The Synthetic Superintelligence Alliance, once hailed as crypto’s flagship AI collaboration, is now unraveling beneath the load of interior conflict and competing pursuits.
Fashioned to unify Secure.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol into a shared ecosystem, the alliance promised to tempo up decentralized AI construction through token and governance alignment.
Nonetheless what began as a vision of synergy has devolved into public disputes over succor watch over, transparency, and token management.
Those tensions hold now spilled into the court docket, with Secure leading a class action that would test no longer easiest the alliance’s future nonetheless moreover the very conception of DAO autonomy.
Why is Secure taking trusty action in opposition to Ocean Protocol?
Secure and three token holders hold filed a class action within the Southern District of New York alleging Ocean Protocol and its founders misled the community about the autonomy of OceanDAO.
The criticism, “Secure Compute, Inc., et al. v. Bruce Pon, et al., case no. 1:25-cv-9210,” was filed Nov. 4, 2025, and names Ocean Protocol Basis Ltd., Ocean Expeditions Ltd., OceanDAO, and Ocean co-founders Bruce Pon, Trent McConaghy, and Christina Pon as defendants.
Plaintiffs claim that Ocean misrepresented that hundreds of of tens of millions of OCEAN “community” tokens might perhaps well well be reserved for DAO rewards, nonetheless as one more reworked and equipped those tokens after joining the Synthetic Superintelligence Alliance, thereby depressing the value of FET and undermining the DAO’s talked about governance mannequin.
In step with the criticism, the alleged blueprint centered on the house of approximately 700 million OCEAN community tokens.
Plaintiffs claim that those tokens had been firstly pledged for autonomous, rules-primarily based exclusively distribution to contributors through elegant contracts as Ocean transitioned to a DAO mannequin, nonetheless had been due to this fact reclassified in practice and eliminated from community succor watch over.
The filing argues that Ocean transferred the OceanDAO property to a Cayman Islands entity, Ocean Expeditions, in behind June, reworked OCEAN to FET beginning in early July, liquidated a trim half of the ensuing FET on centralized venues, and withdrew from the ASI Alliance in October.
Okay&L Gates partner Ed Dartley, counsel to Secure.ai and the plaintiff class, acknowledged in a statement shared with CryptoSlate that
“Ocean misled the token community and its merger partners… to bear in mind that 600 million Ocean tokens had been reserved for community rewards.”
He added that the defendants “reaped tens of millions of greenbacks that can must hold long gone to the community.”
Ocean Protocol Basis is contesting the claims. In a statement to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, Managing Partner of Byrne & Storm, who represents Ocean Protocol Basis, acknowledged:
“Right here’s a really irregular lawsuit that appears designed for consumption on social media fairly than destined for fulfillment in a court docket. OPF will doubtless be responding to this lawsuit vigorously in due route.”
In a statement shared with CryptoSlate, Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, acknowledged:
“Whereas I even hold been very unpleasantly shocked by about a of the most modern actions of Ocean Protocol within the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I would fairly high-tail away the trusty side within the hands of the lawyers.
I would lawful love to reiterate that whereas Ocean has chosen to high-tail their very hold technique, the Alliance continues to high-tail forward powerfully toward decentralized AGI and superintelligence, with unique advances each day.”
Plaintiffs ingredient a timeline that tracks the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual departure.
In step with the filing, plaintiffs pronounce claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, violations of New York Fashioned Commerce Law, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and promissory estoppel, and they look class certification, damages, and equitable reduction, including rescission and disgorgement.
The criticism frames the case around whether a purportedly decentralized DAO was, in actual fact, controlled by a little community that would high-tail community property without the approval of token holders, and whether Ocean’s public supplies, weblog posts, and “vision” documents created a binding covenant referring to how community tokens might perhaps well well be mature.
They pronounce that Ocean joined the alliance on the premise that community tokens would stay restricted for rewards, whereas the FET and AGIX communities voted to proceed.
Later on, the criticism states that Ocean created Ocean Expeditions on June 27, 2025, transferred OceanDAO property to that entity, began converting OCEAN to FET around July 1, 2025, and later exited the ASI Alliance on October 8–9, 2025.
The filing quantifies the flows as extra than 661 million OCEAN reworked into approximately 286.46 million FET, adopted by gross sales of roughly 263 million FET into the market, equivalent to extra than 10 p.c of the circulating provide at the time, ensuing in imprint pressure on FET during and after Ocean’s withdrawal.
For readers tracking the on-chain and structural mechanics, the criticism claims Ocean had previously revoked contract succor watch over and described OceanDAO as “exclusively decentralized and autonomous,” with community tokens to be disbursed by elegant contract to members in data farming and diverse incentive programs.
Plaintiffs argue that these commitments had been central to merger-vote approvals and to token holders’ choices to defend, convert, or develop tokens throughout the ASI transition, and that any undisclosed switch on top of issues of the community token wallets might perhaps well well be subject material to market habits and governance expectations.
The filing moreover asserts market construction impacts. Plaintiffs pronounce that converting after which selling community tokens created a continual overhang, weakening confidence in DAO governance and impairing the alliance’s ability to entice contributors and defend incentives.
The criticism cites imprint ranges around the exit window and ties the drawdown to Ocean’s actions and announcements, whereas noting the scale of the tokens at subject in terms of the float.
The belief of hurt combines disclose token imprint effects with a scarcity of the inducement pool that the community anticipated to fund data and mannequin contributions over time.
For an at-a-look peep of the dispute as pleaded:
| Tournament | Detail | Date / Quantity |
|---|---|---|
| Case filing | SDNY class action, case no. 1:25-cv-9210 | Nov. 4, 2025 |
| Neighborhood token pool | Designated OCEAN community tokens | ≈700,000,000 OCEAN |
| Entity switch | Ocean Expeditions formed, OceanDAO property moved | June 27–30, 2025 |
| Conversions | OCEAN reworked to FET | 661,218,319 OCEAN → 286,456,967.46 FET |
| Alleged gross sales | FET equipped into market | ≈263,000,000 FET |
| Alliance exit | Ocean leaves ASI Alliance | Oct. 8–9, 2025 |
The case lands in a length of mounting regulatory and civil scrutiny for token initiatives that report themselves as decentralized whereas asserting basis-controlled multisig constructions. U.S. agencies and courts hold handled DAOs as unincorporated associations when human controllers are identifiable.
Novel issues hold interested by who can authorize treasury moves, how proposals are licensed, and whether token holder votes are binding in practice. The SDNY dialogue board provides discovery and motion practice that can probe the outlet between technical decentralization claims and operational succor watch over, particularly the place a trim “community” allocation is purported to hold been spent, reworked, or redirected.
Key subsequent steps to peep are an look by defense counsel, any motion to brush off valuable the contract and user protection claims, and requests for preliminary reduction tied to succor watch over of token holdings referenced within the filing.
Plaintiffs moreover plead for equitable treatments that would have an effect on custodied balances or on-chain addresses if granted. Any parallel governance adjustments, signer disclosures, escrow arrangements, or return mechanisms announced by the parties would reshape the stay controversy even because the litigation proceeds.
Ocean’s response will resolve whether this dispute proceeds straight away to motions practice or toward a negotiated framework for facing the tokens at subject.
Plaintiffs hold framed the case around DAO accountability and the reliance of token holders on the DAO. The defense has framed it as a social media legend.
The criticism now affords that conflict sooner than a federal resolve in New York.
