As plaintiffs attempt to overturn a prior court decision, the long-running conflict between Bitcoin SV investors and cryptocurrency exchange Binance has entered a new stage.
The investors are continuing to assert that Binance’s decision to remove Bitcoin SV (BSV) from its platform caused substantial market damage to the cryptocurrency.
Legal representatives for the BSV holder coalition have filed to challenge the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal’s July 2024 dismissal. According to recent court documents, they argued that the court failed to properly consider the full economic impact of the delisting action.
Multi-billion pound claim at stake
The revived case could result in one of the largest damages claims in cryptocurrency history, with BSV investors pursuing compensation that reportedly exceeds £10 billion (approximately $13 billion) for alleged market manipulation and anti-competitive behavior.
Market analysts note that the renewed legal action coincided with a temporary price spike for Bitcoin SV. The coin saw a 15% gain before settling at the $42 range at press time. Despite this momentary rally, the cryptocurrency trades below its all-time highs.
The controversy arose from Binance’s decision to delist BSV in April 2019, during a contentious industry discussion about the coin’s founder and his dubious claims about the beginnings of Bitcoin. Several other major exchanges followed with similar delisting actions shortly thereafter.
Industry observers suggest this case could establish important precedents regarding the authority exchanges have in determining which cryptocurrencies remain accessible to traders, and whether delisting decisions can be considered anti-competitive practices under existing regulatory frameworks.
BSV, which emerged following a contentious hard fork, has faced several technical and security challenges in recent years. Critics say its network vulnerabilities are justification for the original delisting decisions.
The exchange has previously maintained that its listing policies are applied consistently based on technical merit and community standards rather than targeted action against specific projects.
