hodler

26 Mar 2026, 11:10

Nvidia Faces Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit Over Concealed Crypto Mining Revenue

BitcoinWorld Nvidia Faces Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit Over Concealed Crypto Mining Revenue A U.S. federal court in Northern California has certified a landmark class-action lawsuit against technology giant Nvidia, a ruling that could expose the company to significant financial liability. The lawsuit, filed by a group of investors, alleges Nvidia deliberately concealed the massive extent of its revenue derived from cryptocurrency mining during the historic crypto boom of 2017 and 2018. This pivotal decision, reported by Cointelegraph, allows thousands of investors who purchased Nvidia stock between August 10, 2017, and November 15, 2018, to collectively pursue their claims. The court’s certification represents a critical procedural victory for the plaintiffs, moving the case from allegations toward a potential trial on the merits. Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit Centers on Revenue Disclosure The core allegation in the Nvidia class-action lawsuit hinges on securities fraud. Investors contend that Nvidia’s leadership knowingly misled the market about the true driver of its surging Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) sales. During quarterly earnings calls and in official Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, company executives reportedly attributed the unprecedented demand primarily to its core gaming segment. Consequently, they downplayed the substantial role of cryptocurrency miners, who were purchasing consumer-grade GPUs in bulk to build mining rigs for currencies like Ethereum. This alleged omission, the plaintiffs argue, painted a misleading picture of the company’s sustainable growth and exposed shareholders to undisclosed risk. When the cryptocurrency market corrected sharply in late 2018, the bubble in GPU demand popped almost instantly. Nvidia subsequently reported a significant revenue shortfall and a large inventory of unsold GPUs, causing its stock price to plummet. The investors now claim this crash was a direct result of the company’s earlier failure to properly disclose its reliance on the volatile crypto-mining sector. The certified class period specifically covers the time when these optimistic statements were made and ends just after the company corrected its financial guidance, acknowledging the crypto-related downturn. The 2017-2018 Crypto Boom and GPU Market Dynamics To understand the lawsuit’s context, one must examine the unique market forces of 2017-2018. Cryptocurrency prices, particularly Ethereum, skyrocketed, making GPU-based mining highly profitable. This created an insatiable secondary market for GPUs, far beyond what gamers or professional users typically demanded. Retail prices for cards often doubled or tripled, and supply vanished from shelves. Nvidia’s financial performance during this period was spectacular, with record-breaking revenues quarter after quarter. The central legal question is whether the company had a duty to specifically quantify and warn investors that this extraordinary growth was tethered to an asset class known for extreme volatility, rather than the more stable gaming industry. Legal Precedents and Securities Law Implications The court’s ruling to certify the class is a procedural step, not a judgment on the lawsuit’s ultimate outcome. However, it signals that the judge found the plaintiffs’ claims substantial enough to proceed as a group. This case touches on established securities law principles regarding material misrepresentation and omission . For a statement to be materially misleading, it must significantly alter the total mix of information available to a reasonable investor. The plaintiffs will need to prove that Nvidia’s statements about demand drivers were false or misleading and that the company acted with scienter , a legal term meaning intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Similar cases have involved companies in emerging tech sectors where distinguishing between sustainable and speculative demand is challenging. The defense will likely argue that Nvidia discussed cryptocurrency as a demand factor, that the market was broadly aware of the mining boom, and that predicting the precise timing and severity of a market correction was impossible. The outcome could set a precedent for how publicly traded companies in the tech sector disclose revenue from nascent, high-risk adjacent markets. Timeline of Key Events in Nvidia Crypto Mining Lawsuit Date Event Aug 2017 – Nov 2018 Class Period: Investors who bought NVDA stock in this window are included. Late 2018 Cryptocurrency market crash leads to plummeting GPU demand and NVDA inventory glut. November 2018 Nvidia revises Q4 revenue guidance down by $500M, citing weak crypto demand. 