company maintained that LBC was not a security.Ripple Labs has a similar defense as it faces SEC charges for the sale of $1.3 billion in XRP tokens.
The SEC's request to remedy the penalty also argued LBRY should be "enjoined," at least until it carries out its plans to dissolve the company and burn LBC tokens. The company had previously argued the SEC's $22 million penalty was unwarranted, comparing the sum to the regulator's $5 million settlement in its case against Kik over a $100 million unregistered token sale.
Read more: LBRY Token Rally Stalls as Traders Move on From Court Speculation
More For You
Accelerating Convergence Between Traditional and On-Chain Finance in 2026?
Commissioned bySociete Generale-FORGE
More For You
U.S.-based DeFi group urges UK FCA to anchor crypto rules to 'unilateral control'
DeFi Education Fund says developers of non-custodial protocols should not be regulated as intermediaries under the U.K.’s proposed crypto regime.
What to know:
- The DeFi Education Fund tells FCA that regulatory obligations should apply only where there is “unilateral control” over user assets or transactions.
- The U.S.-based group argues non-custodial DeFi developers should not be treated like centralized intermediaries.
- DEF warns that applying trading platform and prudential requirements and full money-laundering laws to automated protocols would be structurally incompatible.
Top Stories
