Wemade VS Doxa, Heated Debate Over 'Wemix Delisting' in Court... Court Decides to Suspend Delisting Effect Until the 7th

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kang Nahum] The issuer Wemade and the Digital Asset Exchange Joint Council (DAXA) engaged in a fierce legal battle over the termination of trading support (delisting) for the cryptocurrency WEMIX.

The Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 50 (Presiding Judge Song Kyung-geun) held a hearing on the injunction request filed by Wemade on the morning of the 2nd to suspend the effect of DAXA's decision to delist WEMIX from exchanges affiliated with DAXA.

Wemade's side criticized the arbitrariness and unfairness of DAXA's decision. Wemade's legal team stated, "The purpose of protecting the discretion of exchanges is to safeguard investors' rights, so the discretion of exchanges must never be exercised arbitrarily or unfairly," adding, "The reasons for terminating trading support were not clearly explained, and despite Wemade sufficiently clarifying the trading volume discrepancies, the explanation for the termination itself was insufficient."

The Wemade legal team also emphasized the tight deadline for submitting materials. They said, "On the 24th of last month at 16:12, when the delisting decision was made, we were asked to submit materials by 17:00. The time given to submit the materials was only 48 minutes," and added, "We entered the base data into the Excel file requested by Upbit and verified whether the circulating supply matched the plan."

They continued, "We recorded the data accurately down to the decimal point, and the Upbit program showed the result as 'accurate circulating supply,'" but "afterwards, we received no response and were notified of the termination of trading support."

Lawyers representing the exchanges affiliated with DAXA raised doubts about the reliability of WEMIX, citing several issues found in the materials submitted by Wemade during the clarification period. Upbit's legal counsel argued, "The collateral provision by Cocoa Finance occurred on October 11 and 18, yet they submitted circulating supply information only up to October 10 as clarification materials," and added, "It can only be assumed that they tried to hide the fact of collateral provision." They further stated, "A substantial amount of 35.8 million WEMIX was provided as collateral, and the act of providing collateral itself constitutes circulation and disposal," emphasizing, "The collateralized amount can be sold (liquidated) at any time and enter the market, so there can be no difference in opinion that the collateral amount is part of the circulating supply."

Bithumb's legal counsel also stated, "WEMIX failed to fulfill obligations such as disclosing circulating supply, and despite clarifying 16 times, the circulating supply did not match even among the submitted materials," concluding, "We judged that trust recovery is difficult."

After hearing both sides' clarifications, the court decided to determine whether to grant the injunction by the evening of the 7th. The court also requested Wemade and DAXA to complete additional written submissions by the 5th. The court remarked, "The price of WEMIX has dropped by nearly 90%, which is estimated to be a significant amount. Investors must be feeling frustrated," and suggested, "How about designating it as a cautionary item so that investors can make decisions based on their own judgment, and postponing the termination decision until the main trial verdict?"