Once hailed as crypto’s flagship AI collaboration, the Alliance for Artificial Superintelligence is now crumbling under the weight of internal conflicts and competing interests.
Formed to integrate Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol into a shared ecosystem, the partnership promises to accelerate decentralized AI development through token and governance alignment.
But what started as a vision of synergy has devolved into a public debate over control, transparency, and token management.
Those tensions have now spilled over into the courts, where Mr. Fetch is leading a class-action lawsuit that could test not only the future of the alliance but the very concept of DAO autonomy.
Why is Fetch taking legal action against Ocean Protocol?
Fetch and three token holders have filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York accusing Ocean Protocol and its founders of misleading the community about OceanDAO’s autonomy.
The complaint, “Fetch Compute, Inc. et al. v. Bruce Pon et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-9210,” was filed on November 4, 2025, and names as defendants Ocean Protocol Foundation Ltd., Ocean Expeditions Ltd., OceanDAO, and Ocean co-founders Bruce Pon, Trent McConaghy, and Christina Pon.
Plaintiffs allege that Ocean falsely represented that hundreds of millions of OCEAN “community” tokens would be set aside as compensation for the DAO, but instead converted and sold those tokens after joining the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance, thereby diminishing the value of FET and undermining the governance model established by the DAO.
According to the complaint, the alleged scheme focused on the status of approximately 700 million OCEAN community tokens.
Plaintiffs allege that these tokens were originally promised to be distributed autonomously and rules-based to contributors via smart contracts as Ocean transitioned to a DAO model, but were in fact subsequently reclassified and removed from community control.
The filing alleges that Ocean transferred OceanDAO’s assets to a Cayman Islands entity, Ocean Expeditions, in late June, converted OCEAN to a FET in early July, liquidated the majority of the resulting centralized venue’s FET, and withdrew from the ASI Alliance in October.
Ed Dartley, partner at K&L Gates and attorney for Fetch.ai and the plaintiffs, said in a statement shared with CryptoSlate:
“Ocean misled the token community and its merger partners into believing that 600 million Ocean Tokens were being reserved for community rewards.”
He added that the defendants “obtained millions of dollars that should have been returned to the community.”
The Ocean Protocol Foundation disputes this claim. In a statement to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, managing partner of Byrne & Storm, president of the Ocean Protocol Foundation, said:
“This is a very strange case, which appears to be aimed at consumption on social media rather than destined for success in court. OPF will respond vigorously to this case in due course.”
In a statement shared with CryptoSlate, Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, said:
“While I am very unpleasantly surprised by some of Ocean Protocol’s recent actions related to its withdrawal from the ASI Alliance, I would like to leave the legal aspects to my lawyers.
Although Ocean has chosen to pursue its own path, we would like to reiterate that the Alliance continues to move strongly towards decentralized AGI and superintelligence, making new advances every day. ”
Plaintiffs detail a timeline tracking the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual exit.
According to the filing, the plaintiffs allege fraud, civil conspiracy, violation of the New York General Commercial Code, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and estoppel, and seek class certification, damages, and equitable relief, including rescission and discharge.
The complaint frames the case around whether the purportedly decentralized DAO was actually controlled by a small group that could move community assets without the approval of token holders, and whether Ocean’s public materials, blog posts, and “vision” documents created binding terms on how community tokens could be used.
They claim that the FET and AGIX communities voted to proceed, while Ocean joined the alliance on the basis that community tokens remained limited to rewards.
The complaint then states that Ocean formed Ocean Expeditions on June 27, 2025, transferred OceanDAO’s assets to that organization, began converting OCEAN to FET on or about July 1, 2025, and then withdrew from the ASI Alliance on October 8-9, 2025.
The filing quantifies the flows as more than 661 million OCEANs were converted into approximately 286.46 million FETs, and approximately 263 million FETs were subsequently sold into the market, representing more than 10 percent of the circulating supply at the time, creating pricing pressure on FETs during and after OCEAN’s exit.
For readers who are following on-chain and how the structure works, the complaint alleges that Ocean previously revoked contract management, describing OceanDAO as “fully decentralized and autonomous,” with community tokens paid through smart contracts to participants in data farming and other incentive programs.
Plaintiffs allege that these commitments are central to the approval of the merger vote and to token holders’ decisions to hold, convert, or acquire tokens during the ASI transition, and that undisclosed changes in the management of community token wallets are material to market conduct and governance expectations.
The application also alleges an impact on market structure. Plaintiffs allege that converting and selling community tokens created a permanent overhang, weakening confidence in the DAO’s governance and impairing the Alliance’s ability to attract investors and maintain incentives.
While the complaint cites the price level near the exit and ties the drawdown to Ocean’s actions and announcements, it also cites the size of the tokens at issue in relation to the float.
The harm theory combines the direct impact on token prices with the long-term loss of the incentive pool that the community was counting on to fund data and model contributions.
A summary of the alleged disputes follows.
EventDetailDate / AmountCase fileSDNY Class Action Lawsuit, Case Number 1:25-cv-9210November April 4, 2025 Community Token Pool Designated OCEAN Community Tokens≈700,000,000 OCEAN Entity Change Ocean Expeditions established and OceanDAO assets moved June 27-30, 2025 Conversion OCEAN converted to FET 661,218,319 OCEAN → 286,456,967.46 FET claims Revenue of FET sold to market ≈ 263,000,000 FET Alliance withdrawal Ocean leaves ASI Alliance 8-9 2025
The case ushered in a period of increased regulatory and civil scrutiny of token projects that claim to be decentralized while maintaining foundation-controlled multisig structures. U.S. government agencies and courts have treated DAOs as unincorporated entities when the human controller is identifiable.
Recent issues have focused on who can approve Treasury moves, how proposals are approved, and whether token holders’ votes are actually binding. The SDNY Forum adds to the practice of discovery and movement that can explore the gap between technical decentralization claims and operational control, especially when large-scale “community” allocations are allegedly spent, transformed, or redirected.
Important next steps to note are the appearance of counsel, a motion to dismiss the challenges to the contract and consumer protection claims, and a request for preliminary relief related to the management of token holdings referenced in the filing.
Plaintiffs are also seeking equitable relief that, if granted, could impact custodial balances and on-chain addresses. Any parallel governance changes, signatory disclosures, escrow arrangements, or restitution mechanisms announced by the parties will reshape the actual dispute, even as litigation progresses.
Ocean’s response will determine whether this dispute advances to a direct claims practice or a negotiated framework for dealing with the tokens in question.
Plaintiffs built their case around the DAO’s liability and token holders’ dependence on the DAO. The defense framed this as a social media story.
The complaint now raises that contradiction before a federal judge in New York.
