Liquidity Pool Mining In Osmosis Zone For Cosmos

February 12, 2023

(Dinarian Note: I do hope this helps some of you realize the potential that lays within Osmosis Zone.. any questions let me know, I do this regularly to not only make a few 100% APY, but to help support XPRT liquidity..)

Getting Started

Before opening the Osmosis AMM App, make sure to install the Keplr Wallet.

Open the App

Go to https://app.osmosis.zone/

Connect Wallet

Click Approve. This confirms that you are connecting to the app.osmosis.zone and the chain osmosis-1.

⚠️ Always make sure you are connected "app.osmosis.zone" and network "osmosis-1"

Deposit Funds

Click "Assets", Then click on the deposit link next to the asset name. For this example we are clicking the ATOM deposit link.

Approve connection to cosmoshub-4

Once connected, select how much you would like to deposit, then click the deposit button

Approve the transaction

Once the transaction is completed a series if confirmations notifications will be displayed including the IBC confirmation.

Swapping Tokens

Swapping tokens is as easy as selecting the tokens you wish to swap and selecting the swap button at the bottom of the order window. Be sure to read the glossary at the bottom of this tutorial to learn about terms such as slippage and impermanent losses.

Adding Liquidity to a Pool

Select a pool from the Pools page.

Then click Add/Remove Liquidity

Input a quantity of one of the assets. The quantity of the other asset(s) will auto-complete. (Pools require assets to be deposited in pre-determined weights.)

⚠️ In order to get your rewards you must bond the liquidity pool tokens.

To remove liquidity, input the percentage amount to withdraw.

Incentivized pools receive OSMO liquidity mining rewards. Rewards are distributed to bonded LP tokens in the pools that meet the bonding time requirements. The longer you provide liquidity to the pool, the more rewards you get.

Bonded Liquidity Pool (LP)Tokens

You can choose to bond your LP tokens after depositing liquidity. LP tokens remain bonded for any amount of time you choose. Remember, bonded LP tokens are eligible for liquidity mining rewards ONLY if they meet the minimum bonding length requirement for that incentive.

Click "Bond Shares" and approve the transaction in your Keplr wallet.

When you want to un-bond an LP token, you need to submit a transaction that begins the unbonding period. After the end of the pre-determined period (usually 14-21 days), you then will submit another transaction to withdraw the tokens.

Liquidity Bootstrapping Pools

Osmosis offers a convenient design for Liquidity Bootstrapping Pools (LBPs), a special type of automated market maker designed for token sales. New protocols can use Osmosis’ LBP feature to distribute tokens and achieve initial price discovery.

LBPs differ from other liquidity pools in terms of the ratio of assets within each pool. In LBPs,the ratio changes over time. LBPs involve an initial ratio, a target ratio, and an interval of time over which the ratio adjusts. These weights are customizable before launch. One can create an LBP with an initial ratio of 90-10, with the goal of reaching 50-50 over a month. The ratio continues to gradually adjust until the weights are equal within the pool. Like traditional LPs, the prices of assets within the pool is based on the ratio at the time of trade.

After the LBP period ends or the final ratio is reached, the pool converts into a traditional LP pool.

LBPs facilitate price discovery by demonstrating the acceptable market price of an asset. Ideally, LBPs will have very few buyers at the time of launch. The price slowly declines until traders are willing to step in and buy the asset. Arbitrage maintains this price for the remainder of the LBP. The process is shown by the blue line below.

Choosing the correct parameters is very important to price discovery for an LBP. If the initial price is too low, the asset will get bought up as soon as the pool is launched. It is also possible that the targeted final price is too high, creating little demand for the asset. The green line above shows this scenario.

Osmosis' goal is to provide an easy-to-use LBP design to give protocols the best chances at a successful pool. The LBP feature facilitates initial price discovery for tokens and allows protocols to fairly distribute token rewards to the pool liquidity providers.

Bonded Liquidity Gauges

Bonded Liquidity Gauges are mechanisms for distributing liquidity incentives to LP token holders that have been bonded for a pre-determined and disclosed amount of time. Close to half of the daily issuance of OSMO gets distributed as liquidity incentives.