2020 Initial lawsuit filed by investors in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 2025 Federal Judge certifies the investor class, allowing the case to proceed collectively. Potential Financial and Reputational Impact on Nvidia The financial stakes of the Nvidia class-action lawsuit are potentially enormous. While the exact damages are unspecified, they would be calculated based on the stock’s decline following the November 2018 guidance correction, applied to all shares traded during the class period. Beyond the direct financial penalty, a loss at trial could damage Nvidia’s reputation for transparency with investors. Furthermore, the discovery process could force the public release of internal documents, emails, and financial analyses showing how company executives internally discussed the crypto mining revenue. This case also arrives as Nvidia has again become central to another technological paradigm shift: artificial intelligence. Its current dominance in AI chips makes its historical disclosure practices a point of heightened scrutiny for future investors. Broader Industry Context and Investor Protection This lawsuit extends beyond Nvidia alone. It highlights a recurring tension in fast-moving technology sectors: how companies report revenue from explosive but unpredictable trends. The case underscores the importance of forward-looking statements and risk factor disclosures in SEC filings. For the broader tech and crypto industries, the court’s final decision may clarify the disclosure standards required when a company’s products become essential to a volatile secondary market. Regulatory bodies like the SEC may also view the outcome as informative for future guidance on corporate reporting related to cryptocurrency exposure. For retail and institutional investors, the case reinforces the critical need for due diligence. It demonstrates how understanding a company’s underlying demand drivers, not just its headline revenue numbers, is essential for assessing risk. The allegations suggest that even industry-leading, blue-chip tech firms can face significant legal peril if the market perceives a failure to adequately warn about concentration risk in a speculative area. Conclusion The certification of this Nvidia class-action lawsuit marks a serious escalation in a long-running legal battle over crypto mining revenue disclosure. While Nvidia has not been found liable, it must now defend its past statements in a consolidated trial representing a large class of investors. The proceedings will scrutinize the fine line between corporate optimism and material misrepresentation during a period of unprecedented market disruption. The final verdict will carry weight not only for Nvidia’s balance sheet but also for establishing clearer disclosure benchmarks at the intersection of traditional technology manufacturing and the volatile world of cryptocurrency. This case serves as a stark reminder of the legal and financial obligations public companies bear when communicating with the investment community. FAQs Q1: What exactly did Nvidia allegedly do wrong? Investors allege that during earnings calls and SEC filings from 2017-2018, Nvidia executives misleadingly attributed soaring GPU sales primarily to the gaming market, while knowingly downplaying the massive, volatile demand from cryptocurrency miners. This allegedly concealed the true risk to the company’s revenue stream. Q2: What does “certifying a class-action” lawsuit mean? Certification means a federal judge has ruled that the claims of the individual investors are sufficiently similar to be tried together as a single group, or “class.” This allows all affected investors to be represented collectively, making the lawsuit more efficient and powerful. Q3: Has Nvidia been found guilty of securities fraud? No. The court’s certification decision is a procedural step, not a ruling on the merits of the case. It simply allows the lawsuit to proceed to the next stages, which include discovery and potentially a trial where Nvidia will present its defense. Q4: Who is included in the class of investors? The class includes all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nvidia (NVDA) common stock between August 10, 2017, and November 15, 2018, and who were allegedly damaged by the company’s statements. Q5: What are the potential consequences for Nvidia if it loses? Nvidia could be required to pay significant financial damages to the investor class, calculated based on losses from the stock price drop. A loss could also lead to reputational harm and influence how the company and the broader tech industry disclose exposure to volatile adjacent markets in the future. This post Nvidia Faces Landmark Class-Action Lawsuit Over Concealed Crypto Mining Revenue first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

