Waves Community Passes "Reset" Proposal for Vires.Finance
by
Cover artwork courtesy of Waves Protocol and Vires.Finance (edited by Mariia Kozyr)
Sign Up
People Jul. 5, 2022
Markets Jul. 16, 2022
Markets Jul. 16, 2022
Press Release3 hours ago
Press Release23 hours ago
Key Takeaways
The community behind Vires.Finance has voted in favor of a “DeFi Revival Plan” that will “reset” the lending protocol. The Waves-based lending protocol has suffered from a months-long liquidity crisis since the depegging of the Neutrino stablecoin (USDN) in April. The new proposal will allow certain account holders to be repaid, continue their positions, or exchange them for USDN. Share this article
URL Copied
The Waves-based lending platform Vires.Finance is taking extraordinary measures to make users whole after its stablecoin depegged this April amid turbulent market conditions. Waves Community Backs “Reset” Plan
A DeFi lending protocol is undergoing a “reset” following a community vote. The community behind Vires.Finance has overwhelmingly voted in favor of a new proposal to “reset” the lending protocol, according to a Tuesday press release. The Waves-based DeFi platform has faced major issues in recent months after the Waves-based stablecoin Neutrino (USDN) lost its peg to the dollar. Vires suffered a “bank run” following the depegging event, leaving users unable to withdraw their funds. While USDN has almost recovered its dollar parity since April (it is currently trading at $0.99 ), the fallout from the ensuing liquidity crisis is ongoing. The new proposal seeks to make users whole through a variety of methods. First, Waves asserts that its founder, Sasha Ivanov, has assumed roughly $500 million in bad debt to his own wallet and plans to pay out users affected by the crisis. That measure is a component of the now-passed “ DeFi Revival Plan ,” which will allow Vires users to choose between being repaid or keeping their funds in the protocol. Once the proposal takes effect, Vires users with stablecoin accounts (USDT and USDC) exceeding a combined $250,000 will have the option to exchange their positions for USDN with a 365-day vesting period and a 5% liquidation bonus; or they may choose to keep their positions as-is (at 0% APY) while Ivanov liquidates USDN positions to repay the debt. The press release noted that the liquidations will be processed “depending on market conditions.” Holders of gVires, the governance token for the platform, will have the option to redeem “two months’ worth of APY via the revenue system.” The team says this vote is “a final step to stabilize the project and repay all affected users.”
Waves’ stablecoin is not the only one to suffer from a depegging crisis this year. Most notable was the swift collapse of Terra’s algorithmic stablecoin UST, while both TRON’s USDD and Tether’s USDT have also traded below a dollar for days-long periods in recent months. UST, which relied on Terra’s volatile token LUNA to stabilize its peg, has never recovered since its collapse. It currently trades at $0.03 . Disclosure: At the time of writing, the author of this piece owned BTC, ETH, and several other cryptocurrencies. Share this article