For instance, in a Pool 1 LP share, 1-week gauge would distribute rewards to users who have bonded Pool1 LP tokens for one week or longer. The quantity of OSMO that each liquidity provider receives is directly in proportion to the number of their personally bonded tokens.

A single bonded LP position may be eligible for multiple gauges. The only thing that effects the guages is the minimum amount of bonding time required for each gauge.

Another incentive is the fact that, the rewards earned from liquidity mining are not subject to unbonding. Rewards can be transferred immediately to use how you see fit. Only the principal bonded shares are subject to the unbonding period.

Allocation Points

Not all of the liquidity pools have incentivization gauges. Staked OSMO hodlers choose which pools to incentivize via on-chain proposals. To incentivize a pool, governance can assign “allocation points” to specific gauges. At the end of every daily epoch, around half of the newly released OSMO (the tokens meant for liquidity incentives) are distributed proportionally to the points that each gauge has. The percent of the OSMO liquidity rewards that each gauge receives is calculated as its number of points divided by the total number of allocation points.

Take, for example, a scenario in which three gauges are incentivized:

Gauge #3 – 10 allocation points
Gauge #4 – 5 allocation points
Gauge #7 – 5 allocation points

20 total allocation points are assigned in this scenario. At the end of the daily epochs, Gauge #3 will receive 50% (10 out of 20) of the liquidity incentives minted. Gauges #4 and #7 will receive 25% each.

Governance can pass an Update Pool Incentives proposal to edit the existing allocation points of any gauge. By setting a gauge’s allocation to zero, it can remove it from the list of incentivized gauges entirely. Proposals can also set the allocation points of new gauges. When a new gauge is added, the total number of allocation points increases, thus diluting all the existing incentivized gauges. Gauge #0 is a special gauge that sends its incentives directly to the chain community pool. Assigning allocation points to gauge #0 allows governance to save some of the current liquidity mining incentives to be spent at a later time.

At genesis, the only gauge that will be incentivized is Gauge #0, (the community pool gauge). However, a governance proposal can come immediately after launch to choose which gauges/pools to incentivize. Governance voting period at launch is only 3 days at launch, so liquidity incentives may be activated as soon as 3 days after genesis.

External Incentives

Osmosis not only allows the community to add incentives to gauges. Anyone is eligable to deposit tokens into a gauge to be distributed. This feature allows outside parties to augment Osmosis’ own liquidity incentive program.

For example, there may be an ATOM/XPRT pool that has a one-day gauge incentivized by governance OSMO rewards. However, PersistenceOne(XPRT), may also choose to add additional incentives to the one-day gauge or even add incentives to a new gauge (such as one-week gauge).

External incentive providers can also set up long-lasting programs that distribute rewards over an extended time period. For example, PersistenceOne can deposit 30,000 XPRT to be distributed over a one-month liquidity program. The program will automatically distribute 1000 XPRT per day to the gauge.

Fees

Osmosis also provides three sources of revenue: transaction fees, swap fees, and exit fees.

TX Fees

Transaction fees are paid by any user to post a transaction on the chain. The fee amount is determined by the computation and storage costs of the transaction. Minimum gas costs are determined by the proposer of a block in which the transaction is included. This transaction fee is distributed to OSMO stakers on the network. Validators can choose which assets to accept for fees in the blocks that they propose. This optionality is a unique feature of Osmosis.

Swap Fees

Swap fees are fees charged for making a swap in an LP pool. The fee is paid by the trader in the form of the input asset. Pool creators specify the swap fee when establishing the pool. The total fee for a particular trade is calculated as percentage of swap size. Fees are added to the pool, effectively resulting in pro-rata distribution to LPs proportional to their share of the total pool.

Exit Fees

Osmosis liquidity providers pay a small fee when withdrawing from any pool. Similar to swap fees, exit fees per pool are set by the pool creator. Exit fees are paid in LP tokens. Users withdraw their tokens, minus a percent for the exit fee. These LP shares are burned, resulting in pro-rata distribution to remaining LPs.