26 Mar 2026, 10:30

Cardano Founder Says This Midnight Deal Could Bring Billions In TVL

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson says Midnight’s new partnership with Monument Bank could become one of the biggest commercial wins yet for the privacy-focused network, after the UK lender unveiled plans to put retail customer deposits on a public blockchain. In a post on X, the Cardano founder wrote : “This is one of the largest deals we’ve ever done and could bring hundreds of millions to billions of TVL to the Midnight ecosystem. I’m extremely proud of Fahmi Syed and his team at the Midnight Foundation for the hard work they put into the negotiations with Monument. Midnight is the home of Web 2.5 ventures.” Why The Cardano So Enthusiastic Monument, a UK digital bank serving the mass-affluent segment, said it plans to become the first UK bank to tokenize retail customer deposits on a public blockchain, with Midnight providing the underlying network and privacy-preserving architecture. The first phase is concrete. Monument said it is targeting up to £250 million in tokenized deposits, with each token representing a one-to-one claim on funds held at the bank. Those deposits are intended to remain interest-bearing, redeemable in pounds sterling and protected within the existing regulatory framework, including the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Monument says it currently serves more than 100,000 clients and has over £7 billion in savings deposits, giving the project a real balance-sheet base rather than a purely experimental starting point. That setup is central to Midnight’s pitch . The tokenized deposits are not being framed as a new synthetic asset or an offshore wrapper, but as a blockchain mirror of traditional bank deposits. According to the release, transaction data on Midnight will be shielded and visible only to Monument and its customers, an architecture aimed at preserving the confidentiality banks need while still using public-chain rails. Midnight Foundation President Fahmi Syed used the deal to make a broader point about institutional blockchain adoption. Financial firms, he said, have struggled with the tension between openness and banking-grade confidentiality. Midnight, in his words, is designed to “represent assets on public networks” while protecting “sensitive financial information,” and Monument’s rollout is meant to show that regulated products can move on-chain without stepping outside existing compliance and consumer-protection frameworks. The longer-term roadmap explains why Hoskinson is talking in terms of billions rather than the initial £250 million. Phase two would expand beyond tokenized deposits into tokenized investment products delivered through the Monument app, including access to private equity, commodity funds and structured products. Phase three would introduce Lombard-style lending, allowing clients to borrow against investments without selling them. Monument also said its technology affiliate aims to extend tokenized-deposit functionality to other institutions through its Banking-as-a-Service platform. In that sense, Hoskinson’s TVL projection reads less like a claim about day-one inflows and more like a statement about the size of the pipeline if the rollout expands as planned. The hard figure disclosed so far is £250 million in the first phase. But if Monument can move from deposit tokenization into investment products, lending and third-party enablement, Midnight would be competing for balance-sheet-linked activity that is structurally different from mercenary DeFi liquidity . For Midnight, the partnership is also a live test of its core thesis : that privacy-enhancing infrastructure can make public blockchains usable for regulated finance. If Monument executes beyond the pilot, the deal would give the Cardano-linked network something many crypto projects still lack, a banking use case tied to real deposits, real customers and a product roadmap built to stay inside the guardrails of traditional finance. At press time, Cardano traded at $0.26.

26 Mar 2026, 09:45

EF mandate signing triggers backlash within Ethereum Foundation

The Ethereum Foundation is causing a rift in the community with its recently published EF mandate document. The document outlines the future of Ethereum, but has caused controversy through its language and concepts. The Ethereum Foundation has been vocal about its active engagement with the future of Ethereum. Recently, the Foundation started tracking its progress toward making Ethereum quantum-resistant . The Foundation has also set out to make Ethereum the backbone of on-chain finance, with the ambitious goal of carrying $1T in assets. Its other objectives, related to privacy, self-sovereignty, and security, are causing controversy. Members of the Ethereum Foundation asked to sign document or be fired All members of the Ethereum Foundation were asked to sign the Mandate document or be fired effective immediately. This has sparked a discussion on the overwhelming pressure for alignment and agreement, to the potential detriment of building real Ethereum upgrades. The document focuses on diverse points, but leans toward censorship resistance as a core value. “ Censorship Resistance: No actor can selectively exclude valid use or break functionality, including by gaining durable, non-competitive control of any critical mechanisms,” states the Mandate. The Ethereum Foundation will support unstoppable work, with no centralized intermediaries or kill switches. This approach may clash with the current practice, where necessity has led to the decision to freeze some assets and offer at least some modicum of control when carrying significant value within protocols. Mandate document causes rift between the Milady community and Go Ethereum Some of the controversy around the Ethereum Foundation mandate stems from the clash between the Milady community and Go Ethereum. Miladies, as they are known on social media, use the NFT collection as their avatars and rally around their own vision of Ethereum. Ethereum’s co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, is also a self-professed Milady, signaling loyalty to the online community. Milady NFT owners have been one of the main supporters for adding almost esoteric language to Ethereum’s objectives and development. At the same time, Go Ethereum, one of the major node clients , has spoken for a more pragmatic approach to running the network. [x] milady’s core product is larp with the goal of growing the cult, it’s entirely inward-facing. the entirety of the lore is self-referential and the gap between self-ascribed importance and actual influence is vast. the philosophy hasn’t traveled any serious distance [..] https://t.co/RyBUX7BULZ — ً (@lightclients) March 25, 2026 The recent EF mandate document further sharpened the battle between Go Ethereum and the Milady community. The rift revealed Milady’s preferences for using the Foundation as the vehicle for cypherpunk ideas. Those ideas were set against the attempt to use Ethereum for its economic value and reliable products. The Ethereum Foundation mandate was heavily influenced by Milady community ideas and esthetic, while others pointed out the EF has been influenced too much by the NFT community, with the support of Vitalik Buterin. | Source: Ethereum Foundation . The Milady controversies are relatively unknown to those users of Ethereum who have seen the chain as a decentralized computer, suitable for financial operations. For some, the inclusion of Milady imagery in the EF mandate is worrying, sending a message beyond the text points. For some, the recent EF mandate is a form of ‘ ideological babble ’, and even the NFT and styling may harm the brand in an attempt to build a ‘fun’ social media culture. The Milady fraction influence is significant for Ethereum, and the community is in charge of spending what remains of the still-significant Ethereum Foundation treasury. The Milady NFT owners have also launched a Milady Cult Coin ( CULT ), which is now 97% down from its peak. The current social media discussion may signal a deeper rift for Ethereum, potentially creating problems for future development. The Ethereum Foundation has also been accused of overspending and selling too much ETH, only lately agreeing to stake some of the coins. Despite this, the Foundation deployed another 20,000 ETH in February and is left with 209K ETH . Ethereum may be promising, but the Ethereum Foundation’s approach may be closely watched for turning into a cultish expression and swaying future development decisions. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .

26 Mar 2026, 09:20

Michael Saylor’s Strategy dominates DAT bitcoin buying as treasury demand collapses

Strategy accounted for nearly all recent BTC digital-asset treasury purchases, with other firms’ share dropping from 95% to about 2%, CryptoQuant data show.

26 Mar 2026, 09:00

Coinbase Dismisses Revised Clarity Act, Signals Ongoing Friction

In January, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong posted on X the night before a planned Senate Banking Committee markup, declared his company could not back the bill, and forced the hearing off the calendar. Now, after lawmakers unveiled fresh compromise language for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the exchange is signaling the same resistance. A Bill That Keeps Hitting Walls Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks announced the revised text March 20, with White House backing. The compromise bans rewards paid simply for holding a stablecoin but allows activity-based rewards tied to payments or platform use. Banks got what they wanted most. Crypto platforms got a narrow lane — though what qualifies as activity-based rewards remains, according to sources familiar with the draft, frustratingly vague. The SEC, CFTC, and Treasury would have 12 months to define the rules more precisely, a timeline that offers little immediate comfort to the industry. Crypto insiders who attended a closed-door Capitol Hill session Monday said the language was overly restrictive. One person familiar with the industry’s first look described the opening impression as a letdown. What’s At Stake For Coinbase The numbers behind Coinbase’s opposition are not hard to find. Stablecoin-related revenue made up roughly 20% of the company’s total earnings in the third quarter of 2025. Reports say the exchange pulled in $1.35 billion from stablecoins in 2025 alone, most of it from USDC distribution arrangements with Circle. Armstrong’s public argument has been that USDC rewards are not a deposit product — they are revenue sharing from interest earned on Treasury bills held in reserve. Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent has already criticized what he called recalcitrant actors resisting compromise, urging Senate passage this spring. Banks, other crypto firms, and the White House are increasingly aligned. Coinbase is not. A Fragile Timeline With New Complications The bill still faces multiple hurdles before it becomes law, including a full Senate floor vote requiring 60 votes and reconciliation with the House-passed version from July 2025. Senator Bernie Moreno has been direct: if the bill does not reach the Senate floor by May, crypto legislation risks going dark until after the midterm cycle. The stablecoin market sits at $316 billion. For now, the clock is running — and Coinbase has made clear it is not ready to get behind the deal. Featured image from Quakers and Business, chart from TradingView

26 Mar 2026, 08:13

XBASE secures crypto license from Dubai regulator

Amidst the ongoing situation in the Middle East, the Dubai Virtual Assets Authority is still moving full steam ahead, and has granted Xbase Virtual Assets Broker & Dealer Services LLC, part of RELM Group, a virtual asset service provider license allowing it to offer crypto brokerage services. As per the license , XBase, one of the subsidiaries of RELM group, will be able to offer spot OTC crypto trading to institutional and qualified investors. The license, unlike others, is active and not just issued. XBASE had received its in-principle approval in October of 2025. At the time, RELM had noted that the approval reinforced their commitment to building a secure, transparent, and fully regulated digital asset ecosystem in one of the most forward-thinking markets in the world. XBASE sought to have a fully compliant, multi-jurisdictional licensing, secure, and confidential OTC trade execution tailored for institutions and clients worldwide. XBASE was able to receive its license with the support of The Private Office of Sheikh Ahmed bin Faisal Al Qassimi for Consultancy and Project Development, CFC MENA, which offers crypto and fintech consultancy services, and Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA). RELM has already executed over $1 billion in total trades across its large-order crypto and fiat trading and payments under its Trade Fluidity ecosystem. RELM boasts of deep liquidity as it aims to make crypto accessible to merchants across all market sectors and industries. RELM currently offers access to 140 fiat currencies and all major cryptocurrencies. Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority has issued to date over 43 VASP licenses ranging from crypto brokers to exchanges to investment management, crypto custody, and more. Your bank is using your money. You’re getting the scraps. Watch our free video on becoming your own bank