Waves Community Passes “Reset” Proposal for Vires.Finance

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
<iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=fb1ae7ac-552f-4859-a2a6-f1e90718a48b" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe>
Ultra Vires Claims
In the absence of a waiver or consent, state government entities and their employees generally enjoy immunity from liability while acting within the scope of their employment. Sovereign immunity, as the doctrine is known, protects the State and divisions of state government (including agencies, boards, hospitals, and universities) from lawsuits and liability for damages. But the doctrine of sovereign immunity is subject to limits, or exceptions, when a government official or officer engages in an ultra vires act. Under the ultra vires doctrine, sovereign immunity does not prohibit suits against a state official or officer of a state entity if the official’s actions were ultra vires.1 Thus, even when a government entity’s immunity has not been waived by the Legislature, a claim may proceed against a government official in his official capacity if the plaintiff successfully alleges that the official has engaged in ultra vires conduct. Sovereign Immunity
“That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. . . . [N]o action will lie against the sovereign (for who shall command the king? )”
– Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, vol. 2 [1753], Book III, Chapter XVII
Sovereign immunity implicates a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, generally barring suits against the State or its subdivisions absent a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity by the Legislature. In certain narrow instances, however, a suit against a state official can proceed even in the absence of a waiver of immunity if the official’s actions are ultra vires. Such claims fall outside of the State’s umbrella of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity protects the State of Texas and its agencies from suit and liability. Governmental immunity , on the other hand, provides similar protections to the State’s political subdivisions. What is an Ultra Vires Claim? The ultra vires doctrine is a narrow exception to governmental immunity. An ultra vires claim against a government official–that is, a suit against a government official for acting outside his or her authority and seeking to require the official to comply with statutory or constitutional provisions–is not barred by immunity. Such a suit is known as an ultra vires suit. An ultra vires claim cannot be maintained against the governmental entity directly. Rather, it is brought against the government official. Before 2009, the Texas Supreme Court used the phrase “ultra vires” sparingly in connection with suits against the state, its subdivisions, or officials. But in 2009, the Court began to use the phrase regularly in the context of suits against governmental entities and their officials. In City of El Paso v. Heinrich, the court analyzed a case involving a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against a pension fund board and its members for allegedly unlawfully reducing benefits. The Texas Supreme Court found that governmental immunity did not bar the suit for prospective injunctive relief against the pension board members in their official capacities. The court held that ultra vires suits could not, however, be brought against the state or its political subdivisions. That is, the suit could only be brought against government actors in their official capacities. The Texas Supreme court defined an ultra vires claim as “an action to determine or protect a private party’s rights against a state official who has acted without legal or statutory authority,” and did not confine ultra vires acts to acts taken “outside” the agency’s jurisdictional authority. To fall within this limited exception, the suit “must not complain of a governmental officer’s exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act.”
What is the Justification for the Ultra Vires Doctrine? The basic justification for the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity is that ultra vires acts—or those acts that are without authority—should not be considered acts of the state at all. As such, ultra vires suits do not technically seek to exert control over the state. Rather, they effectively seek to reassert the control of the state over one of its agents. A public officer has no discretion or authority to misinterpret the law. Therefore, governmental immunity only extends to those government officers who are acting consistently with the law. And unlike suits for money damages, ultra vires claims help defend the integrity of the public treasury and legislative control over scarce resources: extending immunity to officials using state resources in violation of the law would not be an efficient way of ensuring those resources are spent as intended. How does a Party Allege an Ultra Vires Act? A party alleges an ultra vires act when they allege that a government official acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial act. A government officer with some discretion to interpret and apply a law may act “without legal authority”—that is, ultra vires—if he or she exceeds the limits of their authority or if the acts conflict with the law itself. That is, if an official’s authority is less than absolute and the official acts outside that limited authority, the acts are ultra vires. Whether an official’s authority is absolute depends not on whether the granting body intended to grant the official authority to exercise discretion, but whether it intended to grant the official absolute discretion. An ultra vires claim based on actions taken “without legal authority” has two fundamental components: (1) authority giving the official some (but not absolute) discretion to act and (2) conduct outside of that authority. What is a Ministerial Act for Ultra Vires Purposes? “Ministerial acts” are those acts where the law prescribes and defines the duties to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment. What Relief is Available? Generally, only prospective injunctive relief is available through an ultra vires claim. Retrospective monetary relief is generally barred. 1 Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 369–372 (widow challenged retroactive reduction in benefits by pension fund); see also Chambers-Liberty Ctys. Nav. Dist. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339, 348–355 (Tex. 2019) (ultra-vires claims against commissioners of coastal-navigation district by State alleging district exceeded its legal authority by entering into lease of certain submerged land when right to enter that lease belonged to different state department); McRaven, 508 S.W.3d at 234, 235–37 (ultra-vires claim against chancellor alleging chancellor exceeded his granted authority in applying applicable laws and withholding records); Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154, 158–61 (Tex. 2016) (railroads alleged City’s director of public works acted without legal authority in making determination of status of railroad’s property with regard to drainage fees); Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P. v. Emmett, 459 S.W.3d 578, 588 (Tex. 2015) (utility company alleged that county commissioners acted ultra vires by refusing to accept responsibility for repayment of relocation costs in violation of statutory duty); Sawyer Trust, 354 S.W.3d at 393–94 (plaintiff sought declaratory judgment against State that streambed on its property was not navigable; however, while court dismissed claim as barred by sovereign immunity, it held plaintiff should have right to amend and assert ultra-vires claim against state actors claiming streambed to be navigable).