Join the TheDinarian Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

thedinarian@thedinarian

February 17, 2025

The Dawn of DeFi: The Hidden War for a Decentralized Future

👉 DON'T FADE THIS ARTICLE~ Crypto Michael AKA "The Dinarian"

The below article is NOT financial advice, it is being broadcast for entertainment purposes only. You should DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and NEVER invest any more than you are willing to lose. On that note, THIS ARTICLE AND THE UNDERLYING ASSET DISCUSSED COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOR THE BETTER FOREVER! You SHOULD pay close attention as this MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT article you could ever have read, unless you were fortunate enough to read the Bitcoin whitepaper and had invested in it back in 2008. The asset I am about to present to you, COULD EASILY FLIP BITCOIN! ESPECIALLY WITH TODAYS ADMINISTRATION IN PLACE!
~ Namasté 🙏 Crypto Michael AKA "The Dinarian"

Attempted Theft of the World's Most Valuable Property, SEC Lawfare & The ETHgate Scandal

It is widely accepted that the media often spreads misinformation and hides any truth that challenge the establishments narratives. Well, this is one of those hidden truths...

Loans without Banks, Trades without Exchanges, Contracts without Lawyers. Peer to Peer Capital Markets disrupts traditional finance by removing middlemen and counter-party risk, enabling you to become your own bank by holding the keys to it all in your own privately held digital wallet.

To what lengths do you think the establishment would go to defend their control of the financial system? A system seemingly ripe with market manipulation, naked shorts, money laundering and regulatory capture.

The Myth of Open Source

For context, in the realm of open source, major corporations can engage in Intellectual Property theft by using open source projects to gain insights, technology, or legal protections without fully reciprocating to the community. Companies might contribute code to an open source project, only to later use that same code in commercial products, extending it with enhancements, essentially using open source as a low-cost R&D resource. Patents are crucial here, serving as a defense mechanism. Although open-source licenses cover copyrights, they don't extend to patents, meaning that companies holding patents can enforce legal protections against unauthorized commercial use, ensuring that any commercial application of their patented technology within open-source software requires proper licensing or recognition. This protection has historically led to the hyper-growth of industries like mobile phones and the internet, where patented technologies could be safely shared and built upon, promoting innovation and market expansion.

Validating Inventorship

In fields such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing, patents are vital for safeguarding new inventions, with Nikola Tesla's extensive patent portfolio serving as a testament to his contributions to science.

However, Tesla's revolutionary inventions, like the Wardenclyffe Tower which aimed at providing free wireless energy, faced fierce opposition due to their potential to disrupt established control over energy markets. Financially sabotaged by investors like J.P. Morgan, legally challenged through "the war of currents" by Thomas Edison's promotion of the less efficient Direct Current system, and undermined by media smear campaigns, Tesla's work was systematically suppressed. After his death, the FBI's seizure of his documents further suggests efforts to control or conceal his ideas that could disrupt centralized energy distribution, illustrating how innovation can be stifled to maintain existing power structures.

Could this type of suppression still be happening today?

The Genesis of Decentralized Finance

Reggie Middleton first introduced Distributed Finance what would later become known as Decentralized Finance (DeFi), in 2013 when he invented and patented technologies under the title "Devices, systems, and methods for facilitating low trust and zero trust value transfers." This included groundbreaking concepts like programmable Smart Contracts, Swaps, Tokenized Assets, NFTs, Stable Coins, Digital Wallets, and even underpin Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

https://patents.google.com/patent/US11196566B2/en?oq=US11196566+

Called by many as "The Most Valuable Property in the World", his patents US11196566B2, US11895246B2, JP6813477B2, JP7204231B2, JP7533974B2, & JP7533983B2 have been cited over 138 times by major financial institutions, underscoring their foundational role in the blockchain industry.

