- Singapore court drew a legal line after online attacks followed the Resupply exploit.
- The ruling showed DeFi feuds can trigger court action when public blame turns abusive.
- Curve’s perceived link to Resupply deepened fallout and widened reputational damage.
A Singapore court has pushed a crypto dispute out of Telegram chats and X posts and into formal legal records. The Protection from Harassment Court ordered two individuals to stop making threatening or abusive statements about Curve Finance contributor Haowi Wong after a months-long feud tied to the $9.3 million Resupply exploit.
The March 24 ruling bars OneKey founder Wang Lei, known as Yishi, and the pseudonymous user behind the X account @web3feng from posting claims that Wong defrauded others or spread false information. The court also ordered them to pay 2,500 Singaporean dollars, or about $1,900, in damages and costs by April 7.
Where does public criticism end and harassment begin when a protocol hack sparks blame across related crypto projects?
The case stands out because crypto disputes usually stay online, even when losses mount and accusations spread fast. Here, the conflict moved into court after repeated statements on X and in private group chats targeted Wong and linked Curve to the Resupply exploit.
Court Order Targets Online Attacks
Court documents show that the Singapore judge ordered the two respondents to stop making threatening or abusive statements about Wong. The respondents did not appear in court, and they did not immediately s’ requests for comment.
Wong said the dispute had moved beyond technical disagreements and opinion. He said the campaign involved sustained personal attacks, serious allegations such as fraud, and threatening behavior that caused real-world harm.
He also said DeFi may aim to reduce trust issues through transparent systems, but it does not exist outside the rule of law. He added that unchecked falsehoods and attacks can harm genuine builders and damage the wider industry.
The ruling focused on statements that accused Wong of fraud or false conduct. It did not turn on a broad debate over protocol design or market risk. Instead, it addressed conduct that the court treated as harassment.
Curve founder Michael Egorov said Curve Finance was not formally involved in the Singapore court case. He said Wong brought the matter to court because he strongly opposed what he viewed as FUD around Curve.
At the same time, the case drew attention because it set a legal boundary around online behavior in crypto disputes. That boundary became important after the argument spread across the Chinese-speaking crypto community for months.
Resupply Exploit Sparked the Dispute
The conflict began after the June 2025 exploit of stablecoin lending protocol Resupply cost users $9.3 million. Resupply allowed users to lend crvUSD stablecoins into Curve vaults to earn yield, which led some users to view it as formally tied to Curve.
That perception fed a wave of online blame after the exploit. Several posts and private chat messages accused Curve of direct responsibility and also made personal accusations against Wong. During that period, Wang wrote, “Steer clear of all projects associated with Curve/Yearn.” Egorov responded that no single person from Curve worked on the Resupply project.
OneKey later said Wang’s advocacy reflected his personal behavior. The company also said it had never instigated, organized, or manipulated any KOL or user to attack Curve or any other project.
The case then expanded beyond protocol accountability and moved into reputational damage. As a result, adjacent projects and contributors became part of the fallout even though Curve itself was not formally involved in the exploit.
By the time the court issued its order, the dispute had become a record of how fast online accusations can escalate after a hack. The final order required the two respondents to stop the statements and pay damages and costs by April 7.
