The Synthetic Superintelligence Alliance, as soon as hailed as crypto’s flagship AI collaboration, is now unraveling underneath the load of inside battle and competing pursuits.
Shaped to unify Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol right into a shared ecosystem, the alliance promised to speed up decentralized AI growth by token and governance alignment.
However what started as a imaginative and prescient of synergy has devolved into public disputes over management, transparency, and token administration.
These tensions have now spilled into the courtroom, with Fetch main a category motion that might check not solely the alliance’s future but in addition the very notion of DAO autonomy.
Why is Fetch taking authorized motion towards Ocean Protocol?
Fetch and three token holders have filed a category motion within the Southern District of New York alleging Ocean Protocol and its founders misled the neighborhood in regards to the autonomy of OceanDAO.
The criticism, “Fetch 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 declare that Ocean misrepresented that a whole lot of thousands and thousands of OCEAN “neighborhood” tokens could be reserved for DAO rewards, however as an alternative transformed and offered these tokens after becoming a member of the Synthetic Superintelligence Alliance, thereby miserable the worth of FET and undermining the DAO’s acknowledged governance mannequin.
In line with the criticism, the alleged scheme centered on the standing of roughly 700 million OCEAN neighborhood tokens.
Plaintiffs declare that these tokens have been initially pledged for autonomous, rules-based distribution to contributors by way of good contracts as Ocean transitioned to a DAO mannequin, however have been subsequently reclassified in observe and faraway from neighborhood management.
The submitting argues that Ocean transferred the OceanDAO belongings to a Cayman Islands entity, Ocean Expeditions, in late June, transformed OCEAN to FET starting in early July, liquidated a big portion of the ensuing FET on centralized venues, and withdrew from the ASI Alliance in October.
Okay&L Gates associate Ed Dartley, counsel to Fetch.ai and the plaintiff class, stated in an announcement shared with CryptoSlate that
“Ocean misled the token neighborhood and its merger companions… to consider that 600 million Ocean tokens have been reserved for neighborhood rewards.”
He added that the defendants “reaped thousands and thousands of {dollars} that ought to have gone to the neighborhood.”
Ocean Protocol Basis is contesting the claims. In an announcement to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, Managing Associate of Byrne & Storm, who represents Ocean Protocol Basis, stated:
“It is a very unusual lawsuit that appears designed for consumption on social media somewhat than destined for fulfillment in a courtroom. OPF might be responding to this lawsuit vigorously sooner or later.”
In an announcement shared with CryptoSlate, Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, stated:
“Whereas I’ve been very unpleasantly stunned by among the current actions of Ocean Protocol within the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I might somewhat go away the authorized aspect within the palms of the attorneys.
I might identical to to reiterate that whereas Ocean has chosen to go their very own method, the Alliance continues to maneuver ahead powerfully towards decentralized AGI and superintelligence, with new advances on daily basis.”
Plaintiffs element a timeline that tracks the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual departure.
In line with the submitting, plaintiffs assert claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, violations of New York Basic Enterprise Legislation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and promissory estoppel, they usually search class certification, damages, and equitable aid, together with rescission and disgorgement.
The criticism frames the case round whether or not a purportedly decentralized DAO was, the truth is, managed by a small group that might transfer neighborhood belongings with out the approval of token holders, and whether or not Ocean’s public supplies, weblog posts, and “imaginative and prescient” paperwork created a binding covenant relating to how neighborhood tokens could be used.
They allege that Ocean joined the alliance on the idea that neighborhood tokens would stay restricted for rewards, whereas the FET and AGIX communities voted to proceed.
Afterward, the criticism states that Ocean created Ocean Expeditions on June 27, 2025, transferred OceanDAO belongings to that entity, started changing OCEAN to FET round July 1, 2025, and later exited the ASI Alliance on October 8–9, 2025.
The submitting quantifies the flows as greater than 661 million OCEAN transformed into roughly 286.46 million FET, adopted by gross sales of roughly 263 million FET into the market, equal to greater than 10 % of the circulating provide on the time, leading to worth strain on FET throughout and after Ocean’s withdrawal.
For readers monitoring the on-chain and structural mechanics, the criticism claims Ocean had beforehand revoked contract management and described OceanDAO as “totally decentralized and autonomous,” with neighborhood tokens to be disbursed by good contract to contributors in information farming and different incentive applications.
Plaintiffs argue that these commitments have been central to merger-vote approvals and to token holders’ selections to carry, convert, or purchase tokens throughout the ASI transition, and that any undisclosed change answerable for the neighborhood token wallets could be materials to market habits and governance expectations.
The submitting additionally asserts market construction impacts. Plaintiffs allege that changing after which promoting neighborhood tokens created a persistent overhang, weakening confidence in DAO governance and impairing the alliance’s potential to draw contributors and maintain incentives.
The criticism cites worth ranges across the exit window and ties the drawdown to Ocean’s actions and bulletins, whereas noting the size of the tokens at challenge in relation to the float.
The speculation of hurt combines direct token worth results with a lack of the motivation pool that the neighborhood anticipated to fund information and mannequin contributions over time.
For an at-a-glance view of the dispute as pleaded:
EventDetailDate / AmountCase filingSDNY class motion, case no. 1:25-cv-9210Nov. 4, 2025Community token poolDesignated OCEAN neighborhood tokens≈700,000,000 OCEANEntity changeOcean Expeditions shaped, OceanDAO belongings movedJune 27–30, 2025ConversionsOCEAN transformed to FET661,218,319 OCEAN → 286,456,967.46 FETAlleged salesFET offered into market≈263,000,000 FETAlliance exitOcean leaves ASI AllianceOct. 8–9, 2025
The case lands in a interval of mounting regulatory and civil scrutiny for token tasks that describe themselves as decentralized whereas sustaining foundation-controlled multisig constructions. U.S. companies and courts have handled DAOs as unincorporated associations when human controllers are identifiable.
Latest issues have centered on who can authorize treasury strikes, how proposals are permitted, and whether or not token holder votes are binding in observe. The SDNY discussion board provides discovery and movement observe that may probe the hole between technical decentralization claims and operational management, particularly the place a big “neighborhood” allocation is alleged to have been spent, transformed, or redirected.
Key subsequent steps to look at are an look by protection counsel, any movement to dismiss difficult the contract and client safety claims, and requests for preliminary aid tied to regulate of token holdings referenced within the submitting.
Plaintiffs additionally plead for equitable treatments that might have an effect on custodied balances or on-chain addresses if granted. Any parallel governance modifications, signer disclosures, escrow preparations, or return mechanisms introduced by the events would reshape the reside controversy even because the litigation proceeds.
Ocean’s response will decide whether or not this dispute proceeds on to motions observe or towards a negotiated framework for dealing with the tokens at challenge.
Plaintiffs have framed the case round DAO accountability and the reliance of token holders on the DAO. The protection has framed it as a social media narrative.
The criticism now presents that battle earlier than a federal decide in New York.
