DWF Labs-linked firms seek $141mn from BitGo in London token lock-up dispute

Traders Union
All News
Financial News
DWF Labs vs BitGo token dispute

Highlights

DWF Maas and Falcon Digital are suing BitGo in London, seeking $141mn in damages over alleged early sales of Falcon Finance and ESPORTS tokens before agreed lock-up periods ended.
Falcon Finance tokens fell from $0.08 in early March to $0.07 by late April, while ESPORTS tokens dropped from $0.28 in mid-March to $0.07 by early June, reportedly coinciding with BitGo's alleged unauthorized sales.
The case highlights sector opacity and political links, including DWF's $25mn purchase of World Liberty Financial tokens and BitGo's custody of its stablecoin, while BitGo shares have fallen about 60 percent since listing in New York.

Lock-up allegations and court claims

As first reported by Financial Times, DWF Maas and Panama-based Falcon Digital are suing BitGo over claims that it breached agreements governing Falcon Finance and ESPORTS tokens. The claimants allege BitGo sold tokens before three-month lock-ups and subsequent vesting restrictions ended, arguing that the early sales pushed down prices in illiquid markets.

According to the lawsuit, DWF and Falcon agreed to sell Falcon Finance tokens to BitGo at a discount in exchange for the lock-up protections. DWF says a similar structure applied to ESPORTS tokens, which are tied to electronic sports and gaming, and that the restrictions were intended to give time to build products and improve liquidity before tokens could be released to the market.

DWF says BitGo moved the tokens to exchanges roughly two months before the first unlock date and that it raised the issue with the company in April and May. In a statement cited in the case, DWF says the discount BitGo received was conditional on the tokens remaining locked and that court action became necessary when no undertaking was forthcoming; BitGo declines to comment.

DWF is seeking $141mn in damages, arguing that the alleged token sales caused direct losses by reducing the value of Falcon Finance and ESPORTS tokens it continued to hold. CoinMarketCap data cited in the dispute show Falcon Finance tokens falling from $0.08 in early March to about $0.07 by late April, while ESPORTS tokens dropped from about $0.28 in mid-March to $0.07 by early June, around when DWF alleges BitGo sold the assets.

Sector scrutiny and political links

Over-the-counter token sales are widely used in digital assets as a way for founders to raise capital without immediately flooding public markets. But the arrangements are often opaque and depend heavily on trust between counterparties, leaving retail investors exposed when vesting periods end and discounted tokens can be sold.

The dispute also draws attention to ties between the companies and World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture backed by Donald Trump and his sons. DWF bought $25mn of World Liberty Financial tokens last year, while BitGo issues and custodies the venture's stablecoin.

BitGo, founded in 2013, is one of the largest crypto custodians and listed in New York at the start of this year; its shares are down about 60 per cent since then. Its chief executive, Mike Belshe, has appeared at White House crypto events, and the company says little publicly about the current lawsuit.

DWF has also faced scrutiny over its own connections. After its World Liberty Financial token purchase last year, a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security raised concerns about the venture's dealings with foreign nationals and cited DWF management's past work with Russian firms; DWF says the accusation is unfounded and that it maintains a normal business relationship with World Liberty Financial.

Our earlier article covered the GAO’s review into staffing cuts at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and how those reductions could weaken enforcement as the agency’s crypto and derivatives responsibilities expand. It highlighted a sharp drop in enforcement actions and monetary relief alongside continued buyouts and retirements, fueling concerns about whether the regulator can effectively police fast-growing digital asset markets.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.