Fetch versus Ocean is brought to the judiciary: ASI Alliance disagreements place DAO “Self-governance” on scrutiny.
The Synthetic Superintelligence Consortium, once lauded as crypto’s premier AI partnership, is presently dissolving beneath the strain of domestic friction and clashing priorities.
Constructed to consolidate Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol into a collective operational setting, the alliance vowed to hasten dispersed AI advancement through asset and oversight harmony.
But what commenced as a prospect of cooperation has deteriorated into public disagreements concerning dominion, clarity, and asset stewardship.
These strains have presently extended into the judiciary, with Fetch spearheading a collective lawsuit that might scrutinize not only the consortium’s destiny but furthermore the fundamental concept of DAO self-governance.
Why Fetch Is Suing Ocean Protocol
A collective action has been initiated by Fetch and three asset owners in the Southern District of New York, asserting that Ocean Protocol and its originators deceived the community regarding the independence of OceanDAO.
The allegation, “Fetch Compute, Inc., et al. v. Bruce Pon, et al., case no. 1:25-cv-9210,” was lodged on November 4, 2025, and designates Ocean Protocol Foundation Ltd., Ocean Expeditions Ltd., OceanDAO, and Ocean co-originators Bruce Pon, Trent McConaghy, and Christina Pon as the accused.
Complainants assert that Ocean misstated that countless millions of OCEAN “collective” assets would be sequestered for DAO incentives, but rather exchanged and liquidated those assets subsequent to enrolling in the Synthetic Superintelligence Consortium, consequently diminishing the worth of FET and sabotaging the DAO’s declared oversight design.
Per the allegation, the purported collusion focused on the condition of roughly $700 million OCEAN collective assets.
Complainants assert that those assets were initially committed for independent, protocol-based allocation to benefactors via smart contracts as Ocean shifted to a DAO design, but were later recategorized in function and eliminated from collective supervision.
The document asserts that Ocean moved the OceanDAO assets to a Cayman Islands firm, Ocean Expeditions, in late June, changed OCEAN to FET commencing in early July, liquidated a considerable segment of the resulting FET on centralized platforms, and retreated from the ASI Alliance in October.
K&L Gates associate Ed Dartley, legal advisor to Fetch.ai and the complainant group, communicated in an official announcement relayed that
“Ocean misled the token community and its merger partners… to believe that 600 million Ocean tokens were reserved for community rewards.”
He supplemented that the accused “harvested countless millions of dollars that ought to have been allocated to the collective.”
Ocean Protocol Foundation is challenging the assertions. In an official announcement provided, Preston Byrne, Chief Partner of Byrne & Storm, who stands for Ocean Protocol Foundation, communicated:
“This is a very strange lawsuit that seems designed for consumption on social media rather than destined for success in a courtroom. OPF will be responding to this lawsuit vigorously in due course.”
In an official announcement conveyed , Dr. Ben Goertzel, Chief Executive of SingularityNET and co-originator of the ASI Alliance, communicated:
“While I have been very unpleasantly surprised by some of the recent actions of Ocean Protocol in the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I would rather leave the legal side in the hands of the lawyers.
I would just like to reiterate that while Ocean has chosen to go their own way, the Alliance continues to move forward powerfully toward decentralized AGI and superintelligence, with new advances every day.”
Plaintiffs Outline Timeline of ASI Token Merger and Ocean’s Exit
Per the document, complainants put forward declarations of deception, civil collusion, infractions of New York General Business Law, contract violation, infringement of the assumed stipulation, and detrimental reliance, and class authorization, reparations, and just recourse, comprising nullification and restitution, are pursued by them.
The allegation centers the matter on whether a professedly dispersed DAO was, in actuality, directed by a small unit that could transfer collective assets without the consent of asset owners, and whether Ocean’s public documentation, online posts, and “aim” records instituted a compulsory agreement concerning how collective assets would be utilized.
They contend that Ocean entered the alliance on the premise that collective assets would remain confined for incentives, while the FET and AGIX communities authorized to advance.
Subsequently, the document declares that Ocean established Ocean Expeditions on June 27, 2025, moved OceanDAO assets to that firm, commenced changing OCEAN to FET close to July 1, 2025, and subsequently withdrew from the ASI Alliance on October 8–9, 2025.
The document measures the movements as beyond $661million OCEAN altered into approximately $286.46 million FET, followed by disposals of roughly $263 million FET into the exchange, constituting over $10 percent of the available quantity at the period, consequently generating valuation strain on FET during and subsequent to Ocean’s departure.
For observers monitoring the ledger-based and framework mechanisms, the allegation asserts Ocean had priorly rescinded contract dominion and characterized OceanDAO as “entirely dispersed and self-governing,” with collective assets to be dispensed by smart contract to contributors in data cultivation and other motivational ventures.
Complainants contend that these pledges were critical to combination-vote sanctions and to asset owners’ resolutions to retain, alter, or obtain assets during the ASI shift, and that any hidden alteration in supervision of the collective asset repositories would be deemed substantial to exchange conduct and oversight projections.
The document further declares exchange framework consequences. Complainants allege that altering and subsequently liquidating collective assets generated a continuous surplus, diminishing reliance in DAO oversight and hindering the consortium’s aptitude to entice benefactors and uphold stimuli.
The allegation references valuation thresholds proximate to the departure aperture and connects the reduction to Ocean’s measures and declarations, while observing the magnitude of the assets under contention in respect to the available supply.
The hypothesis of detriment unites immediate asset valuation repercussions with a forfeit of the stimulus reserve that the collective anticipated would finance information and design contributions through the duration.
The lawsuit arrives in a time of increasing governmental and judicial inspection for asset ventures that define themselves as dispersed yet preserve foundation-directed multi-signature arrangements. U.S. bureaus and tribunals have regarded DAOs as unincorporated coalitions whenever human managers are ascertainable.
Contemporary controversies have concentrated on who can sanction treasury shifts, how proposals are ratified, and whether asset owner ballots are compulsory in function. The SDNY venue incorporates investigation and motion procedure that can examine the distance between technical dispersal declarations and operative dominion, particularly where a large “collective” apportionment is asserted to have been consumed, altered, or repurposed.
Crucial subsequent movements to observe are an appearance by defense legal advisors, any application to discard contesting the agreement and consumer safeguarding declarations, and petitions for initial redressal connected to supervision of asset ownerships cited in the document.
Complainants furthermore entreat for just compensations that could influence guarded reserves or ledger-based locations if awarded. Any simultaneous oversight modifications, signer revelations, holding contracts, or reimbursement methods declared by the sides would reshape the ongoing conflict even while the legal action advances.
Ocean’s reply will establish whether this disagreement advances immediately to application procedure or toward a concluded structure for managing the assets under contention.
The matter has been constructed by complainants encircling DAO responsibility and the dependence of asset owners on the DAO. The defense has designated it a social media story.
That controversy is currently submitted by the allegation before a federal magistrate in New York.