His patents cover:

Trustless Peer-to-Peer Value Transfers: Systems for enabling decentralized and secure value transfers between parties without the need for intermediaries. Applicable to cryptocurrency transactions, DeFi platforms, and digital payment systems.
Decentralized Financial Systems (DeFi): Methods and devices that facilitate decentralized trading, lending, borrowing, and yield generation. Impacting decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Uniswap, SushiSwap, and similar platforms.
Smart Contracts: Implementation of self-executing contracts on blockchain networks, used to automate agreements and enforce conditions without intermediaries. Essential for platforms such as Ethereum, Cardano, and other Layer-1 and Layer-2 blockchain protocols.
Tokenized Asset Trading: Methods for creating, transferring, and trading tokenized assets, including cryptocurrencies, non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and digital securities. Platforms like OpenSea, Rarible, and asset tokenization platforms may fall within the scope.
Cryptographic Security and Wallet Systems: Systems for securing digital assets using cryptographic methods, including cold storage, multi-signature wallets, and multi-party computation (MPC). Potential overlaps with services offered by companies like Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, and institutional custody providers.
Decentralized Identity and Verification Systems: Technologies for managing and verifying digital identities on decentralized networks, including for KYC (Know Your Customer) purposes. Likely touching on identity solutions like Civic, BrightID, and Blockstack.
Blockchain-Based Voting and Governance: Systems for implementing decentralized voting, governance, and consensus mechanisms, foundational to DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations). Relevant to governance platforms like Aragon, Snapshot, and MakerDAO.
AI Economic Agentic Computing: First introduced by the VeADIR Platform refers to the application of autonomous agents in economic systems, where software entities can make decisions, negotiate, and execute transactions independently. These agents use artificial intelligence to analyze market data, predict trends, and optimize economic activities like trading, resource allocation, and supply chain management. Used by OpenAi, Claude Sonnet, Meta and xAI.

The societal value of these patents to disrupt traditional financial models and fintech business practises, by essentially removing the banks as middlemen, create significant economic incentives to suppress his work.

True Decentralization

Current Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) often fall short of being truly decentralized due to various practical and structural limitations. Although DEXs leverage blockchain technology and smart contracts to enable trading without a central authority, aspects like governance, liquidity, and user interface can introduce centralization. Governance tokens might be concentrated in the hands of a few, influencing decision-making unevenly. The frontend, controlled by developers, represents a centralized point of control or potential failure. Liquidity pools can be dominated by a handful of large providers, leading to centralized liquidity dynamics. Some DEXs implement regulatory compliance like KYC/AML, which inherently involves centralized oversight. The use of layer-2 solutions for scalability might also undermine decentralization if not fully autonomous.

However, patents like US11196566B2 and US11895246B2 could pave the way for true decentralization by introducing innovations in blockchain interoperability and decentralized governance mechanisms. These patents potentially offer solutions for more evenly distributed control over exchange operations, enhancing the autonomy and distribution of decision-making, thus moving closer to genuine decentralization in the DEX ecosystem, which can be expanded to other industries like Healthcare, Supply Chain, or any other industry that trades value.

Who is Reggie Middleton?

Reggie Middleton, through his BoomBustBlog, became a notable figure in financial analysis, particularly for his early and accurate predictions regarding the collapses of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns during the 2008 financial crisis. His blog was renowned for providing in-depth, contrarian insights into economic trends, investment opportunities, and corporate vulnerabilities. Reggie won the CNBC's stock draft consecutively for two years, and appeared on major financial news networks like CNBC, BBC and Bloomberg where he discussed market trends, his forecasts, and the implications of financial strategies adopted by major firms. His track record has undeniably positioned him as a significant voice in the financial commentary space.

Reggie's work gained public attention when he appeared on the Keiser Report and CNBC in 2014, premiering his innovations built on the Bitcoin blockchain called "Ultracoin", two years before Ethereum captured the crypto limelight.

His vision was to create sound markets for a financial ecosystem where loans could be issued without banks, trades executed without exchanges, and contracts enforced without lawyers, aiming to disintermediate traditional finance by removing the middleman that doesn't add value.

In 2014, Reggie pioneered a simple Apple trade using a Pure Bitcoin Wallet: The Ultracoin Client.

Ultracoin later renamed VERI short for “Veritaseum” meaning "of truth", was the

first to market in tokenizing precious metals, offering VeGold, VeSilver and even tokenized fiat currencies or so called "Stablecoins". Veritaseum also introduced VeRent creating yield through P2P lending, and the revolutionary VeADIR platform, an autonomous, blockchain-powered research platform that independently evaluates and acts on dynamic research in real-time, communicates in machine language, and operates by purchasing, analyzing, and distributing insights on various assets while allowing VERI token holders to access and trade this research.