The Ultra Vires Exception to Sovereign Immunity in Texas

By
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Dubai, United Arab Emirates–(Newsfile Corp. – March 24, 2022) – Vires Finance has announced it has now exceeded $1.5 billion total value locked (TVL) in its DeFi-forged lending protocol. The market cap of Waves, Vires’ parent blockchain, has also grown rapidly over the last month, nearly tripling despite bearish conditions. The use case of Vires is to let users take over-collateralized loans so they can free up capital to deploy elsewhere. Lenders earn interest from supplying capital, and from staked tokens that are deposited. As the Vires token is based on the Waves blockchain, it too can move freely within the Waves ecosystem and access the other products available. The Waves roadmap outlines plans for a DAO, enabling cross-chain finance, establishing building blocks for a metaverse, and an American-based accelerator program to spur new developments in blockchain application for the American market. Vires & Waves both hope to represent a key solution for institutional capital aiming to enter the DeFi ecosystem. Vires Finance, on the back of their recently launched revenue distribution, is currently offering above the market rate on its stablecoins. The growth in TVL shows a desire to access the Waves ecosystem from lenders, and that has created a virtuous cycle in terms of the rates on offer. The lending and borrowing protocol currently offers USDT, USDC, USDN, EURN, BTC, ETH and WAVES in its available pools, as well as 100% APR for staking native token Vires – the revenue distribution of which is paid continuously. Despite the recent climate in the sector, since the start of the year, Waves and Vires Finance have both more than doubled their market cap. Vires continues to fulfil the stages outlined on its roadmap as it becomes a gateway for the deployment of institutional capital. Media Contact:

Vires Finance and Parent Blockchain Waves Announce $1.5 Billion TVL

NSBT, WAVES and VIRES have been on a tear since the project developers revealed plans to migrate to Waves 2.0 to increase interoperability with major blockchains in the sector. 505 Total views
Altcoin Watch
Ongoing developments on the global stage continue to cause havoc in traditional markets and in the cryptocurrency sector. Despite these headwinds, projects in the Waves ecosystem have managed to climb higher in both price and total value locked (TVL) as a renewed focus on interoperability with popular blockchain networks brought fresh momentum. Total value locked on the top 3 Waves protocols. Source: Defi Llama
Here’s a closer look at the top-performing assets in the Waves ecosystem that have managed to post positive gains despite negative macroeconomic factors that are pressuring cryptocurrencies. Neutrino
​Neutrino is an algorithmic price-stable "assetization protocol" that creates stablecoins tied to real-world assets and cryptocurrencies. Neutrino USD (USDN) is the main stablecoin of the Waves ecosystem and it goes along with the Neutrino Token (NSBT), a recapitalization and governance token that also enables the creation of stablecoins. Data from Cointelegraph Markets Pro and CoinGecko shows that since hitting a low of $7.07 on Jan. 22, the price of NSBT has rocketed 300% to hit a daily high of $30.33 on March 9. NSBT/USD 3-hour chart. Source: CoinGecko
While NSBT price was climbing, the TVL on the protocol also surged from $379.77 million on Feb. 22 to its current value of $1.15 billion, according to data from Defi Llama. Vires Finance
Vires Finance (VIRES) is a decentralized, non-custodial liquidity protocol on the Waves blockchain that uses common pool-based mechanics to create equally distributed interest. According to data from CoinGecko, activity for VIRES began to pick up on Jan. 18 when its price hit a low of $19.30 and proceeded to surge 460% to hit an all-time of $108.44 on Jan. 24 and has since entered a consolidation period with its price currently trading near the $85 mark. VIRES/USD 1-day chart. Source: CoinGecko
The total value locked on the VIRES protocol has increased from a low of $115.84 million on Feb. 1 to an all-time high of $764.23 million on March 8, according to data from Defi Llama.

Neutrino, Vires Finance and Waves bag 100%+ gain after pivot toward interoperability

