The Artificial Superintelligence Alliance (ASI Alliance), once recognized as a pivotal collaborative effort within the cryptocurrency domain, is currently experiencing significant disintegration attributed to internal discord and the emergence of competing interests.
Initially established to amalgamate the capabilities of Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol into an integrated ecosystem, the alliance espoused the promise of an accelerated trajectory toward decentralized artificial intelligence (AI) development through aligned governance and token economies.
However, this once-unified vision has devolved into a series of public disputes centered around issues of control, transparency, and token management. The resultant tensions have culminated in legal action, with Fetch.ai spearheading a class action lawsuit that may not only redefine the trajectory of the ASI Alliance but also fundamentally challenge the principles underpinning decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
Legal Implications: Fetch.ai’s Class Action Against Ocean Protocol
Fetch.ai, in conjunction with three individual token holders, has initiated a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The suit alleges that Ocean Protocol and its founders engaged in misleading practices concerning the autonomy of OceanDAO. The case titled “Fetch Compute, Inc., et al. v. Bruce Pon, et al., case no. 1:25-cv-9210,” was officially filed on November 4, 2025. The defendants include Ocean Protocol Foundation Ltd., Ocean Expeditions Ltd., OceanDAO, and co-founders Bruce Pon, Trent McConaghy, and Christina Pon.
The plaintiffs assert that contrary to representations made by Ocean Protocol, hundreds of millions of OCEAN tokens were purportedly designated for DAO-related rewards but were subsequently converted and liquidated following their integration into the ASI Alliance. This alleged misappropriation has purportedly led to a depreciation in the value of Fetch.ai’s FET token and undermined the governance framework articulated by the DAO.
Central to the complaint is a focus on approximately 700 million OCEAN community tokens that were initially pledged for distribution according to autonomous rules via smart contracts during Ocean Protocol’s transition to a DAO model. The complaint posits that these tokens were effectively reclassified, stripping them from community control.
The legal filing delineates a sequence of events wherein Ocean Protocol purportedly transferred assets associated with OceanDAO to a Cayman Islands entity known as Ocean Expeditions in late June 2025. Following this transfer, a conversion process commenced wherein OCEAN tokens were exchanged for Fetch.ai’s FET tokens beginning in early July. Notably, it is alleged that a significant portion of these newly acquired FET tokens was liquidated on centralized exchanges prior to Ocean’s departure from the ASI Alliance in October.
Ed Dartley, partner at K&L Gates and legal counsel for Fetch.ai and the plaintiff class, articulated concerns regarding the integrity of information disseminated to the token community:
“Ocean misled the token community and its merger partners… to believe that 600 million Ocean tokens were reserved for community rewards.”
Dartley further asserted that the defendants “reaped millions of dollars that should have gone to the community.”
The Ocean Protocol Foundation has publicly refuted these claims. In a statement provided to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, Managing Partner at Byrne & Storm representing Ocean Protocol Foundation remarked:
“This is a very strange lawsuit that seems designed for consumption on social media rather than destined for success in a courtroom. OPF will be responding to this lawsuit vigorously in due course.”
Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, expressed his dismay over recent actions by Ocean Protocol while emphasizing his preference for legal matters to remain within professional jurisdiction:
“While I have been very unpleasantly surprised by some of the recent actions of Ocean Protocol in the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I would rather leave the legal side in the hands of the lawyers.”
Chronology of Events Leading to Legal Action
The plaintiffs have meticulously detailed a timeline encapsulating key events surrounding the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual withdrawal from the alliance. They assert claims that encompass fraud, civil conspiracy, violations under New York General Business Law, breach of contract, breach of implied covenants, and promissory estoppel. The plaintiffs seek class certification alongside damages and equitable relief measures including rescission and disgorgement.
The crux of this litigation revolves around whether what was purportedly characterized as a decentralized DAO was indeed governed by a select group capable of unilaterally appropriating community assets without obtaining consent from token holders. Furthermore, they question whether public communications from Ocean Protocol constituted binding commitments regarding the utilization of community tokens.
The allegations posit that Ocean’s participation in the alliance was predicated on assurances that community tokens would remain allocated solely for rewards, thereby influencing voting decisions made by both FET and AGIX communities regarding merger proceedings.
The following sequence encapsulates critical events leading up to this legal confrontation:
| Event | Detail | Date / Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Case filing | SDNY class action initiated | Nov. 4, 2025 |
| Community token pool | Designated OCEAN community tokens | ≈700 million OCEAN |
| Entity establishment | Formation of Ocean Expeditions; asset transfer from OceanDAO | June 27–30, 2025 |
| Token conversions | Conversion from OCEAN to FET commenced | 661 million OCEAN → 286 million FET |
| Alleged sales activity | Selling pressure exerted on market from FET sales | ≈263 million FET sold into market |
| Alliance withdrawal | Exit from ASI Alliance executed by Ocean Protocol | Oct. 8–9, 2025 |
This case arises amid intensifying regulatory scrutiny directed at token projects which label themselves as decentralized while retaining multisig structures controlled by foundational entities. U.S. regulatory bodies and judicial authorities have increasingly recognized DAOs as unincorporated associations when identifiable human controllers are present.
A focal point within recent discourse has been determining which entities possess authorization over treasury transactions, understanding approval mechanisms for proposals, and clarifying whether token holder votes carry binding authority in practical scenarios. The venue selected—the Southern District of New York—augments potential discovery practices aimed at elucidating discrepancies between claims of technical decentralization versus actual operational control amidst allegations involving substantial allocations being redirected or liquidated.
Next Steps and Potential Outcomes
The forthcoming stages warrant close observation as they may include motions filed by defense counsel challenging contract assertions and consumer protection allegations as well as preliminary relief requests concerning control over referenced token holdings. Moreover, plaintiffs seek equitable remedies potentially impacting custodied balances or relevant on-chain addresses if granted.
A parallel governance restructuring or disclosures regarding signatories along with escrow arrangements could significantly alter ongoing discussions while litigation unfolds.
The response from Ocean Protocol will crucially determine whether this dispute progresses toward motions practice or shifts towards negotiations aimed at resolving issues related to contested tokens.
The plaintiffs’ framing positions this case at the intersection between DAO accountability principles and expectations held by token holders reliant upon said structures for governance integrity. Conversely, the defense positions itself within a narrative perceived as driven by social media sensationalism.
This litigation now advances towards resolution under federal judicial review within New York’s jurisdiction.