In 2018 he created the worlds first Gold Denominated Blockchain Mortgage

with traditional written note, mortgage as well as a smart contract on a public blockchain, both of whom incorporate each other by reference. The transaction had traditional title insurance and the note was recorded with the county clerk. The mortgage was denominated in Veritaseum's VeGold product, a digital form of gold in bearer form, fully transferable and redeemable upon demand.

Merely a few examples of groundbreaking products offered by Veritaseum.

Coinbase's Challenge: The Patent Infringement Suit

Coinbase, a dominant force in the cryptocurrency exchange market, enlisted the services of Perkins Coie, one of the largest patent law firms, to contest the validity of Reggie Middleton's patents.

They launched an Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB), arguing that Middleton's patents lacked novelty. An overwhelming 85% of patents are invalidated through this process. However, Coinbase's challenge was denied along with the appeal, thereby upholding and strengthening the validity of Reggie's patents.

This IPR challenge came after Veritaseum sued both Coinbase and Circle USDC for $350 million each over patent infringement. Unfortunately, Reggie's patent attorney and close friend passed away during this suit, so the cases has been dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be negotiated or the cases reopened at any time. This leaves Coinbase in a precarious position, especially if shareholders have not been properly informed of this risk.

This lawsuit details how Coinbase's infrastructure, specifically its Ethereum and Solana validator nodes, engage with client devices to facilitate transactions. Exhibit #3 meticulously outlines the patent's claims, detailing the roles of computing devices, the use of memory for key pair storage, network interfaces for transaction terms, and the generation and dissemination of transaction data records. It provides concrete examples such as the processing of NFT transactions on Ethereum and the management of transaction fees on Solana, supported by in-depth references to code and API interactions. Furthermore, the exhibit explains the verification of transactions through an external state, illustrating how Coinbase's technology aligns with the patent's principles for decentralized transaction processing without a central authority.

SEC's Intervention: A Turning Point

In 2019, with promising negotiations on the horizon with both the Jamaican and the Nigerian Stock Exchanges for digital asset platforms, Reggie's world was turned upside down.

The SEC accused Reggie of fraud, alleging he misled investors about the functionality of Veritaseum's VeADIR platform, which the SEC ordered to be shut down following a live demonstration. The SEC also made claims on the validity of Reggie's patent applications, which have since been approved by both the USPTO and the Japan Patent Office. Oddly enough, the SEC may actually infringe on these very patents through the disgorgement and storage of seized crypto tokens.

Despite Veritaseum's cooperation with the SEC over a two-year period, along with a detailed response addressing the SEC's allegations, and not one token holder claiming to be defrauded, these allegations still led to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that froze millions in assets, destroying the company's operations, and forcing a consent judgment "neither confirming or denying the allegations". The SEC would top it all off with a gag order that barred Reggie from publicly discussing the matter.

Keep in mind, the SEC is claiming jurisdiction by calling Utility Tokens "Digital Asset Securities" but recently SEC Commissioner @HesterPeirce stated:

"...by using imprecise language we've been able to suggest the token itself is a security, apart from that investment contract, which has implications for Secondary Sales, it has implications for who can list it...

We've fallen down on our duty as a regulator not to be precise. So, tucking into a footnote that yes we admit that now that the TOKEN ITSELF IS NOT A SECURITY, that is something we should have admitted long ago and then started wrestling with the difficult questions."

This calls into question if the SEC even had jurisdiction to bring forth this case to begin with. The Veri Community would later challenge the SEC's unproven allegations against Reggie with

a Dossier supporting the Vacating or Setting Aside of this case, and suggesting possible misconduct by the SEC.

