The Synthetic Superintelligence Alliance, as soon as hailed as crypto’s flagship AI collaboration, is now unraveling below the load of inner battle and competing pursuits.
Fashioned to unify Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol right into a shared ecosystem, the alliance promised to speed up decentralized AI improvement 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 would check not solely the alliance’s future but additionally the very notion of DAO autonomy.
Why is Fetch taking authorized motion in opposition to 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 group 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 bunch of tens of millions of OCEAN “group” tokens can 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.
Based on the criticism, the alleged scheme centered on the standing of roughly 700 million OCEAN group tokens.
Plaintiffs declare that these tokens had been initially pledged for autonomous, rules-based distribution to contributors through sensible contracts as Ocean transitioned to a DAO mannequin, however had been subsequently reclassified in observe and faraway from group management.
The submitting argues that Ocean transferred the OceanDAO property 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.
Ok&L Gates companion Ed Dartley, counsel to Fetch.ai and the plaintiff class, stated in a press release shared with CryptoSlate that
“Ocean misled the token group and its merger companions… to imagine that 600 million Ocean tokens had been reserved for group rewards.”
He added that the defendants “reaped tens of millions of {dollars} that ought to have gone to the group.”
Ocean Protocol Basis is contesting the claims. In a press release to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, Managing Accomplice of Byrne & Storm, who represents Ocean Protocol Basis, stated:
“This can be a very unusual lawsuit that appears designed for consumption on social media quite than destined for fulfillment in a courtroom. OPF can be responding to this lawsuit vigorously sooner or later.”
In a press release shared with CryptoSlate, Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, stated:
“Whereas I’ve been very unpleasantly shocked by among the latest actions of Ocean Protocol within the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I might quite go away the authorized aspect within the arms of the legal professionals.
I might similar 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 daily.”
Plaintiffs element a timeline that tracks the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual departure.
Based on the submitting, plaintiffs assert claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, violations of New York Normal Enterprise Regulation, 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, in actual fact, managed by a small group that would transfer group property 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 concerning how group tokens can be used.
They allege that Ocean joined the alliance on the idea that group 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 property 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 stress 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 “absolutely decentralized and autonomous,” with group tokens to be disbursed by sensible contract to members in knowledge farming and different incentive packages.
Plaintiffs argue that these commitments had 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 group token wallets can be materials to market habits and governance expectations.
The submitting additionally asserts market construction impacts. Plaintiffs allege that changing after which promoting group tokens created a persistent overhang, weakening confidence in DAO governance and impairing the alliance’s capacity 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 dimensions of the tokens at concern in relation to the float.
The idea of hurt combines direct token worth results with a lack of the motivation pool that the group anticipated to fund knowledge 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 group tokens≈700,000,000 OCEANEntity changeOcean Expeditions fashioned, OceanDAO property 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 initiatives that describe themselves as decentralized whereas sustaining foundation-controlled multisig buildings. U.S. businesses 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 accepted, 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 “group” allocation is alleged to have been spent, transformed, or redirected.
Key subsequent steps to observe are an look by protection counsel, any movement to dismiss difficult the contract and shopper safety claims, and requests for preliminary aid tied to manage of token holdings referenced within the submitting.
Plaintiffs additionally 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 preparations, or return mechanisms introduced by the events would reshape the stay 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 concern.
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 choose in New York.