To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
<iframe frameborder="1" height="620" scrolling="auto" src="//www.jdsupra.com/post/contentViewerEmbed.aspx?fid=c076740a-273a-4f2b-9f9c-3e1640f6e4c9" style="border: 2px solid #ccc; overflow-x:hidden !important; overflow:hidden;" width="100%"></iframe>
This month, the Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands (“U.S.V.I.”), Albert Bryan Jr., signed an agreement with the Northeast Maritime Institute, a “Private Maritime College,” to establish the first open vessel registry in the United States. ( Proposal ). This registry is, however, likely going to be challenged as unconstitutional. Here is why:
As a general rule, the coastwise laws apply to the United States, including the island territories. An exception to this general rule is that the coastwise laws do not apply to the U.S. Virgin Islands, due to a provision included in the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 in consideration of the territory purchased from Denmark three years prior in 1917. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the “Jones Act”, prohibits the transportation of merchandise between coastwise points in the United States on any vessel that is not (1) owned by U.S. citizens; (2) built in the U.S.; (3) documented under the laws of the U.S.; and (4) crewed by U.S. licensed mariners. To accommodate the fledgling island and its inhabitants, Congress sought to make the U.S.V.I. an exception to the rule to permit cargo commonly transported about the Caribbean to be unladen in the Virgin Islands. Congress did not, however, provide an exception to the U.S. Constitution or the vessel documentation laws that are applicable to all U.S. states, territories, islands, and vessels. First, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress retains exclusive power to “regulate commerce with foreign Nations.” This power must be protected to prevent a governor or private entity from usurping Congress’s power to engage in and act as a regulator in unauthorized foreign commerce. Here, Governor Bryan’s open registry is ultra vires because he is attempting to legitimize a private entity to act as a regulator in foreign commerce, a government function that the governor is also unauthorized to engage in. Since the Acts of the First Congress in 1789, which established the only U.S. registry and still today in 2022, the function of regulating vessel documentation has been reserved to the federal government. Furthermore, since 1789 Congress has required that the master of every vessel sailing under the U.S. flag is a U.S. citizen. Under Governor Bryan’s agreement, vessels under the open registry would be able to utilize the exception to the manning requirements in the Jones Act to avoid these requirements dating back to the founding fathers. Second, the proposal usurps the President’s Article II powers. The U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) is within the Executive Branch and under the command of the President. The Governor’s actions, however, erodes Presidential power by impliedly using and committing the USCG to perform substantially more functions and operations in the upkeep of a foreign fleet than currently authorized or required – at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers that are funding such operations. Authority to command the USCG personnel and resources, or commit the same to perform functions or duties, is reserved to the federal government. And yet, the proposal provides “[a]s the U.S. flag state administrator, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is well-suited to take a leadership role in the oversight and compliance strategy of this new U.S.V.I. registry” in other words – USCG personnel and resources. Third, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 provides that Congress has the power to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations” This Constitutional power is violated by the rouge Governor in his attempt to authorize a private entity to regulate and maintain a registry of foreign vessels, corporations, mariners, and commerce. Again, these functions have all been expressly reserved to the federal government. Furthermore, there may be an argument that by establishing and maintaining a private merchant navy, the actions violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 13 whereby the power “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” is expressly reserved to Congress. Permitting this open registry to exist violates every reasonable interpretation of field preemption. These Constitutional violations can be quelled by either (i) Congressional action, or (ii) Presidential proclamation. First, Congress may use its “Territory or other Property” power of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 to prohibit this affront to the Constitution. Second, if Congress fails to act, President Biden may, “declare by proclamation that the coastwise laws apply to the Virgin Islands” as provided by 46 U.S.C. § 55101(3). Either action would nullify the basis of any argument that could be brought by the Governor or the Northeast Maritime Institute.

U.S. Virgin Islands Open Registry – Ultra Vires and Unconstitutional

Foretellix provides solutions for inspecting the smart systems of autonomous vehicles. The company is developing a language that can serve as a standard for describing autonomous vehicle scenarios.

Foretellix

`` Foretellix is excited to collaborate with VIRES in order to bring our joint customers a comprehensive simulation and verification solution , that also supports our mutual belief in open standards for the benefit of the automotive ecosystem , '' said Ziv Binyamini , CEO of Foretellix .

Foretellix and VIRES Collaborate to Improve the Effectiveness of Autonomous Vehicle Safety Testing

Startups building a next-generation mobility ecosystem, using technology to improve connectivity, safety, convenience, and efficiency in vehicles.Includes technologies such as ADAS and autonomous driving, connected vehicles, fleet telematics, V2V/V2X, and vehicle cybersecurity. 

Auto & Mobility Tech

Acquired

VIRES is a provider of simulation software solutions that support the development, testing and validation of driver-assisted and fully autonomous driving technology.

Date	5/15/2017
Round	Acquired
Amount
Investors	Hexagon
Valuation
Revenue	0 FY undefined
Sources	2

First funding	5/15/2017
Last Funding	5/15/2017
Investor	Hexagon
Rounds	1 Acquired
Board Seats
Type	Corporation
Location	Sweden

Wells Fargo Success Story

3M Success Story

Platform Overview

VIRES

Investors Count

VIRES Funding, VIRES Valuation & VIRES Revenue

VIRES Investors

Discover the right solution for your team