Allegations of SEC Misconduct:

Misrepresentation of Facts: Assertions that the SEC deliberately mischaracterized the
functionality of the VeADIR platform, along with the patents and their value, by labeling them as lacking novelty and part of fraudulent activities.
Misleading Evidence: The SEC's use of declarations from Patrick Doody and Roseann Daniello, which contained misleading information about the personal ownership of a Kraken account used to misappropriate funds. Doody would later correct his statement, but the SEC did not update the court with this new information, potentially misleading the judicial process.
Conflict of Interest: Doody's undisclosed financial interests in the digital asset space through Lily Pad Capital LLC could suggest a bias in his testimony, which was pivotal in obtaining the TRO.
Coercion and Intimidation: Witnesses like Lloyd Cupp and John Doe provided affidavits claiming coercion by SEC attorneys to alter their testimonies, pointing towards witness tampering and intimidation.

FOIA Responses: The SEC's FOIA department initially denied any communications with Kraken, only later admitting to subpoena issuance, suggesting an attempt to obscure facts.
RICO Allegations: A 95 page RICO Dossier, supported by extensive evidence, alleges that the SEC's actions could resemble an organized crime syndicate, with systemic coercion, misrepresentation, and procedural misconduct aimed at Reggie Middleton.
Bar Complaint: The Veri community lodged a Bar Complaint against the SEC's Lead Attorney
over the use of misleading evidence, coercion and intimidation of witnesses.

Summary Articles of the B ar Complaint and RICO Dossier

Comparisons with the SEC Misconduct in the DEBT Box Case

The DEBT Box case shares a troubling parallel with the Veritaseum case. In both cases a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) freezing funds was issued using dubious evidence which suppressed the ability to defend themselves. This behavior was already admonished by five US Senators

in a letter to Commissioner Gary Gensler in which the SEC presented misleading claims in this now high-profile cryptocurrency case.

"Regardless of whether Commission staff deliberately misrepresented evidence or unknowingly presented false information, this case suggests other enforcement cases brought by the Commission may be deserving of scrutiny. It is difficult to maintain confidence that other cases are not predicated upon dubious evidence, obfuscations, or outright misrepresentations."

Given the similarities in alleged procedural misconduct between the cases, it raises systemic questions about the SEC’s litigation approach in cryptocurrency matters.

This parallel underscores a potential agency-wide issue that could involve either implicit biases against crypto companies or an explicit strategy to pursue aggressive, potentially misleading tactics in court.

Is The Fox Guarding the Hen House?

In a significant development, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) has decided to forward a complaint against SEC attorney Jorge Tenreiro to the SEC's Office of General Counsel (OGC) for investigation. This controversial move suggests a potential conflict of interest, given that the OGC is part of the SEC, the very agency where Tenreiro was recently promoted to Chief Litigation Counsel. The complaint, filed by the Veri community, accuses Tenreiro of misconduct including alleged coercion, witness tampering, and misrepresentation during SEC investigations. The Veri Community argues that this decision undermines the integrity of the legal process, as the OGC's role is to provide legal advice and defend the SEC, not to independently investigate its own employees. This raises questions about the impartiality and transparency of the disciplinary process for attorneys, especially when it involves high-profile figures like Tenreiro.

"As noted in re Rowe, 80 N.Y.2d 336 (1992), the public’s confidence in the legal profession depends on transparent and impartial disciplinary processes. Delegating oversight to the SEC, where Mr. Tenreiro remains a senior official and where the OGC has a clear institutional stake, jeopardizes this confidence and risks the appearance of protectionism.”

The VeriDAO has submitted a response letter to the AGC along with creating a PDF generator
to help the estimated 100 complainants and anyone else interested in requesting the AGC to reconsider this action.

Legal and Judicial Trials

The legal battles would only continue for Reggie. The case of Hall v. Middleton, in which Hall, a 1% shareholder sued Reggie, raises concerns of judicial bias and procedural mishandling. In this case, Reggie was denied Due Process and barred from presenting crucial evidence or calling witnesses due to his former attorneys' "Office Failures" that missed deadlines to submit evidence without the knowledge of Reggie or the firm Brundidge & Stanger that outsourced his counsel as detailed in their affirmations.

