#Gate Latest Proof of Reserves Reaches 10.453 Billion Dollars#
Gate has released its latest Proof of Reserves report! As of June 2025, the total value of Gate’s reserves stands at $10.453 billion, covering over 350 types of user assets, with a total reserve ratio of 123.09% and an excess reserve of $1.96 billion.
Currently, BTC, ETH, and USDT are backed by more than 100% reserves. The BTC customer balance is 17,022.60, and Gate’s BTC balance is 23,611.00, with an excess reserve ratio of 38.70%.The ETH customer balance is 386,645.00, and Gate’s ETH balance is 437,127.00, with an excess reserve
ParaFi and two other encryption venture capital firms lost the legal dispute with the founder of Curve
PANews January 23 news, according to DL News, there is new progress in the legal dispute between Decentralization exchange Curve founder Mikhail Egorov and three cryptocurrency venture capital giants. The California Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the venture capital firm's lawsuit on the grounds that California is not the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the case. The dispute began in June 2020 when venture capital firms ParaFi, Framework Ventures, and 1kx invested $3 million in Curve's parent company, Swiss Stake GmbH. However, in August 2020, Egorov canceled the investment due to missing the deadline and allegedly withheld the deliverable equity. In October 2022, the venture capital firm filed a lawsuit in California, accusing Egorov of fraud and misappropriation of funds, but Egorov denied these allegations. In September 2023, a San Francisco judge ruled that California had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The venture capital firm subsequently appealed, but the California Court of Appeals upheld the original judgment. In the appeal, the venture capital company accused Egorov of lying about the timing of his move to Switzerland and claimed that he fraudulently induced them to agree to choose the Swiss court jurisdiction in the investment agreement and then fled the United States to evade jurisdiction. However, the court found that Egorov's interaction with California was limited and indirect, which did not meet California's requirement of 'minimum contacts' for exercising jurisdiction over him. The judge pointed out that the efforts made by the venture capital company to establish a business relationship did not constitute intentional conduct by Egorov towards California. Therefore, the California court does not have jurisdiction over this case, and Egorov stated that the venture capital company can continue to oppose and appeal, but the court's ruling is based on sufficient grounds.