"In my many years of practice it is a rare instance where I have witnessed an attorney intentionally not file critical documents as required by Court Order without the permission or knowledge of his client, who had an established and fully developed attorney client-relationship with said attorney, and then misrepresent that the requirements of the Court Order were being satisfied. This is one of those instances and I hope not to see another."
~ Carl Brundidge

The judge ruled that Reggie must:

Pay a $1M fine to his company Veritaseum Inc., in which he owns 99%
The plaintiff was awarded costs of $495k against Veritaseum Inc.
The Judge ordered Patents (filed before the creation of Veritaseum Inc.) to be assigned to the company without compensation.

Attorney's "Office Failures":

Sheridan England missed critical deadlines, resulting in the striking of exculpatory evidence. England’s inaction or inadequate defense exacerbated Middleton’s legal vulnerability, directly leading to adverse outcomes.

Judge Schecter’s Conduct:

Ignoring Exculpatory Evidence: Despite knowledge of its existence, Schecter struck Middleton’s post-trial memorandum.
Procedural Bias: The judge’s decisions systematically favored Hall, including allowing him to collect attorney fees from Middleton personally, contrary to the principles of derivative law.
Forced Patent Transfers: Schecter’s order to transfer patents to an underfunded entity (Veritaseum) which were court restrained by the same judge, rendering them defenseless against attacks and IP theft.

This ordeal was compounded when Reggie was held in Contempt for using personal funds (while Veritaseum’s funds were court-restrained) to successfully defend his patents against an IPR challenge by Coinbase in the PTAB of the USPTO in an attempt to invalidate these patents. The Forced Patent Expropriation to Veritaseum without compensation or the ability to defend them could be seen as coordinated as it benefited very large competitors seeking to avoid licensing fees or infringement claims, or possibly even IP Theft.

Judicial Complaint: A formal complaint has been filed with the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct by the Veri Community.

ETHgate: The Broader Conspiracy Allegations

Parallel to Middleton's struggles, "ETHgate" emerged, involving allegations by Ethereum co-creator @StevenNerayoff. Nerayoff claimed a government conspiracy aimed at controlling or monopolizing cryptocurrency development by targeting key figures. This narrative suggested that by attacking innovators (like Reggie Middleton as the Veri Community contends), the SEC might have indirectly cleared a path for Ethereum, which, despite its decentralized claim, benefited from a regulatory environment less scrutinized than its competition.

The term "ETHgate" encapsulates the belief that Ethereum's "Free Pass" from regulatory scrutiny might not just be due to its technological merits but also due to strategic regulatory maneuvers, where attacking smaller or less established DeFi projects could safeguard larger, more influential platforms like Ethereum.

Back in 2021, @JohnEDeaton1 from @CryptoLawUS explained XRP's side of Ethereum's "Free Pass". More recently, further SEC RICO Claims are insinuated in "RIGGED from the start" a documentary by @Fruition_News , along with posts by @KuwlShow and the XRParmy involving the SEC, Ethereum, a16z, and Consensys surrounding the Bill Hinman speech. Active FOIA requests by @EleanorTerrett seek to shed light on meetings between Hinman and Ethereum members.

Given the SEC protection of ETH and the high probability of Ethereum infringing on Reggie Middleton's patents as meticulously detailed in Exhibit #3 of the Coinbase case, is it ridiculous to believe Reggie Middleton could have been targeted?

Community Support: The Backbone of Resilience

Despite the SEC's narrative labeling them as "The Defrauded," the Veritaseum community rallied around Reggie.

SmartMetal with embedded NFT avalaible through VeriDAO.io

Financially devastated and with his funds frozen, Reggie faced foreclosure and was threatened with jail time after contempt charges for defending his patents using personal funds. In a remarkable show of support, the Veri Community rallied, raising an impressive $149,000 in less than two weeks to cover the fine while the case is under appeal.

They funded legal battles largely through donations and more recently with innovative means like NFT silver rounds called SmartMetal using Reggie's patented technologies, underscoring their belief in his vision. The first minted round was auctioned off for an astonishing $14,000 won by "M S"

"There is no better witness to the veracity of any defense than the alleged defrauded defending the alleged fraud at their own expense"
~ The Veri Community

This community support was not just financial but also moral, with efforts such as an Amicus Brief in the case against XRP, a No Action Letter (NAL) seeking clarity on secondary market sales of tokens, a Bar Complaint against the SEC's newly promoted Chief Litigation Counsel, and the @dao_veri's

#ProjectSunlight The SEC RICO Revelation.

A Call for a New Regulatory Paradigm

Reggie Middleton's saga is emblematic of the challenges faced by pioneers in the blockchain and DeFi arenas. His patents, now granted, underscore their foundational nature, yet the path to their recognition was marred by legal battles, suggesting a systemic issue where the regulatory framework might not fully comprehend or support emerging tech. His resilience, supported by an unwavering community and the validation of his intellectual property, underscores the need for a regulatory environment that fosters rather than stifles innovation. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, Reggie's story serves as a critical reference for balancing innovation with legal and ethical governance, ensuring that the future of finance remains open to all, not just those with the resources to navigate the legal maze.

For more information visit https://veridao.io/

I know what everyones question is, "HOW CAN I GET MY HANDS ON THE $VERI TOKEN BEFORE EVERYTHING GETS REVERSED AND RELEASED BACK TO THE COMMUNITY?"

Your in luck: Mark is a trusted source, longtime Veri Vet that beta tested the VeADIR platform. Simply follow the thread below. I highly advise picking up a few, and tuck them away! This is the token that could literally FLIP BITCOIN $100k and beyond!

The information provided in this video, including but not limited to documents regarding legal matters, is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal (or any other) advice, and no warranties or representations are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or fitness of the information for any specific purpose. VeriDAO and its operators do not act as attorneys or legal, financial or technical professionals or advisors and are not responsible for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content provided. Users should seek independent legal counsel for any legal advice or guidance. By watching this video, you agree that VeriDAO and its operators shall not be held liable for any damages or legal consequences arising from the use or misuse of the information contained herein.

Link

Disclaimer:

The content provided in this document is intended strictly for informational and educational purposes only. This document constitutes a research opinion and should be regarded as such. All claims, statements, allegations, and opinions contained within are based on publicly available information and are allegations unless and until proven in a court of law. The authors expressly disclaim any representation or warranty regarding the truthfulness, accuracy, completeness, fitness for a particular purpose, or durability of the information contained herein.

The authors of this document are not licensed attorneys or legal professionals and do not claim to provide legal, financial, or professional advisory services. Nothing in this document should be construed as legal advice, legal opinion, or any form of licensed advisory counsel. If you require legal assistance or professional advice, you are strongly encouraged to consult a licensed attorney or qualified expert in the relevant field. The authors are laypersons presenting research-based opinions, and as such, this document should not be relied upon to make any decisions of legal, financial, or professional significance.

The authors make no guarantees, express or implied, regarding the completeness or reliability of the information presented. No warranties of any kind are offered regarding the accuracy, validity, timeliness, or completeness of any information within this document. The information may contain errors or inaccuracies, and any use of it is entirely at your own risk.

Furthermore, this document may contain statements of belief, criticism, or commentary, and all such statements are offered solely as opinions protected under the principles of free speech. The authors disclaim liability for any interpretation that may be construed as libel, slander, or defamation, as the document aims to present alleged facts and subjective opinions for educational research purposes only. All statements about individuals, organizations, or entities should be understood as unproven allegations, and readers are urged not to interpret them as established facts.

The authors will not be liable for any damages, losses, or legal consequences that arise from the use, misuse, or reliance on the information provided herein. No responsibility is assumed for any actions or decisions that any party may make based on this document. The reader assumes full responsibility for any and all consequences that may arise from using the information contained in this document.

By accessing and using this document, you agree that neither the authors nor any affiliated parties shall be held liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages resulting from your use of this information. The authors reserve the right to update or revise the information in this document at any time without notice, but they are under no obligation to do so.

Finally, any statements regarding individuals, entities, or organizations are not intended to malign, defame, or harm the reputation of those mentioned. Any resemblance to real individuals or incidents is purely coincidental, unless otherwise explicitly stated, and the authors urge readers to exercise caution and discernment when interpreting the information presented.

This document is a work-in-progress, part of an ongoing investigative process, and should not be treated as definitive or final. Readers are encouraged to independently verify the information and seek professional advice before acting on any information herein.

Read full Article